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

[UnknownSouljer]

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.

The point I was making is that if they created bad ports intentionally they could easily drive players to their platforms.

It’s not hard or expensive to make a port badly.

And with all the coverage regarding performance and visuals, they could easily make XBox/Windows the way to play all games (which by the way is precisely what they want). Therefore their promise regarding keeping CoD multi platform is meaningless.

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.

That is besides the point. I’m not interested in Sony buying all of these companies either.

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?

Because it does give return on investment.

They were cut not because they don’t make money, but because the amount of money vs resources spent isn’t as much as on other platforms. Their ROI is higher having devs make more items in an e-shop than porting the game to another platform.

But it’s a chicken and egg problem there isn’t it?

Suffice to say if people could play more games on Mac, then they would. Which has been proven over and over again. I’m thankful some companies like Larian remain open and I can play their games on more than 1-2 platforms.

Games like DX:MD, Tomb Raider series, and Prey came to macOS and are even available on the Mac App Store (in addition to places like GoG and Steam). I don’t have numbers but I’m going to guess they’ve more than paid for themselves many times over on Mac. Especially considering it’s just a port that is required and not exclusivity.

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.

PC is not their hardware or their software. They do not have any form of controlling interest unlike Microsoft.

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.

Okay. But at least they still come. I’ve waited 6 years now and Doom 2016 hasn’t come to Mac. I think most people don’t mind the wait. If they did then it wouldn’t be worth it to port to PC at all in the first place. The fact that the games sell very well shows that staggered release is still more than successful.

XBox was explicitly created just so Microsoft could control more of the gaming space. Because apparently PC wasn’t enough for them.

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.

Right. Contradictory to your statement above.

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.

Right. And Microsoft wants all of the pie. They want to control gaming on all devices. Or are you not aware that that is why XBox exists in the first place. Or cloud gaming for phones?

Sony is not remotely in that place of power which you yourself acknowledged due to their, as you put it, “lack of money”. Which you don’t seem to understand is the problem. The issue is all of the control is going to one company through a Disney-esque control of IP.

If Microsoft can make the Xbox the definitive place to play console games, what with all the IP power and control they stand to be able to exert with the two biggest acquisitions ever, PlayStation ceases to exist.

And I would prefer no one to have it. I would prefer AB to be broken up and heck Zenimax which is now part of Microsoft to be broken up.

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.

Are you not aware of how popular Battle.net is as a launcher? How many WoW subs there are? How many people even on this forum play D1/D2/D3/D4 or CoD? Or SC, or Overwatch? Because of its exclusivity and the fact that Blizzard games are on it, most gamers have the Battle.net launcher already.

There are zero Blizzard games on Steam just as an FYI. Blizzard became massive all without Steam.

It is inarguably the second most used launcher. With Battle.net, it’s more than conceivable that Microsoft won’t need Valve.

 

[Sicario]

I thought Microsoft was hurting financially. Laying off a bunch of people. How do they have 67 billion for this deal?

 

[UnknownSouljer]

FTC appeal in Microsoft/Activision case shows US regulator isn’t giving up yet​

But stopping the deal from moving forward still looks like an uphill battle.​

https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2023...n-case-shows-us-regulator-isnt-giving-up-yet/

 

[Armenius]

Games like DX:MD, Tomb Raider series, and Prey came to macOS and are even available on the Mac App Store (in addition to places like GoG and Steam). I don’t have numbers but I’m going to guess they’ve more than paid for themselves many times over on Mac. Especially considering it’s just a port that is required and not exclusivity.

Two of them are Square Enix games, and Prey cam out in 2006 from a completely different developer and publisher. How many publishers and developers bother porting their games to macOS these days?
PC is not their hardware or their software. They do not have any form of controlling interest unlike Microsoft.

Okay. But at least they still come. I’ve waited 6 years now and Doom 2016 hasn’t come to Mac. I think most people don’t mind the wait. If they did then it wouldn’t be worth it to port to PC at all in the first place. The fact that the games sell very well shows that staggered release is still more than successful.

XBox was explicitly created just so Microsoft could control more of the gaming space. Because apparently PC wasn’t enough for them.

PlayStation Studios games have never come to macOS.

Right. Contradictory to your statement above.

How? Just because they're successful and proudly say as much doesn't negate the fact that they only come after 1-2 years. Microsoft/Xbox Studios games are released the same day on PC.

Right. And Microsoft wants all of the pie. They want to control gaming on all devices. Or are you not aware that that is why XBox exists in the first place. Or cloud gaming for phones?

Sony is not remotely in that place of power which you yourself acknowledged due to their, as you put it, “lack of money”. Which you don’t seem to understand is the problem. The issue is all of the control is going to one company through a Disney-esque control of IP.

If Microsoft can make the Xbox the definitive place to play console games, what with all the IP power and control they stand to be able to exert with the two biggest acquisitions ever, PlayStation ceases to exist.

And I would prefer no one to have it. I would prefer AB to be broken up and heck Zenimax which is now part of Microsoft to be broken up.

And all the good that is doing for them. With all the IP Microsoft have acquired they still have failed to make a dent in the console gaming marketshare.

Are you not aware of how popular Battle.net is as a launcher? How many WoW subs there are? How many people even on this forum play D1/D2/D3/D4 or CoD? Or SC, or Overwatch? Because of its exclusivity and the fact that Blizzard games are on it, most gamers have the Battle.net launcher already.

There are zero Blizzard games on Steam just as an FYI. Blizzard became massive all without Steam.

It is inarguably the second most used launcher. With Battle.net, it’s more than conceivable that Microsoft won’t need Valve.

Of course Battle.net is popular because that is where Blizzard's games are released exclusively. I don't see how that leads one to believe that Microsoft would turn it into an universal Microsoft gaming store when they already have one, and I don't see Microsoft changing the way Battle.net is run due to how entrenched it is with Blizzard's properties. Do you recall the enormous outcry when Blizzard simply said they were going to retire the name "Battle.net?"

I thought Microsoft was hurting financially. Laying off a bunch of people. How do they have 67 billion for this deal?

FTC appeal in Microsoft/Activision case shows US regulator isn’t giving up yet​

But stopping the deal from moving forward still looks like an uphill battle.​

https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2023...n-case-shows-us-regulator-isnt-giving-up-yet/

Of course they're going to appeal. The FTC has always hated Microsoft, and the young new director wants to make an example out of Microsoft in this case in order to gain clout. The problem is their case was always weak and it was embarrassing to see it presented during the hearing.

 

[UnknownSouljer]

Two of them are Square Enix games, and Prey cam out in 2006 from a completely different developer and publisher.

Prey was made by Arkane and came out in 2017. The DLC some time later.

But this response doesn’t even address the point that AAA games have come to the platform and been successful.

Like D3, Doom 3, RAGE, Borderlands 1/2, Bioshock 1/2/3, DX:HR, StarCraft 1/2, etc. all of these games were played happily on MacOS and also a majority on Linux as well. Before all of these mergers. Even COD was on MacOS until 2016.

And also now it’s not as if it can’t be done.

If they actually bothered to port them properly, there would be at least a 2x performance increase. It’s going through two translation layers just to play these titles.
And even still games like the new Dead Space run pretty well.

EDIT: and also Resident Evil Village just came to MacOS as well. I’m glad to get support. Even if several years later.

How many publishers and developers bother porting their games to macOS these days?

Clearly not enough. And again the direct reason why is due to mergers. Or are you ignoring my post now before this one, where I laid that out?

PlayStation Studios games have never come to macOS.

And? Are you suggesting I don’t want them to?

How? Just because they're successful and proudly say as much doesn't negate the fact that they only come after 1-2 years. Microsoft/Xbox Studios games are released the same day on PC.

You’re failing to state why that matters.
If there was no pent up demand, then it wouldn’t sell on PC, period. This doesn’t hurt gamers. Really the staggered launches hurts Sony.

And all the good that is doing for them. With all the IP Microsoft have acquired they still have failed to make a dent in the console gaming marketshare.

Your logic confounds me. So they should be able to buy and own everything until they do?

Starfield is now Microsoft platform exclusive. I expect every Todd Howard game going forward to be the same.

Of course Battle.net is popular because that is where Blizzard's games are released exclusively. I don't see how that leads one to believe that Microsoft would turn it into an universal Microsoft gaming store when they already have one, and I don't see Microsoft changing the way Battle.net is run due to how entrenched it is with Blizzard's properties. Do you recall the enormous outcry when Blizzard simply said they were going to retire the name "Battle.net?"

View attachment 583062

You missed the point. They don’t have to change the name. It makes more sense to eliminate the Microsoft store, make Battle.net the platform of choice and go from there.

Much like Activision adding CoD. I feel like you’re intentionally being obtuse with this response.

Of course they're going to appeal. The FTC has always hated Microsoft, and the young new director wants to make an example out of Microsoft in this case in order to gain clout. The problem is their case was always weak and it was embarrassing to see it presented during the hearing.

Seems to me they’re doing their job for once.

 

[Comixbooks]

Who wants Activision? Kids like 7 years old play Call of Duty I hear them on mic. I played the last Cod maybe 12 matches totally antisocial behavior. Diablo 4 isn't anything special just mind numbing gameplay.

 

[OutOfPhase]

Who wants Activision?

Me?

I mean, the real Activision, not the beast which currently wears its skins.

 

[illli]

mega corp consolidation is rarely beneficial to consumers

 

[Lakados]

mega corp consolidation is rarely beneficial to consumers

I have a hard time seeing how it could be worse than what Activision was doing now. I mean there is always the unicorn solution where some benevolent 3'rd party swoops in buys Activision/Blizzard and makes them the shining beacon of what a developer can be but the reality is the owners want out, and most of the management is coasting through, which pisses off new and existing staff under them, which results in the bleeding out of talented staff who have other options leaving only the jr. staff with no easy alternatives or the lifers who have their role and are happy with it.
Activi/Blizz is circling the drain so they need a change up, Microsoft might not have been the best option, but it is way better than most of the alternatives, you can bet if the deal does fall through and somehow gets blocked it's just going to get parted out as they sell off individual IP's and most of the studios get closed or consolidated.

 

[Marees]

Court denies FTC’s last-ditch attempt to stop Microsoft buying Activision Blizzard​

A second loss for the FTC this week.​

This means Microsoft is now free to close its Activision Blizzard deal after a temporary restraining order, part of Judge Corley’s order, expires at 11:59PM PT tonight. Microsoft has until July 18th to close its deal; otherwise, it may need to renegotiate terms with Activision Blizzard, pay $3 billion in breakup fees if Activision wants to walk away, or simply let the deal deadline naturally extend if both parties are happy to.


The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has lost what may be its final attempt to block Microsoft from buying Activision Blizzard. It’s the second loss for the FTC after a US federal judge denied its request for a preliminary injunction earlier this week to block Microsoft from acquiring Activision Blizzard until the conclusion of a separate FTC administrative case.

The FTC appealed the decision by Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley, and now the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has denied its request for emergency relief to prevent Microsoft from closing the deal until the result of the FTC’s appeal is complete.


https://www.theverge.com/2023/7/14/...ivision-blizzard-ftc-acquisition-appeal-loses

 

[Lakados]

Court denies FTC’s last-ditch attempt to stop Microsoft buying Activision Blizzard​

A second loss for the FTC this week.​

This means Microsoft is now free to close its Activision Blizzard deal after a temporary restraining order, part of Judge Corley’s order, expires at 11:59PM PT tonight. Microsoft has until July 18th to close its deal; otherwise, it may need to renegotiate terms with Activision Blizzard, pay $3 billion in breakup fees if Activision wants to walk away, or simply let the deal deadline naturally extend if both parties are happy to.


The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has lost what may be its final attempt to block Microsoft from buying Activision Blizzard. It’s the second loss for the FTC after a US federal judge denied its request for a preliminary injunction earlier this week to block Microsoft from acquiring Activision Blizzard until the conclusion of a separate FTC administrative case.

The FTC appealed the decision by Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley, and now the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has denied its request for emergency relief to prevent Microsoft from closing the deal until the result of the FTC’s appeal is complete.


https://www.theverge.com/2023/7/14/...ivision-blizzard-ftc-acquisition-appeal-loses

The FTC's case can be summed up as follows, This is a terrible thing for Sony, who is their only competition in the gaming space, OH and Microsoft has done a lot of shitty anti-consumer stuff in the past.
And Microsoft's counter-arguments are, Well it's not just Sony, there is also <insert shitload of names here>, and the bad stuff yeah, you fined us, we signed agreements saying we wouldn't do it again and we haven't violated those so...

The FTC had a very weak argument and regardless of the good or bad points for the consumers no judge could side with them even if they agreed because it was a pitiful argument that Microsofts very seasoned lawyers tore apart in minutes then went for drinks.

 

[Deleted member 162929]

The FTC's case can be summed up as follows, This is a terrible thing for Sony, who is their only competition in the gaming space, OH and Microsoft has done a lot of shitty anti-consumer stuff in the past.
And Microsoft's counter-arguments are, Well it's not just Sony, there is also <insert shitload of names here>, and the bad stuff yeah, you fined us, we signed agreements saying we wouldn't do it again and we haven't violated those so...

The FTC had a very weak argument and regardless of the good or bad points for the consumers no judge could side with them even if they agreed because it was a pitiful argument that Microsofts very seasoned lawyers tore apart in minutes then went for drinks.

Oh so FTC used the AMD argument. Yeah, doesn't usually hold up either way once given any scrutiny.

 

[wizzi01]

It seems Sony caved and made and agreement with Microsoft for CoD.

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/07/16/mic...-activisions-call-of-duty-on-playstation.html

 

[kirbyrj]

mega corp consolidation is rarely beneficial to consumers

In this case, I think it gives them more leverage with Sony. Nobody wants any single entity to run away with the console wars. Nintendo was always going to do its own thing anyway. You need another solid option to keep Sony from being Sony.

 

[SecretStash]

It seems Sony caved and made and agreement with Microsoft for CoD.

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/07/16/mic...-activisions-call-of-duty-on-playstation.html

I wonder how these kind of deals really look behind the scenes.

 

[UnknownSouljer]

In this case, I think it gives them more leverage with Sony. Nobody wants any single entity to run away with the console wars. Nintendo was always going to do its own thing anyway. You need another solid option to keep Sony from being Sony.

I think you have it backwards on which of the two needs to be in check.

Microsoft has existed long before Sony was in the gaming market and operates in a defacto market where there is zero competition in the gaming space: IE computers.
Microsoft's interest is in having all of the gaming pie and not merely part of it. We could have another coversation about Microsoft vs Valve, but that's a whole different conversation and is mostly about distribution.

The only things Sony has ever really done is push for console/Playstation exclusivity. Which yes sells them consoles, but is far from ever really giving them control of the gaming market. As an example, even in Sony's native Japan, they don't, and have never had control of any of the rest of the gaming industry. They don't make arcade hardware as an example. All of that is still dominated by companies like Sega and Capcom. Most of their exclusives are from parties that are Japanese anyway, and that is drastically changing. Their long term partner Square-Enix has gone multi-platform in the last 10 years as they stand to make more money from doing so. Every FF game made in the last 10 years has become multi-platform. And again, this is to say nothing of Nintendo which is doing it's own thing - which Sony doesn't disrupt at all. Or the PC market, which Microsoft more or less exclusively dominates at this point.

Sony only really has a relatively small amount of studios that they own with very specific and not-very far reaching IP. And most of that IP isn't really exclusive anymore as it all is slowly coming to the PC market; which again is Microsoft's defacto domain. Most of their IP comes once a console generation (so, once every 5-6 years) and rarely if ever twice. Nothing like the churning output of Bethesda Softworks and Activision-Blizzard.

Microsoft for sure is the 800lbs Gorilla. There is no question anymore. In 10 years when every agreement they have presented to push through this merger goes away, every one of these IP will become Microsoft platform exclusive, and they will have the leverage essentially to force every other console out. And ideally force Steam/Valve to play ball at the same time. Sony without ties to any other gaming market will either have to move to Microsoft or Microsoft. Whether that's their console platforms or PC or both. And then at that point Microsoft will be the only way to play games. Battle.net. Microsoft Cloud Gaming. 100s of exclusive IP's. The only viable operating system. The only viable console platform.

 

[jfreund]

I think you have it backwards on which of the two needs to be in check.

Microsoft has existed long before Sony was in the gaming market and operates in a defacto market where there is zero competition in the gaming space: IE computers.
Microsoft's interest is in having all of the gaming pie and not merely part of it. We could have another coversation about Microsoft vs Valve, but that's a whole different conversation and is mostly about distribution.

The only things Sony has ever really done is push for console/Playstation exclusivity. Which yes sells them consoles, but is far from ever really giving them control of the gaming market. As an example, even in Sony's native Japan, they don't, and have never had control of any of the rest of the gaming industry. They don't make arcade hardware as an example. All of that is still dominated by companies like Sega and Capcom. Most of their exclusives are from parties that are Japanese anyway, and that is drastically changing. Their long term partner Square-Enix has gone multi-platform in the last 10 years as they stand to make more money from doing so. Every FF game made in the last 10 years has become multi-platform. And again, this is to say nothing of Nintendo which is doing it's own thing - which Sony doesn't disrupt at all. Or the PC market, which Microsoft more or less exclusively dominates at this point.

Sony only really has a relatively small amount of studios that they own with very specific and not-very far reaching IP. And most of that IP isn't really exclusive anymore as it all is slowly coming to the PC market; which again is Microsoft's defacto domain. Most of their IP comes once a console generation (so, once every 5-6 years) and rarely if ever twice. Nothing like the churning output of Bethesda Softworks and Activision-Blizzard.

Microsoft for sure is the 800lbs Gorilla. There is no question anymore. In 10 years when every agreement they have presented to push through this merger goes away, every one of these IP will become Microsoft platform exclusive, and they will have the leverage essentially to force every other console out. And ideally force Steam/Valve to play ball at the same time. Sony without ties to any other gaming market will either have to move to Microsoft or Microsoft. Whether that's their console platforms or PC or both. And then at that point Microsoft will be the only way to play games. Battle.net. Microsoft Cloud Gaming. 100s of exclusive IP's. The only viable operating system. The only viable console platform.

Sony has been lazy. For decades they've been resting on their PS exclusive laurels and the market has started to leave them behind. They half-assed online services while Microsoft and and Nintendo ate their lunch. They've been beating XBox console sales for years and have failed to capitalize. They've half-assed PC gaming when they could have been building their own marketplace. Epic threw their hat in the ring to complete with Valve; Sony could have made a PC storefront for their console exclusives and taken that 30% cut. They could have partnered with SE when SE still owned Tomb Raider and Deus Ex to sell on their launcher, maybe bought SE.

Yeah, it's all 20/20 hindsight now, but Sony is a victim only of their own pervasive arrogance. As Samsung and LG have caught up to Sony in the TV market, Microsoft is charging hard in the gaming market. Rather than wake up and compete, Sony has been whining around the world about the exclusive strategy they've relied on for decades.

I don't think MS buying ActiBlizz will be good for PC gaming, because ActiBlizz has already been releasing on PC forever. MAYBE PC will benefit if Battle.net games come to Steam. However, I don't give two shits about Sony and would shed no tears if they went bankrupt tomorrow.

 

[UnknownSouljer]

Sony has been lazy. For decades they've been resting on their PS exclusive laurels and the market has started to leave them behind. They half-assed online services while Microsoft and and Nintendo ate their lunch. They've been beating XBox console sales for years and have failed to capitalize. They've half-assed PC gaming when they could have been building their own marketplace. Epic threw their hat in the ring to complete with Valve; Sony could have made a PC storefront for their console exclusives and taken that 30% cut. They could have partnered with SE when SE still owned Tomb Raider and Deus Ex to sell on their launcher, maybe bought SE.

Yeah, it's all 20/20 hindsight now, but Sony is a victim only of their own pervasive arrogance. As Samsung and LG have caught up to Sony in the TV market, Microsoft is charging hard in the gaming market. Rather than wake up and compete, Sony has been whining around the world about the exclusive strategy they've relied on for decades.

I don't think MS buying ActiBlizz will be good for PC gaming, because ActiBlizz has already been releasing on PC forever. MAYBE PC will benefit if Battle.net games come to Steam. However, I don't give two shits about Sony and would shed no tears if they went bankrupt tomorrow.

You're welcome to your opinion but a Microsoft controlled space is far worse than whatever contempt you have for Sony.

The worst you can say about Sony, as shown in your post, is that given dominance they are lazy. That's far different than all of the very anti-consumer history that Microsoft has done and very likely will continue to do.

Sony going 'bankrupt tomorrow' would simply eliminate choice for the consumer and give Microsoft what they want, which again is full control over all gaming markets - leaving the consumer with zero recourse. There is no version of those events where that ends up well for anyone that isn't Microsoft, including the consumer.

 

[wizzi01]

You're welcome to your opinion but a sony controlled space is far worse than whatever contempt you have for Microsoft.

fixed it for you

 

[kirbyrj]

I think you have it backwards on which of the two needs to be in check.

Microsoft has existed long before Sony was in the gaming market and operates in a defacto market where there is zero competition in the gaming space: IE computers.
Microsoft's interest is in having all of the gaming pie and not merely part of it. We could have another coversation about Microsoft vs Valve, but that's a whole different conversation and is mostly about distribution.

The only things Sony has ever really done is push for console/Playstation exclusivity. Which yes sells them consoles, but is far from ever really giving them control of the gaming market. As an example, even in Sony's native Japan, they don't, and have never had control of any of the rest of the gaming industry. They don't make arcade hardware as an example. All of that is still dominated by companies like Sega and Capcom. Most of their exclusives are from parties that are Japanese anyway, and that is drastically changing. Their long term partner Square-Enix has gone multi-platform in the last 10 years as they stand to make more money from doing so. Every FF game made in the last 10 years has become multi-platform. And again, this is to say nothing of Nintendo which is doing it's own thing - which Sony doesn't disrupt at all. Or the PC market, which Microsoft more or less exclusively dominates at this point.

Sony only really has a relatively small amount of studios that they own with very specific and not-very far reaching IP. And most of that IP isn't really exclusive anymore as it all is slowly coming to the PC market; which again is Microsoft's defacto domain. Most of their IP comes once a console generation (so, once every 5-6 years) and rarely if ever twice. Nothing like the churning output of Bethesda Softworks and Activision-Blizzard.

Microsoft for sure is the 800lbs Gorilla. There is no question anymore. In 10 years when every agreement they have presented to push through this merger goes away, every one of these IP will become Microsoft platform exclusive, and they will have the leverage essentially to force every other console out. And ideally force Steam/Valve to play ball at the same time. Sony without ties to any other gaming market will either have to move to Microsoft or Microsoft. Whether that's their console platforms or PC or both. And then at that point Microsoft will be the only way to play games. Battle.net. Microsoft Cloud Gaming. 100s of exclusive IP's. The only viable operating system. The only viable console platform.

I think my point is that it's not good for Sony to control the console market without other players being competitive anymore than it is for any single entity to control their respective markets (Nvidia anyone?). I don't really have a problem with Microsoft buying their way into being more competitive because I feel like the console market needs to be more competitive. And maybe I will feel different about this deal 10 years from now.

 

[UnknownSouljer]

I think my point is that it's not good for Sony to control the console market without other players being competitive anymore than it is for any single entity to control their respective markets (Nvidia anyone?). I don't really have a problem with Microsoft buying their way into being more competitive because I feel like the console market needs to be more competitive. And maybe I will feel different about this deal 10 years from now.

The console market is very similar to the GPU market that you brought up. The way you have competition is by creating a relevant product that people want.
Valve figured that out. Sony figured that out. Nintendo figured that out.

Microsoft's method for doing that is basically to own everything so that no one else can compete. Rather than finding their own particular niche, their goal is simply to try to brute force "win" and not necessarily create products that people actually care about. There was a time when they did that, perhaps back in the 360 days where they made games with relevant parties. And since then they've been pretty complacent - the thing some are accusing Sony of.

I'm not necessarily opposed to exclusives, that's one of the few things that gives diversity in the console marketplace - Nintendo as an example is purely run by all their own IP. And often is hand-waved off as not being relevant simply because they do that and don't have "competitive hardware". But they created their own niche. Valve also created their own niche with the Steam Deck and they have zero exclusives; all of Valve's first party titles got ported to consoles except for DOTA 2, Alyx, and Artifact I think? And even those titles are all available on multiple PC platforms. I can play virtually every game Valve makes on macOS and Linux.

You can see the very big difference between the ways all of these companies are conducting business vs Microsoft. They've got one tool and it's a stick. Consolidation of IP and basically trying to own everything so that they can force people to use whatever they produce. Again, instead of simply producing something people want to begin with.

 

[illli]

strange how people act like m$ is the underdog, when as a company as a whole, they are like 50 times larger than sony (don't quote me on that figure I just pulled it out of the air lol)

 

[wizzi01]

strange how people act like m$ is the underdog, when as a company as a whole, they are like 50 times larger than sony (don't quote me on that figure I just pulled it out of the air lol)

Who said anything about Microsoft being and underdog? If this was Sony buying Activision I'd argue the same way I've been. I really don't care, but it seems some people are taking this personally.

 

[Usual_suspect]

Honestly, I don’t see the issue with MS acquiring Activision. Acti-Blizzard isnt the end-all-be-all of game studios. I seriously doubt games like Overwatch, CoD, StarCraft, WoW, or Diablo are going to become exclusives for any console, they’re too massive, and have too much of a user base for MS to just up and do that.

Plus, there are plenty of other studios out there like Rockstar, Square-Enix, Larian, CDPR, all of EA’s studios, Capcom, etc.

Now if MS moved on and attempted to EA, or Capcom, or hell even Rockstar, then I could see a massive issue.

With their current dealings they only got a handful of studios worth anything, and it’s not like EA hasn’t done the same.

 

[Deleted member 162929]

or Capcom

Don't think any amount of USA money would overcome hometown Japanese national pride on that one without saying if I'd agree or disagree with such an acquisition

 

[flegg]

The best thing for humanity would be if CoD, Overwatch, Diablo, WoW, and Starcraft all died out in 10 years anyways. With the exception that I'd take another D2 remake with an additional expansion. The originals are all still so much better than the crap that's out there now, even with the dated graphics and engines. Project Diablo >>> D4

 

[kac77]

Honestly, I don’t see the issue with MS acquiring Activision. Acti-Blizzard isnt the end-all-be-all of game studios. I seriously doubt games like Overwatch, CoD, StarCraft, WoW, or Diablo are going to become exclusives for any console, they’re too massive, and have too much of a user base for MS to just up and do that.

Plus, there are plenty of other studios out there like Rockstar, Square-Enix, Larian, CDPR, all of EA’s studios, Capcom, etc.

Now if MS moved on and attempted to EA, or Capcom, or hell even Rockstar, then I could see a massive issue.

With their current dealings they only got a handful of studios worth anything, and it’s not like EA hasn’t done the same.

You're under estimating just how big Activision-Blizzard is. A/B is the size of EA, Capcom and Rockstar combined with room to spare to add Square-Enix to the mix and still have cash left over. That's how big Activision-Blizzard is. It has a market cap of 70 billion dollars. It's massive. It's the largest gaming producer/developer in the world and you're going to marry that with a company with a market cap of 2.5 trillion dollars?!

It's so big that this is a possibility:
Crash Bandicoot and Spyro might become exclusive to Xbox permanently
This acquisition is large enough to put Valve, and Sony's gaming division out of business. Nintendo will survive because its extremely diversified, has a strong historic IP, never invests huge sums of money in hardware/development, and has a large mini-game market that keeps it afloat when consoles don't pan out. So they will survive, but everything else will dry up to a husk of its former self. This deal was way too big to approve. It's also going to prevent any new competition in the gaming console market. It's was tough before, but that is completely dead now.

No one is going to be able to put out a console that just has RPG's on it.

Furthermore, consoles push PC development. You read that right. Consoles push the specs on PC game development. What do you think developers are going to do when their bread and butter are PC's with a majority of video cards being a NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650? You better hope nVidia is making miracles otherwise your biggest graphical enjoyment will be DLSS 4.0 with reverse mortgage frame generation. You're going to see quite possibly a constriction of fidelity on games or a huge stagnation lasting far longer than video cards with less than 8GB of VRAM. Why? Because the specs on PC's on average are LOWER than that of consoles. Not higher. Everyone here is apart of a niche. Not a majority. This is why games went up to 8GB VRAM minimum and why DLSS isn't as ubiquitous as some want it to be. It's because of numbers.

 

[Templar_X]

You're under estimating just how big Activision-Blizzard is. A/B is the size of EA, Capcom and Rockstar combined with room to spare to add Square-Enix to the mix and still have cash left over. That's how big Activision-Blizzard is. It has a market cap of 70 billion dollars. It's massive. It's the largest gaming producer/developer in the world and you're going to marry that with a company with a market cap of 2.5 trillion dollars?!

For this comparison shouldn't we look at game revenue instead? It seems it would give a better image of market share. Ideally we would be talking about units moved but with multi-year development cycles and all that it gets tricky to get that data.

FY 2020-2021	Name	Country	Revenue in $bn
1	Sony Interactive Entertainment	Japan, United States	18.190
2	Tencent Games	China	16.224
3	Nintendo	Japan	12.010
4	Microsoft	United States	10.260
5	NetEase	China	6.668
6	Activision Blizzard	United States	6.388
7	Electronic Arts	United States	5.537
8	Take-Two Interactive	United States	3.089
9	Bandai Namco Entertainment	Japan	3.018
10	Square Enix	Japan	2.386

Publishers by Revenue (this data includes hardware and services sales revenue which inflates sony/msft/nintendo numbers when we actually just want games numbers)
The gaming market is around 200$bn for reference.

This acquisition is large enough to put Valve, and Sony's gaming division out of business.

How do imagine so? How would this put valve out of business?

 

[Armenius]

strange how people act like m$ is the underdog, when as a company as a whole, they are like 50 times larger than sony (don't quote me on that figure I just pulled it out of the air lol)

All that money and yet they are still #3 in the console market by a wide margin.

 

[Lakados]

All that money and yet they are still #3 in the console market by a wide margin.

Wide enough that even if you add their first party PC titles their still behind Nintendo and Sony.

 

[illli]

All that money and yet they are still #3 in the console market by a wide margin.

yes, we all know the old saying " when you can't beat the competition, spend 60 billion to buy up as much of the game studios as we can"
not the consumer's fault m$ makes a mediocre product that is less enticing compared to their rivals.

 

[Deleted member 162929]

There it is, finally

 

[Lakados]

yes, we all know the old saying " when you can't beat the competition, spend 60 billion to buy up as much of the game studios as we can"
not the consumer's fault m$ makes a mediocre product that is less enticing compared to their rivals.

It’s not often about can it be done, but how long will it take and will the shareholders give you the time needed before they demand a profit or the departments closure.
I’m sure they could hire all the staff they need but senior staff who know their stuff may be bound by no compete contracts, Microsoft could fight them but it’s a long slog that nobody likes so they would likely have to start with all green employees, not promising if you want a speedy start.

 

[kac77]

For this comparison shouldn't we look at game revenue instead?

No because Activision doesn't utilize every IP yearly. Revenue in this context is not as important as the market cap / assets.

It seems it would give a better image of market share. Ideally we would be talking about units moved but with multi-year development cycles and all that it gets tricky to get that data.

FY 2020-2021	Name	Country	Revenue in $bn
1	Sony Interactive Entertainment	Japan, United States	18.190
2	Tencent Games	China	16.224
3	Nintendo	Japan	12.010
4	Microsoft	United States	10.260
5	NetEase	China	6.668
6	Activision Blizzard	United States	6.388
7	Electronic Arts	United States	5.537
8	Take-Two Interactive	United States	3.089
9	Bandai Namco Entertainment	Japan	3.018
10	Square Enix	Japan	2.386

Publishers by Revenue (this data includes hardware and services sales revenue which inflates sony/msft/nintendo numbers when we actually just want games numbers)
The gaming market is around 200$bn for reference.

Even still this chart is hardware and software. Also it doesn't include Microsoft's PC revenue which really should be included if we are talking about games. There's no xBox exclusive that doesn't simultaneously release on PC. This is the same mistake FTC made.

How do imagine so? How would this put valve out of business?

Cloud/Streaming services. Also MS now has the capability to mutilate Valve's library. Unlike Epic, EA, or Ubisoft, MS now has the library to shut Valve out if it wanted and sell things through its own store. This was a really bad move on the court's part.

 

[Templar_X]

Even still this chart is hardware and software. Also it doesn't include Microsoft's PC revenue which really should be included if we are talking about games. There's no xBox exclusive that doesn't simultaneously release on PC. This is the same mistake FTC made.

Sorry should've detailed it better. Those numbers are for gaming revenue, drilling down on the sources it includes all games and excludes hardware [1] (msft pc game sales are reported under the xbox division as far as i can tell)

Cloud/Streaming services. Also MS now has the capability to mutilate Valve's library. Unlike Epic, EA, or Ubisoft, MS now has the library to shut Valve out if it wanted and sell things through its own store. This was a really bad move on the court's part.

Humm I see your point, but there's plenty of large moving franchises that aren't or weren't on Steam and Valve still did ok.
Sony's exclusives for example didn't sell on Steam for a long time and Valve was ok. Blizzard already doesn't sell on steam. Activision skipped Steam between 2017 and 2022 (they brought those to Steam on March of this year). Tencent games are not on Steam.
While I can see where you're coming from I think the gaming market is too large compared to ActiBliz's share (or any other single publisher) for that to be a problem for Valve.

 

[kac77]

Humm I see your point, but there's plenty of large moving franchises that aren't or weren't on Steam and Valve still did ok.
Sony's exclusives for example didn't sell on Steam for a long time and Valve was ok. Blizzard already doesn't sell on steam. Activision skipped Steam between 2017 and 2022 (they brought those to Steam on March of this year). Tencent games are not on Steam.
While I can see where you're coming from I think the gaming market is too large compared to ActiBliz's share (or any other single publisher) for that to be a problem for Valve.

They aren't super huge conglomerates. Valve can survive any one publisher taking its toys and going home but not 60% of them. Microsoft has the capability to do just that.

 

[Marees]

They aren't super huge conglomerates. Valve can survive any one publisher taking its toys and going home but not 60% of them. Microsoft has the capability to do just that.

In theory yes, but MicroSoft & Valve have recently worked together to bring game pass cloud on the Steam Deck (& Microsoft has shelved its own cloud gaming streaming device too).

What could happen is the price of MS games might increase on Steam / PlayStation etc.

 

[Templar_X]

They aren't super huge conglomerates. Valve can survive any one publisher taking its toys and going home but not 60% of them. Microsoft has the capability to do just that.

I think you're underestimating Steam/Valve's market size. Microsoft + Activision + Bethesda lifetime revenue on steam is about $5bn, that's less than 10% of Valve's revenue for the last 5 years.
Valve can survive the hypothetical (and extremely unlikely) situation of Microsoft removing all it's games from Steam.

 

[kac77]

I think you're underestimating Steam/Valve's market size. Microsoft + Activision + Bethesda lifetime revenue on steam is about $5bn, that's less than 10% of Valve's revenue for the last 5 years.
Valve can survive the hypothetical (and extremely unlikely) situation of Microsoft removing all it's games from Steam.

As I said before, revenue does not tell you how big a software company is. Microsoft is buying Activision for 70 billion not 5 billion. They are paying 70 billion because that's how big Activision's library of games are worth.

 

[Bankie]

yes, we all know the old saying " when you can't beat the competition, spend 60 billion to buy up as much of the game studios as we can"
not the consumer's fault m$ makes a mediocre product that is less enticing compared to their rivals.

Doesn't it make sense since their rival's products sell better because of the games they have due to previoiusly buying up studios?