Jump to content
IGNORED

Microsoft is trying to acquire Activision Blizzard (UPDATE: CMA says NO!).

MidWalian

By MidWalian
in Discussion

 Share

Recommended Posts

Stanley

Stanley

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, rgraves said:

 

 

So having CoD is not essential to success in the market, and MS have been very clear they are not about to make it exclusive anyway - they've gone the other way and commited to more platforms.

 

This feel like protecting Sony more than competition - and the cloud stuff is just bonkers and nothing Activivision has is going to swing the pendulum decisively on that in any shape or form.

 

MS should back away and sign a $30bn CoD exclusivity contract with Acti for the next 15 years of content. Or call their bluff - strip CoD out and then say the deal needs to go from $69bn to $69m as a result. Pick up a raft of IP cheap.

This about putting COD on Game Pass to drive subscriptions which Sony couldn’t possibly compete on. To use @Alex W.’s comparison it would be like McDonald’s offering Burger King a ten year deal on beef, but then giving their own customers a cheaper all you can eat menu. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JohnC

JohnC

Posted
Posted

What am I missing about this quote from earlier?

 

Quote

The regulator states that Microsoft has informed it of its commitments to keep Call of Duty on rival platforms such as PlayStation and Nintendo Switch, and says it would potentially consider this kind of remedy, but that it would prefer a structural solution such as removing Activision from the deal altogether as it requires less ongoing enforcement.

They would prefer a solution such as removing Activision from the deal altogether, where the deal is to buy Activision? Buy them without actually buying them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MidWalian

MidWalian

Posted
  • Author
Posted
46 minutes ago, Stanley said:

This about putting COD on Game Pass to drive subscriptions which Sony couldn’t possibly compete on. To use @Alex W.’s comparison it would be like McDonald’s offering Burger King a ten year deal on beef, but then giving their own customers a cheaper all you can eat menu. 

 

Nintendo is KFC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
rgraves

rgraves

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, JohnC said:

What am I missing about this quote from earlier?

 

They would prefer a solution such as removing Activision from the deal altogether, where the deal is to buy Activision? Buy them without actually buying them?

 

They'd still be getting Blizzard and King. And, potentially, everything else from Activision except for CoD as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Transient Curse

Transient Curse

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, rgraves said:

 

They'd still be getting Blizzard and King. And, potentially, everything else from Activision except for CoD as well.

 

Even the staunchest of Xbox fans would be laughing at the deal if Microsoft put down $70bn for Candy Crush Saga.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
rgraves

rgraves

Posted
Posted
22 minutes ago, Transient Curse said:

 

Even the staunchest of Xbox fans would be laughing at the deal if Microsoft put down $70bn for Candy Crush Saga.

 

I'm not close to the numbers, but I bet the actual revenue from the King side of the business is not to be sniffed at at all....and surely if they need to drop a piece of the business they get to re-negotiate the price?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Transient Curse

Transient Curse

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, rgraves said:

 

I'm not close to the numbers, but I bet the actual revenue from the King side of the business is not to be sniffed at at all....and surely if they need to drop a piece of the business they get to re-negotiate the price?

 

I was being somewhat facetious, this whole deal through the lens of the internet has little to do with reality, I can't believe the people who seem to most want one thing or the other to happen aren't driven by much other than fanboy posturing. 

 

As for renegotiating, I'm not sure how it would work. Would Activision spin off Call of Duty Inc that would be an independent maker of a single title? I don't know how much support Activision/Blizzard/King as an entity give the studios making COD full time, but I would suspect that the calculation would be rather complicated, and lead to needing to create a number of duplicate roles.  

 

It'll be interesting to see what happens, presumably Apple, Facebook, Tencent are watching. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Majora

Majora

Posted
Posted

From a selfish perspective I would like this to not go through because I want games/franchises I actually care about coming day 1 to Gamepass and Activision doesn't have any. Unlike the Bethesda deal where I'm interested in trying basically all their games. I think they could acquire pretty much any other developer/publisher and I'd be more interested.

3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
deerokus

deerokus

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, JohnC said:

What am I missing about this quote from earlier?

 

They would prefer a solution such as removing Activision from the deal altogether, where the deal is to buy Activision? Buy them without actually buying them?

 

I think the 'it' is referring to the regulator, not Microsoft. It's quite awkwardly phrased.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Broker

Broker

Posted
Posted

How do you split COD off when all of the Activision studios make COD? You’d be getting their dormant IP, King and Blizzard, which obviously have some value. But the bulk of this deal is buying not just the COD brand but the 8 or so studios that work full time and the associated staff and expertise surely?

 

18 hours ago, deerokus said:

I guess I don't understand why a competition regulator is more concerned with making sure the market leader doesn't lose customers. Isn't that the opposite of their role?

 

Sony are t the market leader. What they’re doing here is making sure the people in third don’t use the insane resources of their parent company to eat the company in second. 
 

Given that Microsoft have basically never actually produced a successful Xbox and if they were a business who relied on consoles and games to survive would’ve gone bankrupt at least 3 times by now, it’s fine for them to keep throwing their Office cash at trying to make consoles work. But letting their giant parent company start buying them the biggest franchise in the world so they can carry on trying to compete is probably a bit much. 

4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
K

K

Posted
Posted

I guess you'd hive off a new company called Activision or Call of Duty Studios or xXBoNg_SnIpEr420Xx Games something, and stick Infinity Ward, Treyarch, Sledgehammer, Raven, Beenox, and High Moon under it, along with any bits of the other studios that they need to make more CoD games. Blizzard and King seem fairly separate, and the other Activision studios mostly seem to make remasters of older games. It sounds like it would be a lot of effort for some very expensive lawyers, but is probably doable. I get the sense that the main CoD developers are a revolving door of contractors anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
deerokus

deerokus

Posted
Posted
39 minutes ago, Broker said:

How do you split COD off when all of the Activision studios make COD? You’d be getting their dormant IP, King and Blizzard, which obviously have some value. But the bulk of this deal is buying not just the COD brand but the 8 or so studios that work full time and the associated staff and expertise surely?

 

 

Sony are t the market leader. What they’re doing here is making sure the people in third don’t use the insane resources of their parent company to eat the company in second. 
 

Given that Microsoft have basically never actually produced a successful Xbox and if they were a business who relied on consoles and games to survive would’ve gone bankrupt at least 3 times by now, it’s fine for them to keep throwing their Office cash at trying to make consoles work. But letting their giant parent company start buying them the biggest franchise in the world so they can carry on trying to compete is probably a bit much. 

Again, isn't it better to have a more competitive third place?

1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
MidWalian

MidWalian

Posted
  • Author
Posted
51 minutes ago, deerokus said:

Again, isn't it better to have a more competitive third place?

 

They don't need to buy another third-party publisher to do that. Love my series s and game pass but many will look at what first-party system sellers a console actually has (as well as what third-party support). Nintendo and Sony understand that and yadda yadda Yadda expect Mario Kart 9 close to a switch successor launch.

 

I think Microsoft have more development studios than Sony and Nintendo, they need to get appealing titles out sooner. This year's line-up looks good but all a bit late.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • MidWalian changed the title to Microsoft is trying to acquire Activision Blizzard (UPDATE: CMA says NO!).

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.

  I accept