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

[Stanley]

3 hours ago, Talk Show Host said:

I mean, Microsoft needs this to compete.

20+ years in the console business and Xbox Game Studios need this to compete. 

[Super Craig]

3 hours ago, Talk Show Host said:

The problem is Sony doesn't have an answer to GP, which is what they fear.

 

What?

[Talk Show Host]

22 hours ago, Uzi said:

If you think MS need to spend £70 billion dollars to "compete", they're in a lot more trouble that the CMA having views as a competition regulator.

 

MS aren't spending this absurd about of money to compete closer with PlayStation. They're doing it to strengthen their market position in the global space in one of their areas as a tech giant. They're not necessarily one and the same. Their long term plans are probably a lot more complex and market defining than "Call of duty on gamepass haha Sony lolz"

Yes, that is my opinion as well. Which is why it makes Sony’s constant arguments about CoD nonsensical. They simply do not want GP to be strengthened because they know they can’t compete down the line, if, of course, Microsoft’s plan come into fruition. That is why they do not accept any CoD deal. Their main goal is to stop the acquisition which will strengthen GP, not argue about CoD.
 

Sony has created a path for itself and chosen the top heavy AAA development/cross media as their main goal. Nintendo has also chosen a different path and now Microsoft is choosing its own path as well, which is GP. If Sony wanted to compete with GP they could very well start putting out their AAA output into their services day one. But they can’t do that because their business strategy is built differently. They need those 80 bucks per unit.
 

There’s no real argument that this acquisition will put Sony out of business. If something does, it will be their betting on the wrong horse exactly when the market could very well be shifting.

 

[mushashi]

On 16/03/2023 at 06:26, MNFRMTMRRW said:

"Nintendo is not a competitor because there is no Call of Duty on Switch".

 

 

Neither Microsoft or Sony see Nintendo as a real threat, it's the feeder league for future customers which is entirely true. I've seen children who started off on Nintendo migrate to PC/Sony/Microsoft when they got older.

 

Microsoft blocked Moon Studios from releasing their games on PlayStation but didn't have the same problem with Nintendo because one is an actual threat and the other really isn't.

[Kevvy Metal]

I’m certain that some people are still very, very upset that Sony put Sega “out of the console market” all those years ago. 
 

So very, very sour. 

[Stanley]

57 minutes ago, mushashi said:

 I've seen children who started off on Nintendo migrate to PC/Sony/Microsoft when they got older.

I’ve seen grown men playing Mario. True story. 

[Stanley]

37 minutes ago, Kevvy Metal said:

I’m certain that some people are still very, very upset that Sony put Sega “out of the console market” all those years ago. 
 

So very, very sour. 

<Michael Cain gif>

[mushashi]

4 hours ago, Stanley said:

I’ve seen grown men playing Mario. True story. 

 

I dunno why people get upset that Nintendo isn't viewed by their competitors as direct competition, or that even the competition authorities take the same view, but eh, it's been that way since Nintendo stopped competing directly nearly 2 decades ago now.

[Stanley]

1 hour ago, mushashi said:

 

I dunno why people get upset that Nintendo isn't viewed by their competitors as direct competition, or that even the competition authorities take the same view, but eh, it's been that way since Nintendo stopped competing directly nearly 2 decades ago now.

I dunno why people get upset when it’s pointed out to them that Nintendo do compete, they just do it better. 

[Gabe]

The first thing to say is - who cares, honestly? None of the manufacturers are your friend, you don't need to stick up for them (that's aimed at everybody and nobody).

 

That said, Nintendo compete - obviously - because they, along with Sony and MS, are all in the business of video games. But do they compete for the same audience as those two? I'm not so sure.

 

I said this ages ago, but the fact that Activision hasn't bothered to have any CoD representation on Switch is quite telling, no? They are hardly a company shy about fleecing a series, so they must have a lot of stats and research to tell them that putting the work in isn't worth it. EA put out cut-down versions of FIFA, don't they? So again, the fact the version is different to the Xbox and PS versions suggests they've done the sums and it doesn't make sense to fully commit to it. I don't know what the situation is with racers (outside of Nintendo-made stuff) - do they have anything with feature parity against the other two consoles, or is stuff cut-down or just not released?

 

People have said for years and years they buy Nintendo consoles for Nintendo games and, well, it seems a lot of publishers seem to think that too. Else why wouldn't they put time and a bit of effort to reach such a vast install base? There are a lot of games from a whole host of publishers that just skip the Switch completely/are lo-rent efforts/cut-down versions/whatever and that can't just be coincidental. So it isn't therefore unreasonable to suggest that publishers themselves don't see the Switch operating in the same battleground as the Xbox and PS.

[Stanley]

Who cares? 
 

None of us, that’s why we’re all here discussing it, like the little armchair analysts that we all are 

 

What you’re saying is wrong though. 
 

Do they compete directly for the same audience who solely play Call of Duty? No of course not. But do those audiences overlap? Yes, massively so. 

 

I’m not surprised Activision didn’t put COD on Switch after the Wii U, it would have been a lot of work creating the same game to run on less powerful hardware, or another game entirely specifically for the console. A lot of work for potentially little return. But not impossible, witness Switch versions of Witcher 3, Doom Eternal, etc. It’s to their detriment that they didn’t bother, as in Microsoft’s own words there are 150 million new customers out there. 
 

Nintendo may look like they don’t care either, but that’s only because their business is already robust enough to ride out an entire generation were they failed. No they don’t need whatever scraps Microsoft are willing to throw them to try and make themselves look better, but they’ll have it. Why not? 
 

Whether it’s Nintendo, PC, VR, mobile you name it, they are all competing for cross sections of the same audience who play games.

 

I mean just look at Japan, the home territory for both Sony and Nintendo. Hardware sales for PS5 may have picked up a bit recently, but PlayStation has been wiped out by Nintendo in that market. You could be charitable there and say it’s not Sony’s focus anymore, but it’s interesting that the rest of the world is still Nintendo’s focus, and where they continue to dominate. 
 

Just as the PC market has shifted its focus towards more low powered systems such as Steam Deck, it would be very shortsighted of any publisher going into the next generation that overlooks Nintendo. 
 

In fact I would say that right now those are easily the most exciting two platforms to develop for. The indie market is thriving there, and indie these days is not indie 2008, it’s big business. But it’s not just indie, the world has moved away from expensive black boxes that just sit there under our TV’s. 
 

It’s funny watching Microsoft backing themselves into a corner, and desperately spending more money to feed the money pit that is Game Pass, or convoluted solutions to play games on mobile etc. when Nintendo and Valve solved the problem for them years ago; low powered consoles at affordable prices that do exactly what people want. 

[Transient Curse]

Nintendo is for babies though.

[Talk Show Host]

4 hours ago, Stanley said:

Who cares? 
 

None of us, that’s why we’re all here discussing it, like the little armchair analysts that we all are 

 

What you’re saying is wrong though. 
 

Do they compete directly for the same audience who solely play Call of Duty? No of course not. But do those audiences overlap? Yes, massively so. 

 

I’m not surprised Activision didn’t put COD on Switch after the Wii U, it would have been a lot of work creating the same game to run on less powerful hardware, or another game entirely specifically for the console. A lot of work for potentially little return. But not impossible, witness Switch versions of Witcher 3, Doom Eternal, etc. It’s to their detriment that they didn’t bother, as in Microsoft’s own words there are 150 million new customers out there. 
 

Nintendo may look like they don’t care either, but that’s only because their business is already robust enough to ride out an entire generation were they failed. No they don’t need whatever scraps Microsoft are willing to throw them to try and make themselves look better, but they’ll have it. Why not? 
 

Whether it’s Nintendo, PC, VR, mobile you name it, they are all competing for cross sections of the same audience who play games.

 

I mean just look at Japan, the home territory for both Sony and Nintendo. Hardware sales for PS5 may have picked up a bit recently, but PlayStation has been wiped out by Nintendo in that market. You could be charitable there and say it’s not Sony’s focus anymore, but it’s interesting that the rest of the world is still Nintendo’s focus, and where they continue to dominate. 
 

Just as the PC market has shifted its focus towards more low powered systems such as Steam Deck, it would be very shortsighted of any publisher going into the next generation that overlooks Nintendo. 
 

In fact I would say that right now those are easily the most exciting two platforms to develop for. The indie market is thriving there, and indie these days is not indie 2008, it’s big business. But it’s not just indie, the world has moved away from expensive black boxes that just sit there under our TV’s. 
 

It’s funny watching Microsoft backing themselves into a corner, and desperately spending more money to feed the money pit that is Game Pass, or convoluted solutions to play games on mobile etc. when Nintendo and Valve solved the problem for them years ago; low powered consoles at affordable prices that do exactly what people want. 

 

I agree. It is weird when people use ‘Nintendo is not a competitor’ in a derogatory way, when it is the exact opposite. They are on such a different level brand wise that is almost impossible for Sony and Microsoft to get there. And they have done it by actually taking risks, innovating and sticking to their guns, making Zelda, Mario, Animal Crossing, Pokemon etc literally household names, as opposed to Kratos and Master Chief who are only talked about no further than at the fringes of the wider gaming circles.

 

Uncharted was released as movie for example but its rare to meet a non gamer who knows who Nathan Drake is. It will be interesting to see what happens with the LoU, especially when it feels to be Sony's first true barrier breaker when it comes to a true mainstream audience.

 

Nintendo do not give a serious business fuck about CoD. It would be if someone said Lego need Angry Birds to expand their audience to young kids. They make more money than anyone else (operating profits last year were double than Sony's gaming division) and sell the most copies than anyone else (while at the same time still selling their old games at high prices), in consoles which make a profit -arguably- the minute they hit the shelves. 

 

It almost defies belief that they are in this position before Switch 2, which has the potential to be the highest selling console ever in record time. 

 

So yeah, they would be fine with or without CoD. That is the Nintendo difference when it comes to competing with Sony or Microsoft: they are not a competitor because they are playing a different game.

[footle]

At some point I’m sure we’ll recognise that:

- there aren’t that many non gamers anymore: lots of us are in our forties and anyone younger has definitely heard of all these things - “non gamers don’t know of Uncharted” isn’t the zinger it might have been in the nineties.

- consoles are a much less lucrative space than mobile

[Isaac]

3 hours ago, Talk Show Host said:

 

I agree. It is weird when people use ‘Nintendo is not a competitor’ in a derogatory way, when it is the exact opposite. They are on such a different level brand wise that is almost impossible for Sony and Microsoft to get there. And they have done it by actually taking risks, innovating and sticking to their guns, making Zelda, Mario, Animal Crossing, Pokemon etc literally household names, as opposed to Kratos and Master Chief who are only talked about no further than at the fringes of the wider gaming circles.

 

Uncharted was released as movie for example but its rare to meet a non gamer who knows who Nathan Drake is. It will be interesting to see what happens with the LoU, especially when it feels to be Sony's first true barrier breaker when it comes to a true mainstream audience.

 

Nintendo do not give a serious business fuck about CoD. It would be if someone said Lego need Angry Birds to expand their audience to young kids. They make more money than anyone else (operating profits last year were double than Sony's gaming division) and sell the most copies than anyone else (while at the same time still selling their old games at high prices), in consoles which make a profit -arguably- the minute they hit the shelves. 

 

It almost defies belief that they are in this position before Switch 2, which has the potential to be the highest selling console ever in record time. 

 

So yeah, they would be fine with or without CoD. That is the Nintendo difference when it comes to competing with Sony or Microsoft: they are not a competitor because they are playing a different game.

 

Mobile makes more money than Nintendo, so by that token they've already lost the battle to iOS and Android.

 

It's not even close either - Nintendo generated $13.2bn in revenue. Google Play alone generated $37.3 billion the same year. iOS made $50 billion. Those are purely their gaming revenues too.

 

Or, you know, these are different platforms and services aimed at different market segments.

[JPL]

13 minutes ago, Isaac said:

 

Mobile makes more money than Nintendo, so by that token they've already lost the battle to iOS and Android.

 

It's not even close either - Nintendo generated $13.2bn in revenue. Google Play alone generated $37.3 billion the same year. iOS made $50 billion. Those are purely their gaming revenues too.

 

Or, you know, these are different platforms and services aimed at different market segments.

Blimey, I had no idea mobile gaming was so lucrative. Who’s spending all that money? I thought most games were free, or a couple of quid or so? I don’t know a single person who plays mobile games, so it’s completely alien to me.

[phillv85]

I assume it’s mostly on free to play games. I’ve played a couple and on one in particular I’ve seen people spend tens of thousands in a week. There’s some really exploitive practices, but also plenty of people who just don’t give a fuck and have the money to burn.

 

Edit: some of those billions will likely be people who subscribe to things like streaming services through it as well.

[Stanley]

Mobile gaming is superb these days. Obviously it’s massive because of the sheer amount of devices out there, but there’s a great variety too, and in Apple Arcade a bit of a hidden gem actually, and where children are concerned it’s a much cheaper point of entry than Nintendo, for example, because everyone already uses these devices on a daily basis and they’re not buying them solely for games. 
 
The gaming market is valued at $220 billion and mobile alone accounts for $170 billion of that. 

 

[Talk Show Host]

39 minutes ago, Isaac said:

 

Mobile makes more money than Nintendo, so by that token they've already lost the battle to iOS and Android.

 

It's not even close either - Nintendo generated $13.2bn in revenue. Google Play alone generated $37.3 billion the same year. iOS made $50 billion. Those are purely their gaming revenues too.

 

Or, you know, these are different platforms and services aimed at different market segments.

But that is what I am saying. That is what it means for Nintendo to not be a competitor against Sony or Microsoft. They are playing a different game, so much so that there’s no point in comparing them because Nintendo’s target audience is way more mainstream than the other two. And one could argue they are in a much healthier position financially with a future that looks even more successful.

 

As for people not knowing Nathan Drake, there are billions who don’t know who he is 😜.  He’s not mainstream like Mario or Pokémon is. 

[Isaac]

3 minutes ago, Talk Show Host said:

But that is what I am saying. That is what it means for Nintendo to not be a competitor against Sony or Microsoft. They are playing a different game, so much so that there’s no point in comparing them because Nintendo’s target audience is way more mainstream than the other two. And one could argue they are in a much healthier position financially with a future that looks even more successful.

 

As for people not knowing Nathan Drake, there are billions who don’t know who he is 😜.  He’s not mainstream like Mario or Pokémon is. 

 

Nintendo are not in a healthier position financially than Microsoft, not by a long shot.

 

I'll give you Sony.

[JPL]

5 minutes ago, Stanley said:

Mobile gaming is superb these days. Obviously it’s massive because of the sheer amount of devices out there, but there’s a great variety too, and in Apple Arcade a bit of a hidden gem actually, and where children are concerned it’s a much cheaper point of entry than Nintendo, for example, because everyone already uses these devices on a daily basis and they’re not buying them solely for games. 
 
The gaming market is valued at $220 billion and mobile alone accounts for $170 billion of that. 

 

I should really take a look at some mobile games then. Have you got any recommendations?

 

Hearing all this, it makes it even more weird how Sony are focusing on CoD being the problem. I bet it’s the last thing MS give a shit about, hence them willing to make deals with everyone for it.

[Isaac]

2 minutes ago, JPL said:

I should really take a look at some mobile games then. Have you got any recommendations?

 

Hearing all this, it makes it even more weird how Sony are focusing on CoD being the problem. I bet it’s the last thing MS give a shit about, hence them willing to make deals with everyone for it.

 

Yes in the context of the wider gaming landscape King (and by extension, Candy Crush) is a bigger part of this deal than CoD. Sure, CoD is more lucrative today, but Candy Crush gives Microsoft a $700m+ annual revenue slice of the mobile market, and most of that is revenue coming from people who've never owned an Xbox.

 

But most gaming forums totally ignore that part of it due to the typical blind spot most gamers have to mobile.

[Stanley]

7 minutes ago, JPL said:

I should really take a look at some mobile games then. Have you got any recommendations?

 

Hearing all this, it makes it even more weird how Sony are focusing on CoD being the problem. I bet it’s the last thing MS give a shit about, hence them willing to make deals with everyone for it.

If you have an iPad or an iPhone subscribe to Arcade it’s fantastic, there’s tonnes of stuff on there. It’s pretty cheap, like a fiver a month, and cheaper still if you combine it with Apple Music, TV and various other things they offer as part part of the Apple One sub. 
 

Sony are focussing on COD because they see it as a main driver for their console sales, and they don’t want to lose those lucrative marketing deals. To many people COD is pretty much a PlayStation exclusive, and a lot of their hardware bundles are based around it. 
 

MS want it to interrupt that and persuade customers over to Game Pass. It’s a very big deal for those two players hence the price and the attention it’s receiving. 

[JPL]

@Stanley I’ve actually got 3 months of Apple Arcade to use, that just been sitting there for months. I’ll give it a go.

[Stanley]

Just now, JPL said:

@Stanley I’ve actually got 3 months of Apple Arcade to use, that just been sitting there for months. I’ll give it a go.

I think you’ll be pleasantly surprised. There are games on there more suited to touch screen as well those that benefit from traditional controls. 

[Gabe]

3 hours ago, Talk Show Host said:

 

I agree. It is weird when people use ‘Nintendo is not a competitor’ in a derogatory way, when it is the exact opposite.

Who is doing this? I certainly didn't. People get so weirdly defensive about all consoles, but Nintendo in particular.

 

3 hours ago, Talk Show Host said:

Nintendo do not give a serious business fuck about CoD.

What does this have to do with absolutely anything? Unless Nintendo were suddenly going to develop and publish CoD, any view the company has on it is irrelevant and especially to this discussion, where we are talking about Activision (among other big publishers) choosing not to invest in the Switch. Where is a full-fat version of FIFA? Where is Assassin's Creed Valhalla? The upcoming PGA Tour?

 

Now, as @Stanley says - and I agree - we can all quite easily come up with reasons why that it the case, but it doesn't alter that fact that they don't want to. That is pretty telling. The fact Nintendo makes the most money is, again, irrelevant other than for weird fanboy reasons I suppose. Yay Nintendo!

 

Can you give any thoughts to the open question in my post?

 

Quote

People have said for years and years they buy Nintendo consoles for Nintendo games and, well, it seems a lot of publishers seem to think that too. Else why wouldn't they put time and a bit of effort to reach such a vast install base?

My simplistic view of these big corporations is that if they really had lots of stats, research and evidence that they were missing out on the riches of Nintendo's massive audience, what possible reason would they not devote to creating something to capitalise on that? They love making money and that would be a sure-thing, right? Or, possibly, the information they have is that Switch owners by and large don't really care for those games all that much (whether that's because Nintendo themselves have sewn-up the genres or other reasons). Y'know, it might be because there is a different audience, perhaps.

 

3 hours ago, Talk Show Host said:

So yeah, they would be fine with or without CoD. That is the Nintendo difference when it comes to competing with Sony or Microsoft: they are not a competitor because they are playing a different game.

And, finally, you agree with me: Nintendo are in a different league. Sony and MS know that too, and make power and graphical grunt the keystones of their machines, Nintendo go a different way. I don't see why this notion seems to have led to so much discussion, especially when for years people always talk about Nintendo in a different, perhaps more reverent, way. The Nintendo difference, indeed.

[Gabe]

7 hours ago, Stanley said:

Who cares? 
 

None of us, that’s why we’re all here discussing it, like the little armchair analysts that we all are 

 

What you’re saying is wrong though. 
 

<snip>

I get that we 'care' in the sense that this whole deal is generally big news for the industry as a whole. But I don't get why, as per my reply above, it's this 'Nintendo not being viewed as a competitor' stuff is getting so much airtime (and I know I'm contributing to that.)

 

Anyway, you say I'm wrong, but you've offered nothing in response to why. I think my reply to @Talk Show Host covers most of the same ground, but you also are helping make my point:

7 hours ago, Stanley said:

I’m not surprised Activision didn’t put COD on Switch after the Wii U, it would have been a lot of work creating the same game to run on less powerful hardware, or another game entirely specifically for the console. A lot of work for potentially little return.

Why, in your view if they are actually a proper competitor to what Sony & MS focus on, would it be 'potentially little return'? If there is 'massive' overlap as you say, this is surely money being left on the table, so how can your comment be correct? (And again, don't restrict this just to CoD, but the other examples I mentioned too). A lot of big games don't make it to Switch and as with any game, if they felt the market exceeded the value to port/create a Switch-specific version, they would go for it. After all, CoD, FIFA etc are worldwide and fairly 'safe' games, where's the risk with such a massive overlap of audience? MS can say they are making stuff available to x million other players, it doesn't mean they would be interested in it.

 

I put it to you that Activision (and the other examples I gave) don't feel the market is there to make that worthwhile, hence we are where we are.

[Stanley]

20 minutes ago, Gabe said:

 

 

Now, as @Stanley says - and I agree - we can all quite easily come up with reasons why that it the case, but it doesn't alter that fact that they don't want to. That is pretty telling. The fact Nintendo makes the most money is, again, irrelevant other than for weird fanboy reasons I suppose. Yay Nintendo!

 

Can you give any thoughts to the open question in my post?

 

My simplistic view of these big corporations is that if they really had lots of stats, research and evidence that they were missing out on the riches of Nintendo's massive audience, what possible reason would they not devote to creating something to capitalise on that? They love making money and that would be a sure-thing, right? Or, possibly, the information they have is that Switch owners by and large don't really care for those games all that much (whether that's because Nintendo themselves have sewn-up the genres or other reasons). Y'know, it might be because there is a different audience, perhaps.

 

And, finally, you agree with me: Nintendo are in a different league. Sony and MS know that too, and make power and graphical grunt the keystones of their machines, Nintendo go a different way. I don't see why this notion seems to have led to so much discussion, especially when for years people always talk about Nintendo in a different, perhaps more reverent, way. The Nintendo difference, indeed.

I think the easy answer is Wii U. You don’t get to fail that badly and then expect full support on your next console, not even if you’re Nintendo. COD was on their previous consoles of course, so it’s not as if they’ve always ignored that audience. 
 

I think we also have to concede that there’s not enough love nor money in the world to get some games running on a platform like Switch - not unless you’re tech wizards like Id. 

 

There are games now that don’t run on Steam Deck, like Returnal  but I think as we head not the next generation of portable platforms such as Switch 2, and Steam Deck, it’s likely developers will not get caught out this time and make

more of a concerted effort. I realise I am biased because that’s how I like to play my games, I’m all about mobile and hybrid consoles - and I think (hope) it’s the start of a fantastic new era for PC gaming. 
 

Edit. sorry I’ve just seen your other post too, hopefully this answers some of that. But basically I think a lot of developers were caught out this gen and bet all their money on MS and Sony. In Japan right now if your game isn’t on Switch it’s basically DOA. I’d be interested to know what Square Enix’s strategy is going forward, but I’d imagine Switch 2 is high on their list of priorities. 

[JPL]

When is the decision on this deal going to be reached? Is there a set time it has to be done by?

[Talk Show Host]

36 minutes ago, Isaac said:

 

Nintendo are not in a healthier position financially than Microsoft, not by a long shot.

 

I'll give you Sony.

We are comparing gaming divisions of course. It’s well established that Nintendo is not a trillion dollar company. 😛