Microsoft buys Activision Blizzard

[Reinhardt]

You want games? Pay 10 bucks a month and you have all* the games.

What if i want good games? Fuck, even "decent" will suffice.

 

[Hobknobling]

Microsoft already doesn't given a shit about consoles, and they aren't a manufacturer. They'll keep doing the console because that's what the overall business is at the moment, and that's what they need to do right now. But five years from now? Eight years from now? Things are probably going to be different. Microsoft want Game Pass on everything. They want you to be able to turn on your Nintendo system and be able to play games on Game Pass. They want you to be able to access Game Pass on your PS5. The business now is Game Pass. The reason Microsoft entered the console business was to control the living room, well, technology has lapped their original ambitions and now your TV can just do all that other stuff they wanted the console to do; and if you're tv can't at the moment, your cheapo bluray player or Roku can do what Microsoft wanted to do with the XboxOne when they first showed it off when it comes to TV.

I do agree to a degree that the actual horsepower of the future consoles becomes less important and the hardware revenue too. DLSS/FSR will probably play a big part and content streaming is going to be incorporated to AAA games in a way that supports this.

But I find it hard to believe that Microsoft would think that being at the mercy of other companies is a good idea. Owning the platform costs money but is also a strategically important way to cut down dependencies. This is why Valve tries to promote Linux and also get a foothold on the hardware market.

The idea that Game Pass is Block Booking on the customer has to be the dumbest fucking comparison. How do you imagine they're even kind of similar? Because it's a grouping of stuff? Maybe you should reread that bit on block booking again and think about how a theatre being forced into buying things they don't want and haven't seen to stay in business is different from the consumer (who doesn't need to pay for Game Pass) paying a subscription fee and getting access to a selection of games they do know of.

The basic idea is the same: if you want to buy one thing, you have to pay more than the value of that one thing and you also get all this cheap middling content so it makes less sense to mix-and-match between different distributors. However, Game Pass is still a very immature concept and it is interesting to see how long Microsoft will keep the price down and who is going to compete with them using the same formula and if that is even feasible.

The funny thing is those B movies of the era are a lot of the interesting things of the era; and if you were to chop up what the Codex mostly seems to like video game wise into A and B products they'd most likely mostly just be B products.

We will see about that. I expect even more samey games where the content is mostly auto-generated from existing assets and the game design does not deviate far from known formulas. Time wasting gacha mechanics and Skinner box features are probably on the menu too. Ubisoft-style open world games, uninspired multiplayer shooters and arcade racing games are probably the best fit for this.

 

[Assisted Living Godzilla]

Microsoft already doesn't given a shit about consoles, and they aren't a manufacturer. They'll keep doing the console because that's what the overall business is at the moment, and that's what they need to do right now. But five years from now? Eight years from now? Things are probably going to be different. Microsoft want Game Pass on everything. They want you to be able to turn on your Nintendo system and be able to play games on Game Pass. They want you to be able to access Game Pass on your PS5. The business now is Game Pass. The reason Microsoft entered the console business was to control the living room, well, technology has lapped their original ambitions and now your TV can just do all that other stuff they wanted the console to do; and if you're tv can't at the moment, your cheapo bluray player or Roku can do what Microsoft wanted to do with the XboxOne when they first showed it off when it comes to TV.

I do agree to a degree that the actual horsepower of the future consoles becomes less important and the hardware revenue too. DLSS/FSR will probably play a big part and content streaming is going to be incorporated to AAA games in a way that supports this.

But I find it hard to believe that Microsoft would think that being at the mercy of other companies is a good idea. Owning the platform costs money but is also a strategically important way to cut down dependencies. This is why Valve tries to promote Linux and also get a foothold on the hardware market.

The idea that Game Pass is Block Booking on the customer has to be the dumbest fucking comparison. How do you imagine they're even kind of similar? Because it's a grouping of stuff? Maybe you should reread that bit on block booking again and think about how a theatre being forced into buying things they don't want and haven't seen to stay in business is different from the consumer (who doesn't need to pay for Game Pass) paying a subscription fee and getting access to a selection of games they do know of.

The basic idea is the same: if you want to buy one thing, you have to pay more than the value of that one thing and you also get all this cheap middling content so it makes less sense to mix-and-match between different distributors. However, Game Pass is still a very immature concept and it is interesting to see how long Microsoft will keep the price down and who is going to compete with them using the same formula and if that is even feasible.

The funny thing is those B movies of the era are a lot of the interesting things of the era; and if you were to chop up what the Codex mostly seems to like video game wise into A and B products they'd most likely mostly just be B products.

We will see about that. I expect even more samey games where the content is mostly auto-generated from existing assets and the game design does not deviate far from known formulas. Time wasting gacha mechanics and Skinner box features are probably on the menu too. Ubisoft-style open world games, uninspired multiplayer shooters and arcade racing games are probably the best fit for this.

No, the idea with block booking theatres and Game Pass on the consumer end are not the same. The consumer is not a business reliant on game developers to exist, the consumer does know what they're getting when they pay for Game Pass, and you aren't paying more than the price of one new game a month with Game Pass. If the Game Pass price worked like block booking the price of Game Pass every month would be more than the price of a new game, not less.

Ubisoft style open world games are not the B product. Those are the A product. Unless you think Microsoft's tactic for filling out game pass, getting people to buy in and stay, is going to be making lower budget versions of Ubisoft style open world games. The B product will be cheaper to make things. They'll probably also be more niche. Like, Codex loves Battle Brothers. That seems like the perfect kind of low budget product to fill out a service like Game Pass. Remember how, like, from the start of the 360 to around 2011 or 2012 Xbox Live was the main go to home for indie games? I'd kind of expect them to take that from the Switch with Game Pass moving forward. These wouldn't necessarily need to be really low budget indie titles either.

 

[Morgoth]

If Game Pass brings back more arcade style games, (which basically got priced out of existence because of their length) and studios taking chances again on smaller budget games, this just seems like a good thing to me. The up side to Game Pass is you could have studios freed from sales expectations, so you might see more types of games that people still enjoy but the business has mostly moved on from because they don't sale what they need to. Like, there's people here that sure seem to like bitching about RE4, but RE4 only happens because the Resident Evil Remake (and Zero) didn't sell well. Now in a world where the price of admission is nothing but the subscription fee, and you need content for the service, something like fixed camera angle Resident Evil could easily exist again in a way it probably wasn't feasible for on a budget like the GameCube remake had...and now Microsoft owns the studio run by the creator of Resident Evil. I wouldn't be too surprised if Microsoft getting back into RTS games with Age of Empires is to flesh out the PC Game Pass.

All this will lead to is AAA publishing becoming the domain of only the 1st-party console manufacturers (Sony/Nintendo/MSFT). Then there will be the small indie developers, with not much in-between.

No, it'll just lead to other big studios having something like Game Pass, or making deals with those that have it. You know, it'll just become like movie streaming now, and maybe even fold into movie streaming services in some cases. And look at movie streaming right now. Some studios have their own streaming services, some don't, and there's paid and free streaming services that aren't part of the major movie studios. I mean really, you think EA and Ubisoft created things like Uplay and Origin around the start of the previous decade but they aren't going to get in on this streaming thing? It's also going to lead to large companies that aren't even major players in video games at the moment entering in, in a much bigger way.

Consoles as they are today are probably going to be a thing of the past by the time the next console cycle rolls around some time between 2027/2028 and 2030. They'll probably just be universal players made by a bunch of different companies like movie players have been, and you'll probably be able to pull Game Pass (and other things) up on all the stuff you can pull Netflix up on now.

Making money through fees rather than income is now the reality of big business. We normies are just usually too slow to realize this transition.

Also all these consolidations are now mostly about wealth preservation rather than a function of driving entrepreneurship. In essense, Microsoft is pulling a Blackrock here. And I expect Sony to follow suit.

 

[Ismaul]

The more you have, the more you have to lose. Their time will come, and it will be brutal.

 

[Morgoth]

The more you have, the more you have to lose. Their time will come, and it will be brutal.

No, they won't be losing a dime. But they'll lobby for you to lose your last shirt.

 

[ferratilis]

https://www.videogameschronicle.com...ith-activision-blizzard-well-be-number-three/

Microsoft comments on acquisition approval: ‘Even with Activision Blizzard, we’ll be number three’

THE XBOX FIRM’S PROPOSED $70BN ACQUISITION IS TO BE REVIEWED BY REGULATORS

NEWS
3RD FEB 2022 / 5:30 PM
Posted by
Chris Scullion

Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella has commented on the regulatory review of its Activision Blizzard deal and claimed that it won’t be in a position of monopoly.

It was recently reported that Microsoft’s proposed $70bn deal will be reviewed by the Federal Trade Commission.

The Activision Blizzard deal is expected to close in Microsoft’s fiscal year 2023. However, this is subject to closing conditions and completion of regulatory review.

In the case of mergers and acquisitions, regulators can prohibit deals that are considered to threaten market competition or suggest remedies such as an obligation to divest part of the new business.

Speaking to the Financial Times, Microsoft’s Nadella was asked if Microsoft now has to convince regulators that it isn’t a tech platform to be wary of.

The exec argued that the games industry is highly fragmented, and claimed that even after its Activision Blizzard deal goes through, it would be the third-largest company by revenue, behind Tencent and Sony.

“At the end of the day, all the analysis here has to be done through a lens of what’s the category we’re talking about,” Nadella answered.

“And what about the market structure? Even post-this acquisition, we will be number three with sort of low teens [market] share, where even the highest player is also [in the] teens [for market] share.

“It shows how fragmented content creation platforms are. And so, that’s the fundamental category. Yes, we will be a big player in what is a highly fragmented place.

“Also, the analysis will have to extend to say ‘why are these content companies trying to become bigger?’ It’s because the place where the constraints really are is distribution.

“The only open distribution platform for any gaming content – guess what? – is Windows. The biggest store on Windows is Steam. It’s not ours. People can do any payment instrument, whereas all the other gaming distribution platforms are closed.

 

[Atlantico]

I like how Nadella presents this to the American regulators.

"Don't worry, we'll be number three after this acquisition, after the Japanese and the Chinese, hint hint".

 

[Ismaul]

The more you have, the more you have to lose. Their time will come, and it will be brutal.

No, they won't be losing a dime. But they'll lobby for you to lose your last shirt.

That's just foreplay man.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

I like how Nadella presents this to the American regulators.

"Don't worry, we'll be number three after this acquisition, after the Japanese and the Chinese, hint hint".

average american probably trusts large japanese companies more than large american ones at this point tho

 

[Assisted Living Godzilla]

Sony Interactive hasn't been a Japanese company since a little into the PS4. They shifted from Japan with console sales not being what they once were their, and the western developed games being their biggest money makers. They even closed down Japan Studio last year. Sony Pictures is American too. This switch to being an American studio is also where all that weird censorship for Japanese games on the PS4 came from.

Tencent and NetEase are however two of the largest video game companies, and they're both Chinese. Not that this matters, Microsoft with Activision Blizzard isn't in danger of being a monopoly, there's still something like ten other major video game studios in the world after this merger; their combined revenue last year still seems to be quite a bit less than Sony's if the numbers I saw are right.

 

[Atlantico]

I like how Nadella presents this to the American regulators.

"Don't worry, we'll be number three after this acquisition, after the Japanese and the Chinese, hint hint".

average american probably trusts large japanese companies more than large american ones at this point tho

I agree and if average Americans could control their government, that would be a huge incline.

This is just some fluff to allow a regulatory commission to give their seal of approval for the acquisition.

 

[what am i doing]

But I find it hard to believe that Microsoft would think that being at the mercy of other companies is a good idea. Owning the platform costs money but is also a strategically important way to cut down dependencies. This is why Valve tries to promote Linux and also get a foothold on the hardware market.

Embrace, Extend, Extinguish. I wouldn't be surprised if Microsoft's idea is first to get themselves on board other manufacturers' consoles by bringing former exclusives as a gesture of good faith, maybe even ending the Xbox altogether, then gradually become a bigger and bigger part of these ecosystems with more and more features and seevices and software-exclusives (ie you can play the games on any platform but only through Microsoft's software) until they're an essential component and the other companies are actually at Microsoft's mercy despite owning the platforms. Sort of like they did to personal computing with Windows. Microsoft doesn't build personal computers or even PC hardware, yet they are almost totally dominant in personal computing, to the point that they can even coerce motherboard and CPU manufacturers into putting Microsoft backdoors into their hardware.

 

[vonAchdorf]

Microsoft wants to preempt regulation and promises to keep CoD on PS longer. They also promise an Open Store policy which welcomes all developers to their non Xbox stores (Xbox store may follow).

https://blogs.microsoft.com/on-the-issues/2022/02/09/open-app-store-principles-activision-blizzard/

Adapting ahead of regulation: a principled approach to app stores

Today we’re announcing a new set of Open App Store Principles that will apply to the Microsoft Store on Windows and to the next-generation marketplaces we will build for games. We have developed these principles in part to address Microsoft’s growing role and responsibility as we start the process of seeking regulatory approval in capitals around the world for our acquisition of Activision Blizzard. This regulatory process begins while many governments are also moving forward with new laws to promote competition in app markets and beyond. We want regulators and the public to know that as a company, Microsoft is committed to adapting to these new laws, and with these principles, we’re moving to do so.
...
But too much friction exists today between creators and gamers; app store policies and practices on mobile devices restrict what and how creators can offer games and what and how gamers can play them. Our large investment to acquire Activision Blizzard further strengthens our resolve to remove this friction on behalf of creators and gamers alike. We want to enable world-class content to reach every gamer more easily across every platform. We want to encourage more innovation and investment in content creation and fewer constraints on distribution. Put simply, the world needs open app markets, and this requires open app stores. The principles we’re announcing today reflect our commitment to this goal.
...

We also recognize that regulators may well have other important questions as they review our acquisition of Activision Blizzard. We’re committed to addressing every potential question, and we want to address publicly at the outset two such questions here.

First, some commentators have asked whether we will continue to make popular content like Activision’s Call of Duty available on competing platforms like Sony’s PlayStation. The obvious concern is that Microsoft could make this title available exclusively on the Xbox console, undermining opportunities for Sony PlayStation users.

To be clear, Microsoft will continue to make Call of Duty and other popular Activision Blizzard titles available on PlayStation through the term of any existing agreement with Activision. And we have committed to Sony that we will also make them available on PlayStation beyond the existing agreement and into the future so that Sony fans can continue to enjoy the games they love. We are also interested in taking similar steps to support Nintendo’s successful platform. We believe this is the right thing for the industry, for gamers and for our business.

 

[Alphard]

first quest in next WOW expansion: kill 15 unvaccinated and help 10 woman abort. 666K exp

 

[Assisted Living Godzilla]

Keeping Activision Blizzard titles available on PlayStation systems through the term of already existing agreements isn't a new thing, and it's not unexpected. This is the same reason Microsoft owned Bethesda games like Deathloop and Ghostwire: Tokyo are still timed PS5 console exclusives. Like there was no reason to assume whatever the Free-to-Play COD is wouldn't stay on PS4 and PS5, and if they'd made any deals for exclusive or first run deals on DLC with Sony that that would go away. And if they make some new free-to-play CoD multiplayer game, or Diablo 4 goes that way, or WoW comes to consoles...I'm sure those will show up on Sony systems too. But I wouldn't expect regular CoD games pass the point of previous agreements, or other regular games to not be Xbox and Game Pass exclusive.

 

[J1M]

It would be great if they turned Call of Duty into a PlayStation Game Pass Store.

"New CoD DLC: Diablo 4! $70 or $15/month"

 

[Morality Games]

Feels like the console war has become like a poker game where the player with the most chips is slowly bullying the others out of the game with aggressive bets.

Coming soon:

Microsoft buys Activision Blizzard Sony

 

[Angelo85]

Activision Blizzard says it’s facing difficulties attracting and retaining talent

Activision Blizzard says it’s facing difficulties attracting and retaining talent
Struggles are expected to be exacerbated by recent litigation and bad press

Activision Blizzard has said it’s having problems attracting new employees and keeping hold of existing ones due to various factors.

In its annual report (via Axios), the Call of Duty, World of Warcraft and Candy Crush publisher cited labour shortages, growing competition for talent, and increasing attrition as factors related to its current recruitment struggles.

Activision Blizzard is also currently facing multiple regulatory investigations over its handling of alleged sexual assaults, discrimination and harassment of female employees.

And in its annual report, the company said its recruitment problems are likely to be exacerbated by ongoing litigation and bad press.

“We are experiencing increased difficulty in attracting and retaining skilled personnel,” it wrote. “For example, we observed a significantly higher turnover rate of our human resources function in 2021.

“Additionally, recent litigation involving the Company relating to workplace and employee concerns… and related media attention can be expected to have an adverse effect on our ability to attract and retain employees and has resulted in work stoppages.”

In November, a Wall Street Journal report alleged that Activision Blizzard CEO Bobby Kotick was aware of multiple sexual misconduct allegations at the company.

In a statement at the time, a company spokesperson said Kotick “would not have been informed of every report of misconduct at every Activision Blizzard company, nor would he reasonably be expected to have been updated on all personnel issues”.

Kotick was also accused of mistreating several female employees, including leaving a voicemail in 2006 in which he threatened to have an assistant killed.

An Activision spokesperson said of the accusation: “Mr. Kotick quickly apologized 16 years ago for the obviously hyperbolic and inappropriate voice mail, and he deeply regrets the exaggeration and tone in his voicemail to this day.”

The Activision Blizzard board also released a statement at the time saying it remained confident in Kotick’s leadership.

Xbox owner Microsoft announced in January that it intends to acquire Activision Blizzard in a $68.7 billion deal – the game industry’s biggest ever by some distance.

A recent regulatory filing revealed Microsoft started acquisition talks with Activision Blizzard just days after the publication of the aforementioned Wall Street Journal report.

 

[Angelo85]

US regulators are investigating possible insider trading in Activision Microsoft deal

US regulators are investigating possible insider trading in Activision Microsoft deal
Shareholders could make $60 million on shares bought days before merger plans were revealed

Three men who bought shares in Activision Blizzard days before its acquisition by Microsoft was announced are reportedly being investigated for alleged insider trading.

The Wall Street Journal reports that Barry Diller, Alexander von Furstenberg and David Geffen all purchased shares in the company on January 14, four days before the acquisition deal was revealed.

According to the report, the trio purchased shares at $40 each in privately arranged transactions (they were trading at around $63 at the time). Days later, the announcement was made that Microsoft planned to buy Activision Blizzard at a price of $80 per share, effectively doubling the men’s investment.

If the acquisition is completed, the three stand to make a profit of around $60 million, but according to the WSJ’s sources the Justice Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission are investigating whether insider trading laws were broken.

The WSJ claims that all three men were connected in some way, and that through this connection they had access to Activision Blizzard CEO Bobby Kotick.

Diller, who previously served on the Coca-Cola board of directors with Kotick, has described Activision‘s boss as “a long time friend”. Von Furstenberg is Diller’s stepson.

Geffen is also a long-time friend of Diller – the pair are described by the WSJ as “entertainment-industry moguls who once worked together in the mail room at the William Morris agency” – and once told Forbes that “I’ve never seen [Diller] be anything but successful, to bet against him would be a fool’s errand”.

Despite the investigation and the apparent links to Kotick, Diller told the WSJ that the trio had no insider information about the Microsoft acquisition.

“It was simply a lucky bet,” he claimed. “We acted on no information of any kind from anyone. It is one of those coincidences.”

 

[J1M]

Activision Blizzard says it’s facing difficulties attracting and retaining talent

Activision Blizzard says it’s facing difficulties attracting and retaining talent
Struggles are expected to be exacerbated by recent litigation and bad press

Activision Blizzard has said it’s having problems attracting new employees and keeping hold of existing ones due to various factors.

In its annual report (via Axios), the Call of Duty, World of Warcraft and Candy Crush publisher cited labour shortages, growing competition for talent, and increasing attrition as factors related to its current recruitment struggles.

Activision Blizzard is also currently facing multiple regulatory investigations over its handling of alleged sexual assaults, discrimination and harassment of female employees.

And in its annual report, the company said its recruitment problems are likely to be exacerbated by ongoing litigation and bad press.

“We are experiencing increased difficulty in attracting and retaining skilled personnel,” it wrote. “For example, we observed a significantly higher turnover rate of our human resources function in 2021.

“Additionally, recent litigation involving the Company relating to workplace and employee concerns… and related media attention can be expected to have an adverse effect on our ability to attract and retain employees and has resulted in work stoppages.”

In November, a Wall Street Journal report alleged that Activision Blizzard CEO Bobby Kotick was aware of multiple sexual misconduct allegations at the company.

In a statement at the time, a company spokesperson said Kotick “would not have been informed of every report of misconduct at every Activision Blizzard company, nor would he reasonably be expected to have been updated on all personnel issues”.

Kotick was also accused of mistreating several female employees, including leaving a voicemail in 2006 in which he threatened to have an assistant killed.

An Activision spokesperson said of the accusation: “Mr. Kotick quickly apologized 16 years ago for the obviously hyperbolic and inappropriate voice mail, and he deeply regrets the exaggeration and tone in his voicemail to this day.”

The Activision Blizzard board also released a statement at the time saying it remained confident in Kotick’s leadership.

Xbox owner Microsoft announced in January that it intends to acquire Activision Blizzard in a $68.7 billion deal – the game industry’s biggest ever by some distance.

A recent regulatory filing revealed Microsoft started acquisition talks with Activision Blizzard just days after the publication of the aforementioned Wall Street Journal report.

Skilled personnel. Human resources. Does not compute.

They've had talent issues for a decade. Look at how many severely delayed or botched projects they have. They are only whining to the press today because all of their recruiters quit now that there aren't hundreds of people clamoring for every open position.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

Tldr we demand more h1bs

 

[Infinitron]

https://www.videogameschronicle.com...tivision-blizzard-acquisition-is-moving-fast/

Microsoft says the Activision Blizzard acquisition is ‘moving fast’
THE XBOX OWNER INTENDS TO PURCHASE THE CALL OF DUTY PUBLISHER FOR CLOSE TO $69 BILLION

Microsoft president Brad Smith has claimed the company’s proposed acquisition of Activision Blizzard is proceeding relatively quickly.

It was announced in January that the Xbox owner intends to purchase Activision Blizzard in a $68.7 billion deal – the game industry’s biggest ever by some distance.

Microsoft said at the time that it hoped to complete the deal in the first half of 2023, subject to closing conditions and the completion of a regulatory review.

The US Federal Trade Commission is handling an antitrust review of the deal to determine whether the takeover would give Xbox an unfair competitive advantage.

And in a new interview with Belgian business publication L’Echo, Smith said Microsoft has also received requests for information on the deal from European and UK competition regulators.

He also said suggested the acquisition process was now entering its middle phase.

“It’s moving fast, at least fast enough for an acquisition of this size,” said Smith. “We have received requests for information on this subject here in Brussels, but also in London and Washington. We answer questions, we give briefings and we provide the information requested.

“One of our attorneys summed it up nicely by saying, ‘We’re coming to the end of the beginning and now we’re entering the beginning of the middle.’

“It’s a long process and we’re still at the stage where we’re answering questions. For us, of course, the sooner it is done the better, but we will respect the process.”

Microsoft’s proposed merger with Activision Blizzard would give the Xbox maker exclusive ownership of franchises including Call of Duty, Warcraft, Overwatch, Crash Bandicoot and Candy Crush.

Should it gain regulatory approval, Microsoft has said it will continue to release Activision Blizzard games, including Call of Duty titles, for PlayStation consoles following the acquisition and beyond existing contractual agreements, and that it wants to make more of the publisher’s games available to Nintendo players too.

 

[SumDrunkGuy]

Should it gain regulatory approval, Microsoft has said it will continue to release Activision Blizzard games, including Call of Duty titles, for PlayStation consoles following the acquisition and beyond existing contractual agreements, and that it wants to make more of the publisher’s games available to Nintendo players too.

That's a bald-faced lie. How would they benefit from that in any way?

 

[copebot]

One big factor driving corporate consolidation is the massive decline in technological advancement in gaming in general and graphics technology in particular. This makes the back catalog, which is also more accessible than ever before, a lot more attractive to both developers and customers. Add in diversity hiring leading to a total lack of dynamism, originality, and innovation in design, and you have a recipe for an industry that just produces re-re-makes endlessly, having lost even the capacity to produce endless arrays of sequels that each surpass the predecessor by small increments.

I mostly watch movies produced before 2000, and I expect that in the future I will mostly stick with games from the '90s to the 2010s in the future, with occasional purchases of new games. There just isn't much going on in the industry, and it can't be that attractive to the suits to employ zillions of expensive devs to produce bomb after bomb when they could just milk the pure profit of the back catalog and licensing that back catalog to others.