Microsoft buys Activision Blizzard

[Infinitron]

 

[Abu Antar]

More games to more gamers... by making them exclusive?

 

[Atlantico]

More games to more gamers... by making them exclusive?

Microsoft has no interest in making these games exclusive to Xbox and Windows.

They want Activision's mobile game division. That's the future of gaming.

 

[Mise]

More games to more gamers... by making them exclusive?

Microsoft has no interest in making these games exclusive to Xbox and Windows.

They want Activision's mobile game division. That's the future of gaming.

Not really. You don't pay $70 bilion for mobile games. Previous Microsoft acquisitions were: InXile, Obsidian, Bethesda, State of Decay's developer etc. In fact I don't know if they acquired any high profile mobile developer at all. They clearly have big plans with Gamers Pass.

 

[Atlantico]

More games to more gamers... by making them exclusive?

Microsoft has no interest in making these games exclusive to Xbox and Windows.

They want Activision's mobile game division. That's the future of gaming.

Not really. You don't pay $70 bilion for mobile games. Previous Microsoft acquisitions were: InXile, Obsidian, Bethesda, State of Decay's developer etc. In fact I don't know if they acquired any high profile mobile developer at all. They clearly have big plans with Gamers Pass.

lmao you clearly have no clue how much money there is in mobile games.

PC and console games are worth less than mobile

 

[Assisted Living Godzilla]

To make more games to fill out Game Pass. Warzone already shifted the formula anyways. Now they can sit on the free-to-play Call of Duty which generates them millions every day (which is why Call of Duty was never in danger of leaving PlayStation) while releasing one big CoD from Infinity Ward

To me, paying premium for a company built to pump out a product, with a proven track record and great results, in order to make it do something else doesn't make much sense. But what do I know...

They would still be pumping out the ones that make the most money.

With or without Microsoft, Activision probably would’ve started moving away from a new Call of Duty every year because of Warzone. You don’t need three or four (or five) studios making one yearly release, especially if they start bombing like Vanguard did, if you’ve got a Call of Duty set up like a platform like Warzone (now Warzone 2.0) that brings in something like $5 million a day. Look at something like GTA post-GTA Online. Online is a cash cow, and that cash cow completely killed the rate at which they put out new games. You don’t need to spend all that money to put out a new package once a year if you’ve got a release continuously brings in over a billion dollars.

Microsoft also owns a bunch of other FPS franchises now. They might want to put one of the non Infinity Ward and Treyarch CoD studios on Halo. They were seemingly teasing a new Hexen and now they own Hexen developer Raven...and yes many of their old developers still work there.

Xbox Game Pass, like all streaming services, is about the amount of content it has that can keep customers hooked so they keep paying that subscription fee. One studio with three or four support studios focused on making one game isn’t exactly the best thing for them with Game Pass, and Game Pass makes more than any single CoD.

Let’s use Call of Duty: Vanguard as an example. Vanguard did not meet sales expectations. Vanguard was developed by Sledgehammer Games; but it was also developed by Treyarch, Beenox, Demonware, High Moon Studios, Activision Shanghai Studio, Toys for Bob, Sumo Digital, and Raven Software. Now would it make more sense to have that many studios make one game that bombs, or would it make more sense to have even half of them each make their own games that feed into Xbox Game Pass...which in 2021 (on consoles only) made $2.9 billion? I’d also assume that number has gone up quite a bit since 2021, since in 2022 Game Pass users were up. It’s not even a totally different concept, it’s just the thing they’re feeding into is Game Pass (with their own games, which in turn could generate their own paid DLC) as opposed to the one underperforming CoD.

But a yearly high budget COD would keep milions of people on Gamers Pass(supposedly if things continue like this), one bomb in a couple of years doesn't change anything. Take it from Netflix/HBO as they are the oldest in this. Sure the rare mid-budget hit happens(Squid Game) but things like Stranger Things and House of Cards were sure hits. Netflix wouldn't had 100 milions users if all their shows were mid-budget ones. HBO was gaining subscribers with GOT, Sopranos etc. High budget shows are loss leaders, aka you get hooked with the high budget ones and then stay long enough in the months of the year where there is no high budget entertainment. It will be the same here.

Call of Duty is too big to waste on Game Pass. Warzone makes over a billion a year, and that remake of Modern Warfare 2 made over a billion. Call of Duty would bring people in, but it wouldn’t bring in enough people to offset what they’d lose by just being a Game Pass title, even if the Game Pass ones were just the retail games since there’s really no reason for a free-to-play game to go Game Pass. You want to keep people hooked on a subscription service, having lots of things is better than just having one big thing. At the moment Raven Software, Beenox, and High Moon Studio only work as CoD support studios. Toys for Bob works as a support studio too, but they also still get to make their own Crash games. Radical Entertainment is still around as well, they were a support studio on Destiny, but I’m not sure how much of the old people are still there. (There’s also Vicarious Visions, who had started acting as this remake studio before getting shuffled in Blizzard, and also worked on Destiny 2 with Bungie) Having those studios each making their own thing if they’re still in a position to do so would be better for Xbox Game Pass than all of them working on one thing. Having like four different games releasing apart from each other has a greater chance of keeping those users that add up to something like $4 billion a year for Xbox Game Pass hook. And look, if next year Microsoft came out and said Raven Software is making a new Hexen which will be a day one release on Xbox Game Pass that’d be news that would have lots of buzz. That’s the kind of thing that could drive (or keep) Game Pass sales (even if a retail Hexen would even kind of hit CoD sales) and also be done for less money than a Call of Duty game...which Infinity Ward and Treyarch would still be making anyways.


One bomb could have them thinking: Maybe we don’t also need the one new game every year on top of Warzone. Warzone is a new wrinkle in their yearly release cycle. If you’re feeding money into an ongoing free-to-play CoD thats bring in a billion something once a year, you may start seeing that you don’t also need a new retail game every year, especially after they aren’t all seeing a return. There would essentially still be a yearly Call of Duty, because Warzone is an ongoing title, so now we’re in a situation where they essentially have two Call of Duty games a year.

 

[Late Bloomer]

Activision Blizzard CEO Bobby Kotick Addresses Plans To Stick Around After Microsoft's Acquisition​

https://www.gamespot.com/articles/a...nd-after-microsofts-acquisition/1100-6516140/

Activision Blizzard CEO Bobby Kotick has indicated that he is willing to stay on after Microsoft's potential acquisition for whatever length of time he is needed. In an interview with CNBC, Bobby Kotick said, "I've committed to Microsoft for as long or as little as they need me for the integration."

Sounds like something he needs to say. I am thinking his golden parachute will shine brighter than the gaming industry has ever witnessed.

 

[lycanwarrior]

Hopefully he gets demoted to janitor.

 

[Pika-Cthulhu]

Im just gonna patiently wait for him to judo flip the script and oust spencer and begin his conquest of Microsoft

 

[Zed Duke of Banville]

One step closer to Bobby Kotick becoming the next CEO of Microsoft.

Activision Blizzard CEO Bobby Kotick Addresses Plans To Stick Around After Microsoft's Acquisition​

https://www.gamespot.com/articles/a...nd-after-microsofts-acquisition/1100-6516140/

Activision Blizzard CEO Bobby Kotick has indicated that he is willing to stay on after Microsoft's potential acquisition for whatever length of time he is needed. In an interview with CNBC, Bobby Kotick said, "I've committed to Microsoft for as long or as little as they need me for the integration."

Sounds like something he needs to say. I am thinking his golden parachute will shine brighter than the gaming industry has ever witnessed.

 

[Caim]

Activision Blizzard CEO Bobby Kotick Addresses Plans To Stick Around After Microsoft's Acquisition​

https://www.gamespot.com/articles/a...nd-after-microsofts-acquisition/1100-6516140/

Activision Blizzard CEO Bobby Kotick has indicated that he is willing to stay on after Microsoft's potential acquisition for whatever length of time he is needed. In an interview with CNBC, Bobby Kotick said, "I've committed to Microsoft for as long or as little as they need me for the integration."

Sounds like something he needs to say. I am thinking his golden parachute will shine brighter than the gaming industry has ever witnessed.

On an unrelated note, but Bobby was in the 2011 sports movie Moneyball, where he shared this scene with Brat Pitt of all people:

We are not going to compete with these teams that have big budgets. We're going to work within the constraints that we have, and you're gonna get out and do the best job that you can recruiting new players.

Fuckin' prophetic, that one.

 

[Atlantico]

Activision Blizzard CEO Bobby Kotick Addresses Plans To Stick Around After Microsoft's Acquisition​

https://www.gamespot.com/articles/a...nd-after-microsofts-acquisition/1100-6516140/

Activision Blizzard CEO Bobby Kotick has indicated that he is willing to stay on after Microsoft's potential acquisition for whatever length of time he is needed. In an interview with CNBC, Bobby Kotick said, "I've committed to Microsoft for as long or as little as they need me for the integration."

Sounds like something he needs to say. I am thinking his golden parachute will shine brighter than the gaming industry has ever witnessed.

No, this is corporate speak, Bobby is gone on day one after Microsoft has completed the acquisition.

"I've committed to Microsoft for as long or as little as they need me for the integration." — I'm amazed this requires translation.

 

[Infinitron]

https://www.eurogamer.net/microsoft...vision-blizzard-is-good-news-says-ubisoft-ceo

Microsoft's acquisition of Activision Blizzard is "good news", says Ubisoft CEO​

As it validates his own mobile strategy.

Ubisoft CEO Yves Guillemot has commented on Microsoft's takeover bid of Activision Blizzard, stating it validates Ubisoft's decision to expand into mobile gaming.

In the latest earnings call with investors, Guillemot was asked by an investor for his view on the merger and his decision for Ubisoft to remain independent while the industry consolidates.

"I think it's good news that the transaction can go through because it's really showing the power of IPs and where the industry is going. So, there will be lots of opportunities in the future for all the companies," Guillemot replied.

"It's also showing the value of IPs that can be now on console and PC, but also mobile, and become more worldwide brands - and when we say worldwide it's really everywhere in the world - and that's a fantastic opportunity."

He continued: "Microsoft is saying that the mobile part of the Activision deal is important, so all the investment we are making to be stronger on mobile is also in line with that, so all those elements will help the value of the company to grow."

Earlier in the call - and in the earnings report - Ubisoft's Q1 results were revealed, showing a nine percent decrease in net sales year-on-year. However, 10 games are due for release this fiscal year, of which Rainbow Six Mobile is one.

Another major mobile release will be Assassin's Creed: Codename Jade, which begins its first closed beta on 3rd August this year. It's a full open world Assassin's Creed game set in China and will be published by Level Infinite, a subsidiary of Tencent.

While much of Microsoft's Activision Blizzard deal has focused on Call of Duty, Xbox boss Phil Spencer claimed the deal is a key element in Microsoft's move towards mobile games - not to mention the inclusion of Candy Crush publisher King.

Indeed, Microsoft is planning to launch its own app store in the near future.

The fact the deal is on the verge of going through bolsters Guillemot's strategy for Ubisoft.

 

[Tehdagah]

It has begun

https://gamejobs.co/Manager-Corpora...egration-and-Acceleration-at-Sony-Playstation

 

[Infinitron]

https://www.eurogamer.net/microsoft-urges-uk-regulator-to-reverse-block-of-activision-blizzard-deal

Microsoft urges UK regulator to reverse block of Activision Blizzard deal​

"The CMA should not adopt the draft order prohibiting the merger."

Microsoft has submitted a material changes of circumstances document to the UK's regulator which stands opposed to its $68.7bn Activision Blizzard acquisition, urging it to drop its block of the deal.

The UK's Competition and Markets Authority previously ruled that the deal would not be allowed to go ahead back in April, citing concerns on Microsoft's current, and potentially future, dominance in cloud gaming.

Despite that setback, Microsoft has continued to sign deals with other companies and took on the US Federal Trade Commission in court (and won), leaving the UK's stance to the deal looking increasingly isolated. And it's these fresh commitments, Microsoft says, which should now be considered by the CMA. Had the CMA made its original decision with these in mind, Microsoft now says, the CMA would have ruled differently.

Microsoft cited its 10-year agreement with cloud gaming platform Nware, which was signed just days after the CMA's decision. Microsoft claimed the CMA was unable to "take into account" its deal with Nware, as well as other cloud agreements with Nvidia, Boosteroid, and Ubitus, which it noted were accepted by the EU's investigation of the acquisition.

Likewise, its new agreement with Sony to keep Call of Duty on PlayStation was also signed in July, after the CMA's decision, and Microsoft claimed it "ensures that perhaps the most powerful player in the video games industry will have access in the long term to the Activision game it considers most important" for the next 10 years.

These points, along with analysis which has been made available thanks to the FTC's court case, are proof that the CMA's decision "undermines" its proposal to acquire Activision Blizzard, Microsoft argues.

Currently, Microsoft and Activision Blizzard have extended their deadline to 18th October, leaving the two companies with just under three months to wrap up the acquisition. Whilst Microsoft has submitted this material changes of circumstances document calling for the CMA to drop its case or reverse its initial decision, it's also in the midst of submitting a revised proposal to the CMA. The CMA must give its final decision by 29th August, though it has stated it "aims to discharge its duty as soon as possible and in advance of this date".

 

[deuxhero]

It has begun

https://gamejobs.co/Manager-Corpora...egration-and-Acceleration-at-Sony-Playstation

Acceleration of what? The collapse of AAA and consoles?

 

[toughasnails]

There is a form of competitive, hostile potlatch in tribal cultures where one chieftain sacrifices/destroys fair share of his wealth in celebration, gifting, whatever in order to bait his less wealthy competitor into following him as he is indeed obliged to. So yeah, they are "accelerating" alright.

 

[Infinitron]

https://www.eurogamer.net/microsoft...vision-blizzard-is-good-news-says-ubisoft-ceo

Microsoft's acquisition of Activision Blizzard is "good news", says Ubisoft CEO​

As it validates his own mobile strategy.

Ubisoft CEO Yves Guillemot has commented on Microsoft's takeover bid of Activision Blizzard, stating it validates Ubisoft's decision to expand into mobile gaming.

In the latest earnings call with investors, Guillemot was asked by an investor for his view on the merger and his decision for Ubisoft to remain independent while the industry consolidates.

"I think it's good news that the transaction can go through because it's really showing the power of IPs and where the industry is going. So, there will be lots of opportunities in the future for all the companies," Guillemot replied.

"It's also showing the value of IPs that can be now on console and PC, but also mobile, and become more worldwide brands - and when we say worldwide it's really everywhere in the world - and that's a fantastic opportunity."

He continued: "Microsoft is saying that the mobile part of the Activision deal is important, so all the investment we are making to be stronger on mobile is also in line with that, so all those elements will help the value of the company to grow."

Earlier in the call - and in the earnings report - Ubisoft's Q1 results were revealed, showing a nine percent decrease in net sales year-on-year. However, 10 games are due for release this fiscal year, of which Rainbow Six Mobile is one.

Another major mobile release will be Assassin's Creed: Codename Jade, which begins its first closed beta on 3rd August this year. It's a full open world Assassin's Creed game set in China and will be published by Level Infinite, a subsidiary of Tencent.

While much of Microsoft's Activision Blizzard deal has focused on Call of Duty, Xbox boss Phil Spencer claimed the deal is a key element in Microsoft's move towards mobile games - not to mention the inclusion of Candy Crush publisher King.

Indeed, Microsoft is planning to launch its own app store in the near future.

The fact the deal is on the verge of going through bolsters Guillemot's strategy for Ubisoft.

https://www.eurogamer.net/microsoft-will-sell-activision-blizzard-streaming-rights-to-ubisoft

Microsoft will sell Activision Blizzard streaming rights to Ubisoft​

In order to get $68.7bn deal done.

Microsoft has agreed to sell the streaming rights for Activision Blizzard games to Ubisoft if completes its $68.7bn takeover of the Call of Duty publisher.

The move is a major change to Microsoft's plans, but one it clearly feels is necessary to get the deal approved by hesitant UK regulators.

If the deal is now approved, streaming rights for all new Activision Blizzard PC and console games released over the next 15 years will be given to Ubisoft - with those rights then existing in perpetuity.

In other words, if Microsoft owns Activision then the next 15 years of Call of Duty games will forever be streamable via Ubisoft's cloud services.

Microsoft president Brad Smith states that this change means Microsoft won't control the "exclusive" rights to stream Activision Blizzard games.

"Under the restructured transaction, Microsoft will not be in a position either to release Activision Blizzard games exclusively on its own cloud streaming service - Xbox Cloud Gaming - or to exclusively control the licensing terms of Activision Blizzard games for rival services," Smith wrote today in a blog post setting out the change.

Ubisoft will be able to license the games to a range of other cloud gaming and subscription services, and pay Microsoft for the rights to each title via a "one-off payment" and "an option that supports pricing based on usage".

Microsoft's growth and perceived dominance in the game-streaming market proved to be the sticking point in its earlier attempt to get the UK's Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) to approve the deal.

Back in April, the CMA dramatically blocked the deal from progressing further by saying Microsoft's ownership of Activision Blizzard risked "stifling competition in this growing market" - of cloud gaming.

So, where does this leave the deal in general? The CMA has now reacted to this development and said Microsoft's old deal is now definitely dead, and this new arrangement has been submitted for a fresh investigation - with a deadline of 18th October.

"The CMA has today confirmed that Microsoft's acquisition of Activision, as originally proposed, cannot proceed," CMA boss Sarah Cardell said in a statement today.

"Separately, Microsoft has notified a new and restructured deal, which is substantially different from what was put on the table previously. As part of this new deal, Activision's cloud streaming rights outside of the EEA will be sold to a rival, Ubisoft, who will be able to license out Activision's content to any cloud gaming provider. This will allow gamers to access Activision’s games in different ways, including through cloud-based multigame subscription services. We will now consider this deal under a new Phase 1 investigation.

"This is not a green light," Cardell continued. "We will carefully and objectively assess the details of the restructured deal and its impact on competition, including in light of third-party comments. Our goal has not changed – any future decision on this new deal will ensure that the growing cloud gaming market continues to benefit from open and effective competition driving innovation and choice."

"This latest development is perhaps not quite what many had expected when the CMA agreed a pause in Microsoft/Activision's appeal of the CMA's decision to block the transaction," Alex Haffner, competition partner at UK law firm Fladgate commented in a statement to Eurogamer.

"Rather than use Microsoft's new offer of a divestment of cloud gaming rights to a competitor to clear the original deal, the CMA has instead rubber stamped that original decision and opened a new investigation into the deal in its revised form. Theoretically this leaves the merging parties open to the prospect of another lengthy drawn out process to deal with competition concerns raised. In reality, however, it is hard to believe Microsoft would have taken this new course without a high degree of confidence it will now in due course (finally) get a regulatory green light from the CMA."

 

[Atlantico]

How many ways and how many times do normies have to hear that Microsoft did not buy Activision for their CoD franchise or any franchise for that matter.

More than half of Activision profits come from mobile gaming. That one segment is larger than both PC and console together.

This is like Mac users pretending Apple gave a damn about the Mac in 2010 when iPhone sales were more than half of Apple's profits.

Microsoft will give away Call of Duty and/or any other franchise they need to buy Activision.

 

[abija]

The gaming publisher now earns more from mobile than consoles or PC. Mobile grossed $943 million (43%) in revenue for the quarter, compared to $594 million (27%) for PC and $556 million (25%) for consoles. Other accounted for $114 million (5%) of the total revenue.

Apple gave enough of a fuck to develop chips because they didn't like the deals they got from intel/amd.

Are you seriously trying to argue that activision mobile (or apple iphones) being close to 50% means the the rest of those immense businesses are ignorable?

 

[RaggleFraggle]

Oh my god, will they just cut the damn knot already?

 

[Atlantico]

Are you seriously trying to argue that activision mobile (or apple iphones) being close to 50% means the the rest of those immense businesses are ignorable?

That's exactly the argument Mac users had in 2010.

 

[abija]

I'm sure all cod players would enjoy being ignored like that.

 

[Atlantico]

I'm sure all cod players would enjoy being ignored like that.

Ok. who cares? It's simply the trend, mobile gaming is growing faster than any other segment and Microsoft wants in on that.

What cod players think is simply immaterial. Maybe they can play the mobile version.

 

[abija]

You REALLY think Microsoft will buy Activision and stop all the big non mobile franchises (or release them mobile only) because they want in on the mobile trend?