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

[rgraves]

It's only unfair if you don't worry about the fact that MS have had to shell out $69BN for it - they are not getting it on GP for free. Is it not currently 'unfair' then that Sony pay for exclusive content following that logic? Are MS not at a disadvantage as Sony have CoD content locked up in exclusivity contracts? Why is one OK, but the other a competition concern that needs to be stopped?

 

And I think MS have done the math to work out what's viable - if GP was not viable as a setup, they'd not be going down that path. Sony have gone one way, MS have gone the other - I think it's far too early to really know which is going to come out on top long term. It is telling that Sony have dipped their toe in that water though and want to make sure it's part of their ecosystem if it's needed.

[rgraves]

2 minutes ago, MidWalian said:

What even were the first-party exclusives for the series s/x launch? 

 

Erm....Gears of War Tactics? Think virtually everything else was cross-platform?

[MidWalian]

31 minutes ago, rgraves said:

 

Erm....Gears of War Tactics? Think virtually everything else was cross-platform?

 

Crikey. This is why other platform holders concentrate on getting system sellers out there. The argument about systems sales without them seems a bit daft to me. They have loads of studios already. I think they will have a good year this year though. Hi-Fi Rush is great.

[Ferine]

1 hour ago, rgraves said:

It's only unfair if you don't worry about the fact that MS have had to shell out $69BN for it - they are not getting it on GP for free. Is it not currently 'unfair' then that Sony pay for exclusive content following that logic? Are MS not at a disadvantage as Sony have CoD content locked up in exclusivity contracts? Why is one OK, but the other a competition concern that needs to be stopped?

Microsoft can, and have, paid for CoD marketing and exclusivity deals; they did so throughout the 360 generation and the start of the next. Conversely, no one else in gaming can afford to fork out $69 billion for ABK.

[Stanley]

1 hour ago, rgraves said:

It's only unfair if you don't worry about the fact that MS have had to shell out $69BN for it - they are not getting it on GP for free. Is it not currently 'unfair' then that Sony pay for exclusive content following that logic? Are MS not at a disadvantage as Sony have CoD content locked up in exclusivity contracts? Why is one OK, but the other a competition concern that needs to be stopped?

 

And I think MS have done the math to work out what's viable - if GP was not viable as a setup, they'd not be going down that path. Sony have gone one way, MS have gone the other - I think it's far too early to really know which is going to come out on top long term. It is telling that Sony have dipped their toe in that water though and want to make sure it's part of their ecosystem if it's needed.

I didn’t use the word ‘unfair’ (sorry I did in my previous post in the context of ‘unfair advantage’ my mistake)
 

The only disadvantage I see for MS is that they are incapable of getting games out n the first place that would compete with Sony’s output. It’s easy to say, well they’re doing it their way and Sony are doing it another - GP would not be financially viable for Sony, and as recent earnings have shown, it’s not for MS either. Despite Game Pass subscribers going up, revenue is coming down. 

[rgraves]

31 minutes ago, Ferine said:

Conversely, no one else in gaming can afford to fork out $69 billion for ABK.

 

No one? So not Tencent? Not Google? Not Amazon? Not Apple? There are other companies out there that could, if they wanted to....

 

The money is a side issue though really - if everyone was happy with Sony picking up Haven and Bluepoint and Housemarque and Bungie etc I don't see the difference conceptually - you're either OK with platform holders buying up studios for content on their own systems (and I am personally as long as it's not particularly hostile) or you are not - I don't see how it's possible or reasonable to pick and choose as any of them could be the ones to land on the NBT or suffer as a result of a massive failure.

[rgraves]

23 minutes ago, Stanley said:

GP would not be financially viable for Sony, and as recent earnings have shown, it’s not for MS either. Despite Game Pass subscribers going up, revenue is coming down. 

 

Revenue coming down and something not being financially viable are two very different things though?

[Stanley]

Just now, rgraves said:

 

Revenue coming down and something not being financially viable are two very different things though?

No they are not, if it continues to fall despite subscriber numbers rising then the only conclusion is that it is too costly. 
 

To turn that around imagine it was Sony’s library on GP, and all the sales they’d lose as a result from the likes of Spider-man and God of War, Horizon etc, and then imagine if they had to spend a further $68 billion because they wanted COD on there too. Only a company of MS’ worth could afford that upfront, and it’s to be seen whether it’s a viable long term thing. 

[Giddas]

18 minutes ago, rgraves said:

 

No one? So not Tencent? Not Google? Not Amazon? Not Apple? There are other companies out there that could, if they wanted to....

 

The money is a side issue though really - if everyone was happy with Sony picking up Haven and Bluepoint and Housemarque and Bungie etc I don't see the difference conceptually - you're either OK with platform holders buying up studios for content on their own systems (and I am personally as long as it's not particularly hostile) or you are not - I don't see how it's possible or reasonable to pick and choose as any of them could be the ones to land on the NBT or suffer as a result of a massive failure.

 

Ah yes those notorious gaming giants Google, Amazon & Apple 

[K]

9 minutes ago, rgraves said:

 

No one? So not Tencent? Not Google? Not Amazon? Not Apple? There are other companies out there that could, if they wanted to....

 

The money is a side issue though really - if everyone was happy with Sony picking up Haven and Bluepoint and Housemarque and Bungie etc I don't see the difference conceptually - you're either OK with platform holders buying up studios for content on their own systems (and I am personally as long as it's not particularly hostile) or you are not - I don't see how it's possible or reasonable to pick and choose as any of them could be the ones to land on the NBT or suffer as a result of a massive failure.

 

There is an obvious and massive difference in scale and impact between buying a niche boutique developer like Housemarque or Bluepoint who have basically been Sony-only for about ten years anyway, or buying a relatively small independent developer-publisher like Bungie who mainly service the Destiny series, and buying out Activision-Blizzard. I always find these arguments to the effect that "aaaah, but Sony buys companies too, what about Bluepoint and Bungie, aaaah" to be disingenuous in the extreme. Nobody was that bothered when Microsoft bought out Ninja Theory or Double Fine, because that's hardly going to affect the videogame landscape in the future. Activision-Blizzard is much more likely to change things given the sheer size of the company, hence all the competition authorities getting involved.

[K]

Just now, Giddas said:

 

Ah yes those notorious gaming giants Google, Amazon & Apple 

 

What about Saudi-Aramco? They could buy Activision-Blizzard too! Why is nobody mentioning them?

[PaB]

Just now, K said:

 

There is an obvious and massive difference in scale and impact between buying a niche boutique developer like Housemarque or Bluepoint who have basically been Sony-only for about ten years anyway, or buying a relatively small independent developer-publisher like Bungie who mainly service the Destiny series, and buying out Activision-Blizzard. I always find these arguments to the effect that "aaaah, but Sony buys companies too, what about Bluepoint and Bungie, aaaah" to be disingenuous in the extreme. Nobody was that bothered when Microsoft bought out Ninja Theory or Double Fine, because that's hardly going to affect the videogame landscape in the future. Activision-Blizzard is much more likely to change things given the sheer size of the company, hence all the competition authorities getting involved.

I was going to say exactly this. But then I thought I can’t be arsed. 

 

I need to do some ironing later. I’ll pop it round. 
 

[thesnwmn]

3 minutes ago, Giddas said:

 

Ah yes those notorious gaming giants Google, Amazon & Apple 

 

Stadia, Luna and Arcade

 

Massive. Imagine how each would be the #1 platform if they had CoD.

[Giddas]

1 minute ago, thesnwmn said:

 

Stadia, Luna and Arcade

 

Massive. Imagine how each would be the #1 platform if they had CoD.

 

You can play Steam games in your Tesla now, don't rule Elon out of the bidding.

[Stanley]

4 minutes ago, K said:

 

There is an obvious and massive difference in scale and impact between buying a niche boutique developer like Housemarque or Bluepoint who have basically been Sony-only for about ten years anyway, or buying a relatively small independent developer-publisher like Bungie who mainly service the Destiny series, and buying out Activision-Blizzard. I always find these arguments to the effect that "aaaah, but Sony buys companies too, what about Bluepoint and Bungie, aaaah" to be disingenuous in the extreme. Nobody was that bothered when Microsoft bought out Ninja Theory or Double Fine, because that's hardly going to affect the videogame landscape in the future. Activision-Blizzard is much more likely to change things given the sheer size of the company, hence all the competition authorities getting involved.

Also if any of those companies did it then it would still be business as usual in as much as they’d be neutral when it comes to platform holders. 

[Stanley]

1 minute ago, Giddas said:

 

You can play Steam games in your Tesla now, don't rule Elon out of the bidding.

Or Valve! 

[thesnwmn]

Just now, Stanley said:

Or Valve! 

 

 

Valve don't make games. They just sell them.

[Stanley]

Just now, thesnwmn said:

 

 

Valve don't make games. They just sell them.

COD Steam Deck exclusive 

[rgraves]

5 minutes ago, K said:

 

There is an obvious and massive difference in scale and impact between buying a niche boutique developer like Housemarque or Bluepoint who have basically been Sony-only for about ten years anyway, or buying a relatively small independent developer-publisher like Bungie who mainly service the Destiny series, and buying out Activision-Blizzard.

 

I did say conceptually. At the lowest level it is a platform holder buying a studio to secure content for their platform (likely exclusively, but not always). Of course there is a difference in scale - but IMO that's all it is *scale*. Look at when MS purchased Mohjang - big deal that's turned out OK - no content lost to anyone I don't think. But that's jsut ignored in favor of wild theories that MS are going to rise to #1 off the back of this deal and suddenly screw everyone over while Phil laughs in front of a shelving unit stacked with AK47s.

 

As a *consumer* what's the actual downside to the deal going through? I mean tangible, actual, likely downsides?

[rgraves]

11 minutes ago, Giddas said:

 

Ah yes those notorious gaming giants Google, Amazon & Apple 

 

They've all made some pretty big bets on gaming recently. None have worked out or made them major players - kind of backs up the argument that letting this deal go isn't some kind of guaranteed silver bullet for MS success right?

 

Basically, does *anyone* on here think that this deal going through would make MS #1 in the market? Anyone? And if not, what's the problem in terms of market competition?

[Alex W.]

Being number one isn’t a necessary or sufficient condition for an anticompetitive structure.

[rgraves]

25 minutes ago, Stanley said:

No they are not, if it continues to fall despite subscriber numbers rising then the only conclusion is that it is too costly. 

 

What? If a company costs £100 to run and makes £500 in year 1, but then only makes £400 in year 2 - are you suggesting that means it's no longer financially viable because it's revenue is down? They should shut up shop and go home because less profit is the same as no profit?

[LaveDisco]

I mean the key point in this discussion is not about Sony losing CoD and if they can cope. It’s about can they suffer that on top of loosing Bethesda, ID, Zenimax and everything else.

 

And by stuffer we simply mean ‘impacts fair competition’

[Stanley]

Just now, rgraves said:

 

What? If a company costs £100 to run and makes £500 in year 1, but then only makes £400 in year 2 - are you suggesting that means it's no longer financially viable because it's revenue is down? They should shut up shop and go home because less profit is the same as no profit?

Game Pass numbers are up, overall revenue is down, if that’s a trend that continues then surely you would conclude that Game Pass is the thing costing them too much? 

[rgraves]

1 minute ago, Alex W. said:

Being number one isn’t a necessary or sufficient condition for an anticompetitive structure.

 

No, it's a massive simplification of course - so how do we think this deal will make MS particularly dominant or powerful in the market exactly?

[Flanders]

9 minutes ago, rgraves said:

 

They've all made some pretty big bets on gaming recently. None have worked out or made them major players - kind of backs up the argument that letting this deal go isn't some kind of guaranteed silver bullet for MS success right?

 

Basically, does *anyone* on here think that this deal going through would make MS #1 in the market? Anyone? And if not, what's the problem in terms of market competition?

If it went through as MS would no doubt ideally have wanted it to, without having to give any concessions on COD at all? Yeah, I think it would make them #1 as soon as Xbox was the only console you could play it on.
 

COD, Fifa, GTA. Those are the needle movers. 
 

[K]

19 minutes ago, rgraves said:

 

I did say conceptually. At the lowest level it is a platform holder buying a studio to secure content for their platform (likely exclusively, but not always). Of course there is a difference in scale - but IMO that's all it is *scale*. Look at when MS purchased Mohjang - big deal that's turned out OK - no content lost to anyone I don't think. But that's jsut ignored in favor of wild theories that MS are going to rise to #1 off the back of this deal and suddenly screw everyone over while Phil laughs in front of a shelving unit stacked with AK47s.

 

As a *consumer* what's the actual downside to the deal going through? I mean tangible, actual, likely downsides?

 

Higher prices, worse service, less choice, less innovation, higher barriers to entry. The usual risks that might potentially arise from a dominant player who is in a position to engage in anticompetitive behaviour.

[PaB]

4 minutes ago, rgraves said:

 

No, it's a massive simplification of course - so how do we think this deal will make MS particularly dominant or powerful in the market exactly?

Why do you think MS want to spend $68bn on Activision Blizzard? 
 

I mean I think we can assume it’s not to buy them and keep everything as it is.
 

It’s a hugely inflated price for a company with a £8bn annual turnover and $2.5bn profit 

 

So I would guess they have a plan for this to make a return sooner than the start of the next century.

[Stanley]

7 minutes ago, rgraves said:

 

No, it's a massive simplification of course - so how do we think this deal will make MS particularly dominant or powerful in the market exactly?

The deal they end up will make them less dominant, but it’s not difficult to see why having a heavy hitter like COD on Game Pass would instantly make it more desirable to higher number of people with a risk for Sony that their sales and subscriber numbers would drop. 

[ilpostino]

1 minute ago, PaB said:

Why do you think MS want to spend $68bn on Activision Blizzard? 

 

So we can make a new Rock and Roll Racing?