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

[MidWalian]

8 minutes ago, rgraves said:

And the narrative isn't going the way they want - Eurogamer apparently seem to think that Sony are the ones who get to OK the deal - it's not the authorities oh no, MS need to get Sony on-board - it's Sony who get to decide:

 

https://www.eurogamer.net/without-sony-on-board-microsofts-dual-announcements-today-felt-like-a-sandwich-without-the-filling

 

 

 

Here's the clip of Brad Smith and that envelope.

 

 

[Bacon Horsemeat]

Microsoft are weird

[JPL]

1 hour ago, Giddas said:

 

Save us Microsoft!

It’s ridiculous, isn’t it?

 

Personally I think it’s good to have a bit of competition in the space and that pushes these corporations to fight for our money, which generally leads to better deals, cheaper prices and more choice. Anyone who wants Sony to continue their dominance mustn’t want that for some reason. Taking a bit of that strength away from them should be a good thing for all of us really.

 

To be honest though, I couldn’t give a fuck one way or another. I mean, I’d love Xbox to have a catalogue of games that fulfils the potential of their amazing hardware, but buying Activision to do that doesn’t interest me in the slightest.

 

All these genuine concerns for Sony make me laugh.

[LaveDisco]

I'll agree to this deal if they slice out Sekiro and give it back to From Software

[JPL]

1 hour ago, Strafe said:

No, he means that as MS are doing conferences and inviting the press they can send their story out to everyone and be on top of it. That’s controlling the narrative, especially when there isn’t (afaik) a Sony conference inviting press to tell them how bad they think the deal is.

Saying it like that makes it sound reasonable. Saying they’re controlling the narrative makes it sound like a press release from the Sony Defence Force.

 

As I said in my previous post, I don’t really know why anyone cares about this deal. Will it really make things worse?

[Strafe]

2 minutes ago, JPL said:

Saying it like that makes it sound reasonable. Saying they’re controlling the narrative makes it sound like a press release from the Sony Defence Force.

 

As I said in my previous post, I don’t really know why anyone cares about this deal. Will it really make things worse?

It’s very common vernacular, though. To me at least.

 

I think the problem is is that no one trusts MS as far as they can throw them. They made the mistake of saying that they had no plans to take Bethesda properties off other platforms and then that’s exactly what they did. I can’t imagine there being a CoD so good that I’d choose a console because of it but then that’s partly because I have Xbox and PlayStation so it wouldn’t bother me regardless. I can understand why Sony and die hard Playstation fans would be concerned, though.

 

They offered a 10 year deal, I’d think that would be more than enough time to make a better franchise.

[MidWalian]

8 minutes ago, JPL said:

Saying it like that makes it sound reasonable. Saying they’re controlling the narrative makes it sound like a press release from the Sony Defence Force.

 

I'm a very odd Sony Defence Force considering my gaming is mostly Xbox and Nintendo when it has first-party exclusives I enjoy. Nope, I don't own a PS5.

 

Some may be less upset when they just look into what "controlling the narrative" means and would be expected of big corporations who want something.

 

[thesnwmn]

1 minute ago, MidWalian said:

Some may be less upset when they just look into what "controlling the narrative" means and would be expected of big corporations who want something.

 

I think it's more the implication that it's wrong. That companies shouldn't be doing it. That it's "bad". Or unique to this situation.

 

It's called PR. It's simply them pushing their narrative. They will always present their case in the best way. It will always be a twisted rose tinted version. As with Sony's. There's no "control" here as far as I'm aware. No suppression of anyone else's message. They're all big boys, they can all throw roses at us and shit at each other.

[Alex W.]

1 hour ago, MidWalian said:

 

 

“And although the console is literally this fucking size, they still buy it. This isn’t a user base that will leave because of Call of Duty.”

[MidWalian]

33 minutes ago, thesnwmn said:

 

I think it's more the implication that it's wrong. That companies shouldn't be doing it. That it's "bad". Or unique to this situation.

 

 

I wasn't suggesting any of that. 

 

33 minutes ago, thesnwmn said:

 

It's called PR. It's simply them pushing their narrative. They will always present their case in the best way. It will always be a twisted rose tinted version. As with Sony's. There's no "control" here as far as I'm aware. No suppression of anyone else's message. They're all big boys, they can all throw roses at us and shit at each other.

 

That's a good definition of the term "controlling the narrative" to me, I would only add trying to set it before your opponent etc. The state of play event is not the same thing - that's just advertising products. I'm not suggesting Microsoft has magic mind rays.

[JPL]

43 minutes ago, MidWalian said:

 

I'm a very odd Sony Defence Force considering my gaming is mostly Xbox and Nintendo when it has first-party exclusives I enjoy. Nope, I don't own a PS5.

 

Some may be less upset when they just look into what "controlling the narrative" means and would be expected of big corporations who want something.

 

I’m not saying you are, it just came across as an odd turn of phrase, as though them holding a press conference to explain their position was wrong.

 

Console wars are a load of daft old bollocks to me, as I own every console I want, but this story seems to be bringing the concern trolls out of the woodwork.
 

Series S, Series X, PS4, PS5 and I’ve just picked up a new Switch in anticipation of the new Zelda, in case anyone gives a fuck.

[MidWalian]

[MW_Jimmy]

I find it very amusing that Microsoft are doing all these 10 year deals for Activision, pretending it couldn't possibly happen if they remained independent. Not a single positive argument anywhere for consolidation except the chattering of 'gamepass' and 'sony lol'.

 

If Microsoft really don't want to accept the potential disaggregation of COD, then I think this deal is toast.

[layten]

1 minute ago, MW_Jimmy said:

I find it very amusing that Microsoft are doing all these 10 year deals for Activision, pretending it couldn't possibly happen if they remained independent. Not a single positive argument anywhere for consolidation except the chattering of 'gamepass' and 'sony lol'.

 

If Microsoft really don't want to accept the potential disaggregation of COD, then I think this deal is toast.

All the Activision staff looking to unionise and no longer have to put up with the shit they do under the current management seem pretty positive about it. 

[JPL]

3 minutes ago, MidWalian said:

What’s wrong now?

 

I still find the word controlling odd. What are they trying to control? They’re just putting their side across, not stop anyone else expressing theirs.

 

Anyway, I’ve spent too much time on this nonsense now. I’ll pop back in every now and then to see how it’s progressing. 

[Wallace]

6 minutes ago, JPL said:

What’s wrong now?

 

I still find the word controlling odd. What are they trying to control? They’re just putting their side across, not stop anyone else expressing theirs.

 

Anyway, I’ve spent too much time on this nonsense now. I’ll pop back in every now and then to see how it’s progressing. 

 

Try googling the meaning of the phrase or something.

[JPL]

11 minutes ago, Wallace said:

 

Try googling the meaning of the phrase or something.

Nah. It’s already been explained. Nothing worth worrying about, is it?

[MW_Jimmy]

21 minutes ago, layten said:

All the Activision staff looking to unionise and no longer have to put up with the shit they do under the current management seem pretty positive about it. 

 

While this is obviously a great silver lining does feel like this isn't the best way to achieve this outcome.

[rgraves]

 

[mikeyl]

Lol Twitter from the Activision Union Buster Lulu Cheng, last famous for crying about the Last of Us TV series. You know she lists Elon Musk as an inspiration on her LinkedIn 

[K]

She's definitely been inspired by his criminally awkward and unfunny use of memes. It doesn’t even properly follow the format of that joke.  You can sort of imagine her dropping a dud zinger in a meeting and everyone politely chuckling away, like Sir Lord Sugar's captive audience in the Apprentice.

[Giddas]

18 hours ago, MW_Jimmy said:

 

While this is obviously a great silver lining does feel like this isn't the best way to achieve this outcome.

 

On the bright side when MS lay them off 2 years post acquisition they'll have union representation.

[gooner4life]

Sony don't want to accept 10 years of guaranteed COD if MS buy Activision, because they will probably only release one every 5 years or something, everything Microsoft touches in the gaming space is ruined, they spent 4.9billion dollars buying King an organisation that has 2000+ employees to make mobile games, and they have release less games than Insomniac Games have in the last 3 years.

 

Microsoft should just leave it to somebody else.

[Alex W.]

24 minutes ago, rgraves said:

 

That’s an impressive amount of bullshitting. It’s obvious to everyone that A/B and Microsoft need Sony to sign this agreement, to satisfy the regulators, but Sony doesn’t need anything from them in return. Sony gets the series even if they don’t sign, without needing to be bound by whatever terms A/B is imposing in the agreement.

 

(What’s A/B going to do if they don’t sign? Stop publishing on PlayStation in order to coerce them, immediately demonstrating the scenario Sony put to the regulators? Strategically, Sony’s in a strong position here, although obviously the whole thing is ludicrous.)

[Super Craig]

4 minutes ago, gooner4life said:

Sony don't want to accept 10 years of guaranteed COD if MS buy Activision, because they will probably only release one every 5 years or something, everything Microsoft touches in the gaming space is ruined, they spent 4.9billion dollars buying King an organisation that has 2000+ employees to make mobile games, and they have release less games than Insomniac Games have in the last 3 years.

 

Microsoft should just leave it to somebody else.

 

King is part of Activision Blizzard King is it not?

[Kevvy Metal]

10 years might seem like a long time, but COD's not really showing any sign of slowing down and thinking back 10 years ago, the COD released then was COD : Ghosts... which doesn't actually feel that long ago. 

[Kevvy Metal]

1 minute ago, Super Craig said:

 

King is part of Activision Blizzard King is it not?

 

Also King's games are live service games. It like saying Bungie are shit and lazy because they've only made two games in the last 10 years, and they're both Destiny. 

[layten]

6 minutes ago, Alex W. said:

It’s obvious to everyone that A/B and Microsoft need Sony to sign this agreement, to satisfy the regulators

I don't they they need Sony to sign, but Sony cannot keep stating that MS are going to immediately pull the rug out from under them when the offer of a legally binding contract is on the table. They may not like it, but the industry is not there to suit Sony, as much as they and large portions of the gaming press seem to think.

[gone fishin]

21 hours ago, MidWalian said:

 

What fucking year is this? It’s like the guy is dressed up to do a presentation on the launch of Windows XP.

 

We just need Steve Balmer screaming “Developers, Developers, Developers”.

 

I suppose Microsoft are desperate to show that they’ll turn the fun games industry into a boring corporate PowerPoint bullshit. 

 

[Alex W.]

4 minutes ago, layten said:

I don't they they need Sony to sign, but Sony cannot keep stating that MS are going to immediately pull the rug out from under them when the offer of a legally binding contract is on the table.

I don’t think Sony are really saying anything about “immediately pulling the rug” on them. Regardless, the existence of the contract itself is a tacit acknowledgement that A/B’s acquisition will fundamentally change the game. They can simply object to the terms for whatever dumb reason and so long as it doesn’t become public they come out looking like a neutral party tangled up in Microsoft’s empire-building. If there are valid reasons not to sign - parity clauses, for instance - then it plays more strongly in their favour.

 

Saying that they are carrying around a copy of the letter and pulling it out at a press conference where they’re handing out agreements to other publishers makes it easy to read as a disingenuous offer. It’s pragmatic, but for once I think Sony actually have the upper hand in framing this by virtue of keeping their mouths shut.