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

[Gabe]

I'm clearly not articulating this very well 

 

What I'm saying is that, yes, MS could of course have it for sale and also stick it on GP. I'm wondering if sticking it on GP will cannabalise sales they might otherwise have got in doing so. Because whilst having GP subs is their aim, if somebody subs, burns through the game in a month and doesn't stick around beyond that, then that is a net loss in revenue.

 

I would be one of those people - no interest in buying it, but would co-op it on GP for a month or two with a friend who loves the franchise, and then I'd be done.

 

Whereas if they held it back for a bit, more might buy it now (or certainly not fewer) and then, down the line when sales slow (or perhaps some DLC is out) they could launch on GP and get a better bump in subs then, without having lost that initial retail income.

 

That position would make even more sense when you think of how many current subscribers will want play it (so no net increase in subs) but currently will have to buy it - they wouldn't get that if it went GP anytime soon, and I doubt the lost sales would be made up for in subs revenue.

[Uncle Mike]

Game Pass is the strategy they're going for. When the deal goes through, I'd basically expect everything ABK do to be on Game Pass more or less instantly.

[Super Craig]

If they’re going to put Call of Duty on Game Pass then they’re going to put everything on it.

[Uzi]

1 minute ago, Uncle Mike said:

Game Pass is the strategy they're going for. When the deal goes through, I'd basically expect everything ABK do to be on Game Pass more or less instantly.

 

Now it won't. This is fun.

[Mr. Gerbik]

25 minutes ago, Gabe said:

I'm clearly not articulating this very well 

 

What I'm saying is that, yes, MS could of course have it for sale and also stick it on GP. I'm wondering if sticking it on GP will cannabalise sales they might otherwise have got in doing so. Because whilst having GP subs is their aim, if somebody subs, burns through the game in a month and doesn't stick around beyond that, then that is a net loss in revenue.

 

I would be one of those people - no interest in buying it, but would co-op it on GP for a month or two with a friend who loves the franchise, and then I'd be done.

 

Whereas if they held it back for a bit, more might buy it now (or certainly not fewer) and then, down the line when sales slow (or perhaps some DLC is out) they could launch on GP and get a better bump in subs then, without having lost that initial retail income.

 

That position would make even more sense when you think of how many current subscribers will want play it (so no net increase in subs) but currently will have to buy it - they wouldn't get that if it went GP anytime soon, and I doubt the lost sales would be made up for in subs revenue.

Finally they have a huge title to put on game pass day one, the thing they've been hoping for and working towards ever since launching game pass, and you're saying they won't? They care about growing game pass and making that a big thing. That's their number 1 priority.

[Stanley]

31 minutes ago, Gabe said:

I'm clearly not articulating this very well 

 

What I'm saying is that, yes, MS could of course have it for sale and also stick it on GP. I'm wondering if sticking it on GP will cannabalise sales they might otherwise have got in doing so. Because whilst having GP subs is their aim, if somebody subs, burns through the game in a month and doesn't stick around beyond that, then that is a net loss in revenue.

 

I would be one of those people - no interest in buying it, but would co-op it on GP for a month or two with a friend who loves the franchise, and then I'd be done.

 

Whereas if they held it back for a bit, more might buy it now (or certainly not fewer) and then, down the line when sales slow (or perhaps some DLC is out) they could launch on GP and get a better bump in subs then, without having lost that initial retail income.

 

That position would make even more sense when you think of how many current subscribers will want play it (so no net increase in subs) but currently will have to buy it - they wouldn't get that if it went GP anytime soon, and I doubt the lost sales would be made up for in subs revenue.

They won’t give a shit. They’ll get sales from PS, PC and Xbox in addition to Game Pass subs revenue. The whole point of this deal is putting everything on GP and they will do it like, yesterday. 

[Mr. Gerbik]

Come on think about how well a marketing campaign for Xbox saying "DIABLO 4 FOR 1 DOLLAR ON XBOX" will do? It'll sell subs by the bucket loads

[Sarlaccfood]

28 minutes ago, Gabe said:

I'm clearly not articulating this very well 

 

What I'm saying is that, yes, MS could of course have it for sale and also stick it on GP. I'm wondering if sticking it on GP will cannabalise sales they might otherwise have got in doing so. Because whilst having GP subs is their aim, if somebody subs, burns through the game in a month and doesn't stick around beyond that, then that is a net loss in revenue.

 

I would be one of those people - no interest in buying it, but would co-op it on GP for a month or two with a friend who loves the franchise, and then I'd be done.

 

Whereas if they held it back for a bit, more might buy it now (or certainly not fewer) and then, down the line when sales slow (or perhaps some DLC is out) they could launch on GP and get a better bump in subs then, without having lost that initial retail income.

 

That position would make even more sense when you think of how many current subscribers will want play it (so no net increase in subs) but currently will have to buy it - they wouldn't get that if it went GP anytime soon, and I doubt the lost sales would be made up for in subs revenue.

I get what you’re saying but I guess in this case the deal will go through after the release date so a day 1 thing won’t be an option anyway?

[RubberJohnny]

It probably won't be day 1, but with Bethesda they managed to get most of the library up pretty quick, with a couple of older or more obscure titles dripping out a few months later.

[Sarlaccfood]

I honestly wouldn’t mind them “doing a Nintendo” and stretching it out a bit. But that’s just because I suffer from choice paralysis really easy. 

[Stanley]

5 minutes ago, RubberJohnny said:

It probably won't be day 1, but with Bethesda they managed to get most of the library up pretty quick, with a couple of older or more obscure titles dripping out a few months later.

When is it due out? When this this deal gets signed off it will be on there, and if that’s before day 1 then it will be, day 1. 
 

MS have everything in place, they’re just limbering up waiting for the starters pistol. 

[Sarlaccfood]

June 6 so maybe?

[thesnwmn]

I'm sure it will come. And very soon after they get it signed and sealed.

But on PC they have to deal with the battle.net integration.

[Isaac]

15 minutes ago, RubberJohnny said:

It probably won't be day 1, but with Bethesda they managed to get most of the library up pretty quick, with a couple of older or more obscure titles dripping out a few months later.

 

The delayed Bethesda titles were the ones that Sony had limited-time exclusivity on PS Now / PS Plus, from memory.

 

No idea if there's existing agreements in place for old Activision titles.

[Majora]

Diablo 4 is out June 6th. I'd be surprised if the deal has been finalised by all the major regulators by then but I don't really know how quickly things move at this point. I believe MS are still likely to have agree to some remedies with the CMA regarding cloud gaming anyway aren't they? 

[Sarlaccfood]

I take back what I said about them stretching stuff out actually, looking at the list there’s not much for me there outside the Diablos.

 

 

So go ahead and dump it Bobby!

 

[Flanders]

1 hour ago, Gabe said:

I'm clearly not articulating this very well 

 

What I'm saying is that, yes, MS could of course have it for sale and also stick it on GP. I'm wondering if sticking it on GP will cannabalise sales they might otherwise have got in doing so. Because whilst having GP subs is their aim, if somebody subs, burns through the game in a month and doesn't stick around beyond that, then that is a net loss in revenue.

 

I would be one of those people - no interest in buying it, but would co-op it on GP for a month or two with a friend who loves the franchise, and then I'd be done.

 

Whereas if they held it back for a bit, more might buy it now (or certainly not fewer) and then, down the line when sales slow (or perhaps some DLC is out) they could launch on GP and get a better bump in subs then, without having lost that initial retail income.

 

That position would make even more sense when you think of how many current subscribers will want play it (so no net increase in subs) but currently will have to buy it - they wouldn't get that if it went GP anytime soon, and I doubt the lost sales would be made up for in subs revenue.

The thing is, what you’re saying actually makes most sense from a business perspective and is why in the past six months all the CEOS of the big media companies (except Netflix) have basically admitted that going all in on streaming services for movie releases with limited or no theatre runs was a terrible idea that they wish they could take back.
 

But Microsoft are still essentially in start-up mode for their six year-old subscription service and have all the money in the world so don’t mind burning it to win market share. 

[Stanley]

4 minutes ago, Flanders said:

The thing is, what you’re saying actually makes most sense from a business perspective and is why in the past six months all the CEOS of the big media companies (except Netflix) have basically admitted that going all in on streaming services for movie releases with limited or no theatre runs was a terrible idea that they wish they could take back.
 

But Microsoft are still essentially in start-up mode for their six year-old subscription service and have all the money in the world so don’t mind burning it to win market share. 

This just fits with MS’ overall strategy of getting everything in the cloud and on subscription services, including Xbox. 
 

This is just the start and I’d expect new subscription services to come from them to include stuff like windows, movies, music etc. they’ll be no hesitation. 

[Gabe]

Changing topic slightly, but related, didn't they say they wouldn't (can't?) be putting previous CoD titles on GP for at least a year or so, or did I imagine that? And that new CoDs won't be day and date for at least 3 years or something due to contracts?

[Gabe]

1 hour ago, Stanley said:

They won’t give a shit. They’ll get sales from PS, PC and Xbox in addition to Game Pass subs revenue. The whole point of this deal is putting everything on GP and they will do it like, yesterday. 

They'll only get meaningful revenue for subs if new people sign up though, which is one of my points. For those already on GP, sticking Diablo on there anytime soon is a net loss of they would've otherwise paid for the game.

 

I do appreciate that the overall aim is all about the sub numbers going up, but whilst they can throw money at it and not care about whether it costs them or not, I would think another disappointing set of end of year numbers reported for the division might give them reason to consider not instantly putting it on there if they can see a better short-term alternate strategy for this particular game.

[thesnwmn]

6 minutes ago, Gabe said:

They'll only get meaningful revenue for subs if new people sign up though, which is one of my points. For those already on GP, sticking Diablo on there anytime soon is a net loss of they would've otherwise paid for the game.

 

I do appreciate that the overall aim is all about the sub numbers going up, but whilst they can throw money at it and not care about whether it costs them or not, I would think another disappointing set of end of year numbers reported for the division might give them reason to consider not instantly putting it on there if they can see a better short-term alternate strategy for this particular game.

 

You could say this for every game they put on Game Pass. They've put every first party title there day one. They will do so with this as soon as they can.

[Lorfarius]

9 minutes ago, Gabe said:

They'll only get meaningful revenue for subs if new people sign up though, which is one of my points. For those already on GP, sticking Diablo on there anytime soon is a net loss of they would've otherwise paid for the game.

 

I do appreciate that the overall aim is all about the sub numbers going up, but whilst they can throw money at it and not care about whether it costs them or not, I would think another disappointing set of end of year numbers reported for the division might give them reason to consider not instantly putting it on there if they can see a better short-term alternate strategy for this particular game.

 

What about DLC? That's usually charged for so they still make money off that.

[Gabe]

6 minutes ago, Lorfarius said:

 

What about DLC? That's usually charged for so they still make money off that.

Well one of my first comments was perhaps hold it back until there is a DLC ready to go, then they'd have benefitted from people buying it at the start, then from any spike in new subs by effectively giving it a second launch when it hits GP (and then people might also buy the DLC too via GP). 

 

But yeah, they will probably stick it on there as soon as they can.

[Sarlaccfood]

48 minutes ago, Gabe said:

Changing topic slightly, but related, didn't they say they wouldn't (can't?) be putting previous CoD titles on GP for at least a year or so, or did I imagine that? And that new CoDs won't be day and date for at least 3 years or something due to contracts?

Yeah I think that series is tangled in more legal spaghetti (especially if they make concessions to get the deal through) so I imagine they’ll be extra keen for the stuff that isn’t COD to get on there. 

[Stanley]

43 minutes ago, Gabe said:

They'll only get meaningful revenue for subs if new people sign up though, which is one of my points. For those already on GP, sticking Diablo on there anytime soon is a net loss of they would've otherwise paid for the game.

 

I do appreciate that the overall aim is all about the sub numbers going up, but whilst they can throw money at it and not care about whether it costs them or not, I would think another disappointing set of end of year numbers reported for the division might give them reason to consider not instantly putting it on there if they can see a better short-term alternate strategy for this particular game.

Dude, they’ve just spent, or are about to $70 billion they are not interested in the handful of sales they might lose. You need to completely change how you are looking at this. It’s all about growth and market dominance. 

[Jg15]

1 hour ago, Gabe said:

Changing topic slightly, but related, didn't they say they wouldn't (can't?) be putting previous CoD titles on GP for at least a year or so, or did I imagine that? And that new CoDs won't be day and date for at least 3 years or something due to contracts?

I can't imagine that applies to all the CODs, especially the 360 and maybe earlier Xbox One titles as they were pre Sony deal.

[MNFRMTMRRW]

3 hours ago, Gabe said:

 

I don't get the bolded though - MS will see benefit regardless, both through a healthier AB balance sheet when the deal closes as well as ongoing sales, and the Diablo franchise tends to have a good tail on it.

 

I suspect I may well be wrong, but like I say, I don't think MS needs to put it on GP straight away.

Unless they do a Sony it will on Game Pass days or weeks after the acquisition closes. People said the same when they acquired Bethesda. Their money comes from DLC, cosmetics and all of those things. See Forza Horizon or Halo Infinite as a case study.

[Bacon Horsemeat]

Sony should buy EA and then we can have proper platform wars

[scoobysi]

8 minutes ago, Bacon Horsemeat said:

Sony should buy EA and then we can have proper platform wars

For Europe it would be a great fit but I think FiFA or whatever it is to be called is primarily Sony anyway isn’t it. You do wonder what Sony’s response will be.

[Petrousgyre]

32 minutes ago, scoobysi said:

You do wonder what Sony’s response will be.

Have to imagine with CoD going exclusive at some point they’ll try go after that market. Maybe bring back SOCOM!