• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Breaking: Microsoft to acquire Activision-Blizzard in near 70$ billion deal

Ozriel

M$FT
Oh my sweet summer child.

Warzone won't be going exclusive, I agree. But mainline Call of Duty release and probably most other new releases will be going Xbox/PC exclusive. It's coming. You don't spend 70b dollars to keep things the same.

You don’t understand the difference between ‘xbox/Pc exclusive’ and ‘Gamepass Exclusive’?

😂
 

jshackles

Gentlemen, we can rebuild it. We have the capability to make the world's first enhanced store. Steam will be that store. Better than it was before.
Just like the deal with Bethesda, the implications of this acquisition are going to be far-reaching - but likely won't be fully realized by Microsoft until the next generation starts. They'll continue making the games they're under contract to (namely, Call of Duty) and Microsoft will make a huge amount of money selling them for the next few years on PlayStation as they're contractually obligated to do so. By the time these contracts run out, we will be pretty far into the current generation of hardware. Right now, a lot of people are entrenched in the PlayStation ecosystem and this move is Microsoft's long term strategy to try and change that.

When Microsoft announces the next Xbox, I expect there will be a huge marketing push centered around showcasing their first party games that will only be playable on Xbox: Call of Duty, Halo, Forza, Elder Scrolls, Tony Hawk, etc. In fact, I suspect strongly that we'll see this as soon as late 2024 - where Microsoft will introduce a new more powerful console to market while phasing out the Series S and turning the Series X into the cheaper "entry point" console. (similar to last gen's "Pro" hardware refresh). Hardcore gamers will be looking to replace their "aging" 2020 technology by then, and Microsoft's new software lineup (and Game Pass) will be a compelling reason for a lot of people to trade in their PS5s for a Series Z.
 

Three

Member
It's a bought IP period. Sony did nothing to create it same with wolverine. No different than Microsoft buying a ip. Hopefully wolverine won't be such a rock steady clone.
Sony created the Spiderman game with insomniac. Again what's that got to do with sombody bringing up insomniac in game studio acquisitions when defending Penellos incorrect point?

Apart from Nintendo, "home grown" games are on the platform through acquisition if you go back far enough. I get ATVI is a big purchase but buying studios to bring IP internal is pretty much how it works.

Now explain to me how Sony buying insomniac is a case of "home grown games" being on the platform through acquisitions (they hadn't bought them) and how Sony bought Insomniac 'to bring the IP internal' .

They didn't and you know it but you'd rather argue some other nonsense.
 
Last edited:
So besides the games, studios, and IP, did Activision-Blizzard own anything else of note that's going to get lost in all the commotion? I know of Battle.net, MLG, and Blizzcon all being owned by Microsoft now, are there any other random things that they owned that might get ignored in a conversation like this? Any tech or engines of note, or really anything?
 

Guitar Hero coming back (with the original guitar configuration, and without the Guitar Hero TV gimmick) would be amazing. I used to play those games all the time, and the new one just wasn't good at all.

But in general, seeing not only some of those old Activision/Blizzard games getting more love, but also stuff like Toys for Bob being able to have access to Rare's old IP and other forms of studios being able to work together on different IP. There's a lot of potential excitement besides just the heavy hitters
 

oldergamer

Member
Guitar Hero coming back (with the original guitar configuration, and without the Guitar Hero TV gimmick) would be amazing. I used to play those games all the time, and the new one just wasn't good at all.

But in general, seeing not only some of those old Activision/Blizzard games getting more love, but also stuff like Toys for Bob being able to have access to Rare's old IP and other forms of studios being able to work together on different IP. There's a lot of potential excitement besides just the heavy hitters
Did Toys for bob work on the last crash game?
 

Sosokrates

Report me if I continue to console war
It's a bought IP period. Sony did nothing to create it same with wolverine. No different than Microsoft buying a ip. Hopefully wolverine won't be such a rock steady clone.

I have a feeling wolverine is going to be a more gritty and personal experience, think the bathroom scene in splinter cell conviction. I also dont think it will be open world either, which is a good thing imo.
 

Three

Member
Don’t Microsoft have the publishing rights to Sunset? If so, there’s sweet fuck all that daddy Sony can do.

Insomniac own the IP. There are other examples too if you think it's only because they can't.

Now think of an excuse for this one:
 

Banjo64

cumsessed
Insomniac own the IP. There are other examples too if you think it's only because they can't.

Now think of an excuse for this one:
Hell if I know. The Persistence is such a huge game they’d seriously dent Microsoft’s income by removing it from the store.
 
You don’t understand the difference between ‘xbox/Pc exclusive’ and ‘Gamepass Exclusive’?

😂
I do understand the difference. As I already said, I wasn't aware he was arguing for a Gamepass exclusive. I agree, its insanity to think something would go Gamepass exclusive.
 

Three

Member
Hell if I know. The Persistence is such a huge game they’d seriously dent Microsoft’s income by removing it from the store.
Well sunset isn't a huge seller either but that's not the point is it. The point is that stuff isn't removed from the competing store after acquisition and that persons take was based on absolutely nothing.
 
Last edited:
image.png
 

Ozriel

M$FT
Based on what? Is sunset overdrive still in the store and on gamepass? It is?

So what are you basing these dumb takes on?


I’ll just point out that this example isn’t a good one, since Sunset Overdrive was published by Microsoft. Sony can’t pull it even if they wanted to.
 

splattered

Member
Don't worry guys, the acquisition will get shot down to send a loud and clear message and then 30 days later Sony will announce their own acquisition of Activision and the approval will be expedited by all of the Blue... errrr Democrats who would prefer Sony is in control of the Call of Duty franchise which their own children just so happen to be very fond of playing on their Gamestation 5's. Just kidding.
 

Megatron

Member
There are also protectionism issues, especially after what happened to Nokia following the MS takeover. King is based in Europe, so its not like the bloc doesn't have skin in the game.
If that's the sticking point, I imagine MS will compromise and keep all King games multiplatform, lol.
 

DaGwaphics

Member
Don't worry guys, the acquisition will get shot down to send a loud and clear message and then 30 days later Sony will announce their own acquisition of Activision and the approval will be expedited by all of the Blue... errrr Democrats who would prefer Sony is in control of the Call of Duty franchise which their own children just so happen to be very fond of playing on their Gamestation 5's. Just kidding.

Nah, they want Tencent to have it because why have a US company growing when you can cede another market to China. I shouldn't joke, knowing our government this is a real possibility.
 
I'm not saying companies never make mistakes or that they're infallible, but I feel like Microsoft's legal team would've looked at this with like every possible scenario and felt confident in their chances of it being approved. And I can't imagine Microsoft wouldn't have some of the best lawyers money can buy. I would be shocked if this didn't go through
 

MonarchJT

Banned
This makes tons of sense and is something I've echoed many times when discussing why these huge acquisitions are often not as important as they seem and are essentially "buying the past."

If this article is true it's clearly explaining this effect. People leaving to do other things, work on other titles, etc. Microsoft can't buy people, and indeed MS as a company simply attract the best talent in the industry. They don't want to work there (this is a software engineer thing). So when these buyouts occur not only do they now have studios to support, they have to get those studios to regularly produce content, and they can't stop people from just leaving and going to do something else. It happens all the time in software acquisitions. If Activision wanted to sell they simply didn't see much of a future for themselves. So it's right there in black and white. Activision themselves saw no way forward. They wanted to sell. So MS just engaged in the largest buyout ever for a company that actually saw no future for itself, i.e. bought the past. It's very simple. If Activision saw no real future for themselves, how is MS spending a cool 70 bil smart, and how are they going to actually turn that around?

I'm definitely looking forward to seeing how this turns out. I really think it's going to be yet another Skype, Nokia, etc.

Though I have to actually laugh at Grubb writing that Activision engaged in "civil rights violations" of its employees. Good grief.
i think it will gone taking min 30% of Sony marketshare
 

Megatron

Member
This makes tons of sense and is something I've echoed many times when discussing why these huge acquisitions are often not as important as they seem and are essentially "buying the past."

If this article is true it's clearly explaining this effect. People leaving to do other things, work on other titles, etc. Microsoft can't buy people, and indeed MS as a company simply attract the best talent in the industry. They don't want to work there (this is a software engineer thing). So when these buyouts occur not only do they now have studios to support, they have to get those studios to regularly produce content, and they can't stop people from just leaving and going to do something else. It happens all the time in software acquisitions. If Activision wanted to sell they simply didn't see much of a future for themselves. So it's right there in black and white. Activision themselves saw no way forward. They wanted to sell. So MS just engaged in the largest buyout ever for a company that actually saw no future for itself, i.e. bought the past. It's very simple. If Activision saw no real future for themselves, how is MS spending a cool 70 bil smart, and how are they going to actually turn that around?

I'm definitely looking forward to seeing how this turns out. I really think it's going to be yet another Skype, Nokia, etc.

Though I have to actually laugh at Grubb writing that Activision engaged in "civil rights violations" of its employees. Good grief.
CoD has been the best selling game every year for like the last 13 years. MS doesn't really need them to grow. As a company, Activision was trying to grow because that's what stockholders demand. MS is perfectly fine with them delivering the best selling game to them every year as an exclusive and inherriting their humongous library of games to put on gamepass.

You can call it 'buying the past' but look at syndication deals for stuff like Seinfeld and Friends. The past can be very profitable.
 
Last edited:
Don't worry guys, the acquisition will get shot down to send a loud and clear message and then 30 days later Sony will announce their own acquisition of Activision and the approval will be expedited by all of the Blue... errrr Democrats who would prefer Sony is in control of the Call of Duty franchise which their own children just so happen to be very fond of playing on their Gamestation 5's. Just kidding.
Dems will fight against not having military shooter on Playstation :messenger_tears_of_joy:
 

Godot25

Banned
Of course this deal would be a scrutinised. It their job for fuck sake.

But i literally can't see an argument that will prevent it to go through. Not when Disney was allowed to buy almost everything without a peep.

Microsoft is 3rd in "console race" revenue-wise. And even after purchase they will be behind Sony.
They have smallest volume of consoles sold out of big three.

Probably only way this deal could be derailed is if they will try to see it in lens of cloud gaming. Somehow.
 
Sony never put nearly the resources they are putting into their current crop of AAA titles into these games let alone what would be required for a big FPS.

You might as well say uncharted won't be successful because Syphon Filter didn't have that much market penetration.

Most of this does just come down the talent and budget.
CoD sales numbers absolutely dwarf everything out there including Uncharted. Although I understand the analogy, it's not relevant and "putting resources behind a product" in no way guarantees anywhere close to CoD success. A far better analogue would be looking at Battlefield which does fine and for a brief period of time looked as if it might challenge CoD but, alas, they fell back to earth. Point being, even if Sony were able to put equal FPS talent and resources towards a CoD competitor, that's a far cry from any guarantee of sales/success.

If the talented crew at DICE can't compete with nearly endless EA resources what makes you actually believe Sony can somehow recreate CoD lightning in a bottle? I just don't see it and I think you're essentially underplaying the sheer dominance of CoD out of Playstation loyalty.

Chances are the best Sony can expect would be to modestly improve on the success of a Killzone Shadowfall (which had plenty of development resources and was quite fun, I might add).
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom