Support NeoGAF

[IFireflyl]

sowrry i just quickly read 8 pages of your post history in this thread and i couldn't find any single meaningful, insightful or enlightening comment about this deal being bad.

instead I found this:

still waiting for that irrefutable argument against this deal.

at least i have post where i explain my point of view.

Dude, wrap this in a quote or spoiler tag. I don't want to scroll for 10 minutes because you acted like a dumbass and took a thousand screenshots and posted them all.

Also, let's respond to this:

demigod said, "Are you telling me Microsoft doesn't engage in third-party exclusivity deals?" You responded with, "If you own the studios you can do whatever you want to do with those IPs." Hint: if you own the studios then it isn't a third-party exclusivity deal. Instead of telling everyone else how retarded they are, maybe you should start reading the posts. Sheesh.

 

[GHG]

Are we getting to the point we were at in the Legendary Next Gen Speculation thread? Or have we passed it comfortably? Insane arguments so far.

No idea but it's not looking good.

I successfully avoided all those next gen shithouse threads. The only reason I'm here is because this is very close to my interests and involvements from a business perspective.

 

[Clintizzle]

People dont lose your insanity. This deal means nothing to us plebs.
Unless I am getting money, I am not gonna waste my energy arguing whether its worth it, or negative to the gaming world.
Its ok to troll sometimes, but dont get too heated.

Take a breath, and watch something. We have a long way to go, before we see a vedict.

Its frowned upon in this thread but my attitude towards this has always been that I don't care about the industry or what is good or bad - just give me more games on GamePass.

 

[SenjutsuSage]

Well that's the problem: Microsoft haven't been very convincing so far from the arguments at least publicly provided. I'm sure they've got a stronger case in the courts where there's stuff which doesn't get mentioned publicly, but I'm curious as to how strong those points would actually be to a regulator who's up on their game and isn't open to being "convinced" through means that involve any transfers of monies or valuables (financial or political) benefiting their own pockets.

No disputing that this is just a part of the process, so that EU can formally present concerns to MS and MS can respond. They did ask for evidence previously IIRC, that MS refused to provide, causing the escalation of the investigation. But that's basically in the past now. I still say that at least one of the Big 3 regulatory bodies are going to ask for concessions formally, and probably at least one of them being something MS otherwise would not have offered themselves, but we'll see.

Still befuddles me they offered a 10-year deal for an IP they don't legally own the rights to yet, though. That sure was ballsy to say the least

There's a reason Activision Blizzard isn't publicly contending with Microsoft's COD agreements with Nintendo or Steam, or the offer to Sony. That's because Microsoft has every right to cut whatever deal they want on any Activision Blizzard property. After all, Activision Blizzard has entered into a binding agreement to be bought by Microsoft. Of course, it only goes into effect if Microsoft gets to close the transaction, but until it's no longer the case that Microsoft is the expected parent company for Activision Blizzard in a few months, Microsoft has a greenlight to act and cut deals however they deem necessary. There's nothing remotely ballsy about a signed contract between a buyer and a seller. Microsoft calls the shots in this arrangement till the deal is defeated or killed.

There's also an assumption Microsoft's arguments haven't been convincing. Based on what? Surely not regulatory approvals. The reality is quite different. Some pushback and needing to be convinced so they can rationalize their final approval decision isn't a sign of trouble. This is quite easily the biggest press any gaming acquisition has ever gotten, so everyone is confusing every little ebb and flow of the normal part of the process to imply the deal is in trouble.

You just said, "a regulator who's up on their game and isn't open to being "convinced" through means that involve any transfers of monies or valuables (financial or political) benefiting their own pockets."

I take this to mean you're implying all other regulators that have thus far approved the deal are somehow not as professional, well versed, and were paid off in some fashion by Microsoft, am I right? Also, it might be a surprise to you that the MOST paid-off and politically rewarded regulators in the world are, in fact, the European Commission, the FTC, and UK's CMA. Do not mistake whatever apparent additional hurdles or checks that you're noticing in the process as confusion to mean they're above being influenced or aren't already being influenced successfully as we speak. Microsoft is actively influencing all three in very obvious and public ways that are working, but there's no point going into all the ways in which they are. Various parties that have come out in support of the deal in different territories don't just happen by accident. Certain major contributions or investments to things that the UK, European Commission, or the current US administration and Democratic Party in the USA find important don't just happen by accident. If there are formal or informal talks on possible settlements or concessions, that in itself means there is an openness to approving the deal.

If CMA, for example, wanted to block the deal they already had their rationale to do so with phase 1's findings, which is the starting foundation for phase 2. When they extended that timeline it likely suggests that Microsoft and Activision's arguments are, more likely than not, convincing them, and aren't simply just being rejected. The European Commission has publicly come out challenging an assertion made by the FTC. That's unprecedented. Not the type of thing they're inclined to do if Microsoft is in as much trouble as some suggest. But maybe I'm wrong about this whole thing, and I'll be fine if that's the case. But what I do know is this: so far everything is still very much right within Microsoft's timeline for the expected completion timeframe. June 30th, 2023 was the expected deadline within Microsoft's fiscal year 2023. Nothing that has thus far transpired has yet to, in my eyes, seriously endanger that timeline.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

I dunno how some people (they know who they are) can look at the AAA/Big Publisher environment and say: "Yep, Everything is fine".

it seems to me this industry (AAA/Big Publisher) is fucked up, is in such dire situation that their mere existence is
Hanging on a wire of ONLY BIG
ongoing perpetual successes.

Plus, the fact that these games can be released in such broken or unfinished state should be inconceivable . (is like going to see Avatar 2 but the VFX are incomplete with scenes in which you see the actors in performance capture suits instead)

but also, the insane, asinine, misguided or outright ignorant expectations/discourse-Drama around them.


just from memory:

The Order 1886's Aspect Ratio.
https://www.neogaf.com/threads/discussion-aspect-ratio-of-the-order-1886.988046/

Spiderman puddlegate:
https://www.neogaf.com/threads/spider-man-graphics-downgrade.1465266/

Halo Infinitie's graphics:
https://screenrant.com/halo-infinite-backlash-graphics-explained/

Ragnarok's FW recycled animations:
https://www.spieltimes.com/news/horizon-forbidden-west-criticized-by-fans-over-recycled-animation/

https://gamerant.com/god-of-war-ragnarok-rowing-animation-criticism-backlash-debate/

or some people happy expecting or bracing for the lack of optimization/polish in Starfield:
https://www.resetera.com/threads/wo...f-starfield-is-only-playable-at-30fps.639735/


of course we could have a liitle fun when talking about these topics...the point i am trying to make here is the Insane pressure for devs and publishers to delivered something "life-changing".

and you could argue:
But is their job, they are being paid very well.

And this is where reality comes and grabs you by the balls:

Spoiler

https://www.neogaf.com/threads/is-it-well-known-how-terrible-bethesda-and-zenimax-are.1005508/

so on and so forth...then you could say:
"Make better games"

https://www.resetera.com/threads/ac...-through-them-spolier-not-a-lot.475713/page-2

https://www.neogaf.com/threads/why-...s-for-single-player-campaigns-so-low.1635100/

but what is the implications of "Better Games":

Best Graphics.
Length.
New and innovative Mechanics-Gameplay?

the usual suspects dominating the charts every year.

So, you need to spend 200+ millions USD to produce and market a AAA "worth" your money.....

.....when the market, the people is driven by:

if sony (who can rely on the 30% cut from their store and consoles sells) is pivoting towards GaaS, what can you expect from a Third Party?!.


This industry need disruption ASAP, things cannot remains as they are going.

 

[twilo99]

Not going through, not anytime soon.

 

[bender]

 

[Yoboman]

I dunno how some people (they know who they are) can look at the AAA/Big Publisher environment and say: "Yep, Everything is fine".

it seems to me this industry (AAA/Big Publisher) is fucked up, is in such dire situation that their mere existence is
Hanging on a wire of ONLY BIG
ongoing perpetual successes.

Plus, the fact that these games can be released in such broken or unfinished state should be inconceivable . (is like going to see Avatar 2 but the VFX are incomplete with scenes in which you see the actors in performance capture suits instead)

but also, the insane, asinine, misguided or outright ignorant expectations/discourse-Drama around them.


just from memory:

The Order 1886's Aspect Ratio.
https://www.neogaf.com/threads/discussion-aspect-ratio-of-the-order-1886.988046/

Spiderman puddlegate:
https://www.neogaf.com/threads/spider-man-graphics-downgrade.1465266/

Halo Infinitie's graphics:
https://screenrant.com/halo-infinite-backlash-graphics-explained/

Ragnarok's FW recycled animations:
https://www.spieltimes.com/news/horizon-forbidden-west-criticized-by-fans-over-recycled-animation/

https://gamerant.com/god-of-war-ragnarok-rowing-animation-criticism-backlash-debate/

or some people happy expecting or bracing for the lack of optimization/polish in Starfield:
https://www.resetera.com/threads/wo...f-starfield-is-only-playable-at-30fps.639735/


of course we could have a liitle fun when talking about these topics...the point i am trying to make here is the Insane pressure for devs and publishers to delivered something "life-changing".

and you could argue:
But is their job, they are being paid very well.

And this is where reality comes and grabs you by the balls:

https://www.neogaf.com/threads/is-it-well-known-how-terrible-bethesda-and-zenimax-are.1005508/

so on and so forth...then you could say:
"Make better games"

https://www.resetera.com/threads/ac...-through-them-spolier-not-a-lot.475713/page-2

https://www.neogaf.com/threads/why-...s-for-single-player-campaigns-so-low.1635100/

but what is the implications of "Better Games":

Best Graphics.
Length.
New and innovative Mechanics-Gameplay?

the usual suspects dominating the charts every year.

So, you need to spend 200+ millions USD to produce and market a AAA "worth" your money.....

.....when the market, the people is driven by:

if sony (who can rely on the 30% cut from their store and consoles sells) is pivoting towards GaaS, what can you expect from a Third Party?!.


This industry need disruption ASAP, things cannot remains as they are going.

You've laid out a problem without showing how Microsoft buying publishers is the solution

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

You've laid out a problem without showing how Microsoft buying publishers is the solution

I already did in this thread

 

[SenjutsuSage]

Not going through, not anytime soon.

We shall see about that. We will know this deal is done and a success by end of May guaranteed.

We will also know the FTC is out on a limb with no way of stopping it by then also if they haven't settled by that point.

 

[feynoob]

I dunno how some people (they know who they are) can look at the AAA/Big Publisher environment and say: "Yep, Everything is fine".

it seems to me this industry (AAA/Big Publisher) is fucked up, is in such dire situation that their mere existence is
Hanging on a wire of ONLY BIG
ongoing perpetual successes.

Plus, the fact that these games can be released in such broken or unfinished state should be inconceivable . (is like going to see Avatar 2 but the VFX are incomplete with scenes in which you see the actors in performance capture suits instead)

but also, the insane, asinine, misguided or outright ignorant expectations/discourse-Drama around them.


just from memory:

The Order 1886's Aspect Ratio.
https://www.neogaf.com/threads/discussion-aspect-ratio-of-the-order-1886.988046/

Spiderman puddlegate:
https://www.neogaf.com/threads/spider-man-graphics-downgrade.1465266/

Halo Infinitie's graphics:
https://screenrant.com/halo-infinite-backlash-graphics-explained/

Ragnarok's FW recycled animations:
https://www.spieltimes.com/news/horizon-forbidden-west-criticized-by-fans-over-recycled-animation/

https://gamerant.com/god-of-war-ragnarok-rowing-animation-criticism-backlash-debate/

or some people happy expecting or bracing for the lack of optimization/polish in Starfield:
https://www.resetera.com/threads/wo...f-starfield-is-only-playable-at-30fps.639735/


of course we could have a liitle fun when talking about these topics...the point i am trying to make here is the Insane pressure for devs and publishers to delivered something "life-changing".

and you could argue:
But is their job, they are being paid very well.

And this is where reality comes and grabs you by the balls:

https://www.neogaf.com/threads/is-it-well-known-how-terrible-bethesda-and-zenimax-are.1005508/

so on and so forth...then you could say:
"Make better games"

https://www.resetera.com/threads/ac...-through-them-spolier-not-a-lot.475713/page-2

https://www.neogaf.com/threads/why-...s-for-single-player-campaigns-so-low.1635100/

but what is the implications of "Better Games":

Best Graphics.
Length.
New and innovative Mechanics-Gameplay?

the usual suspects dominating the charts every year.

So, you need to spend 200+ millions USD to produce and market a AAA "worth" your money.....

.....when the market, the people is driven by:

if sony (who can rely on the 30% cut from their store and consoles sells) is pivoting towards GaaS, what can you expect from a Third Party?!.


This industry need disruption ASAP, things cannot remains as they are going.

Gaming development have always been shit. Its just that you dont hear that much, or it gets burried with other news.

 

[feynoob]

We shall see about that. We will know this deal is done and a success by end of May guaranteed.

We will also know the FTC is out on a limb with no way of stopping it by then also if they haven't settled by that point.

Dont jinx it.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

Gaming development have always been shit. Its just that you dont hear that much, or it gets burried with other news.

and now its reaching unsustainable levels of shittiness.

therefore it need disruption.

 

[feynoob]

and now its reaching unsustainable levels of shittiness.

therefore it need disruption.

from overall gaming department? MS isnt even close to that shit.

These guys at the top are focusing on graphics part for their games, instead of focusing on the gameplay part. Until they learn that, nothing can fix these issues. Its why we are seeing constant delays and broken games.

Its all about visuals, 4k, better graphics and yada yada yada.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

from overall gaming department? MS isnt even close to that shit.

These guys at the top are focusing on graphics part for their games, instead of focusing on the gameplay part. Until they learn that, nothing can fix these issues. Its why we are seeing constant delays and broken games.

Its all about visuals, 4k, better graphics and yada yada yada.

because that is (among other things) what it sells, is marketable.

and and you said. is not a new thing.

you can look back at how games have been marketed since forever.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

I think they do some great things, many good things and some real headscratchers.

• Minecraft = brilliant and expanding well.
• Forza/Playground/Turn 10 = awesome, huge winning run. Biggest ever.
• Sea of Thieves/Rare/IPs/ = bad/really bad (Kinect titles), now awesome (SoT) and potentially more awesome (Perfect Dark handed off and Rare work on Everwild ). Biggest ever.
• Halo/343 = peak Halo (1-3), then steadily worse (4), then broken (MCC), then good (5), then good at first + now mixed (Infinite), now awesome (MCC), potential to be great (Tatanka+Infinite expansion). Lest we forget Xbox put Bungie on console and revolutionised FPS/online with consoles/controllers.
• Flight/Asobo = peak Flight, amazingly awesome. Biggest ever.
• Age of Empires/various studios = Insanely good and well supported. Biggest ever.
• Direct X = kinda a big thing.
• Gears of War/Epic/Coalition = technically and fan praised latest release.
• State of Decay/Undead Labs = solid entries and getting better.
• Hellblade/Ninja Theory = hype.
• Getting parity with day one releases on platforms, devices, streaming etc.

Then you go into Double Fine, Tunic, Ori, Grounded etc.

Gamepass deserves a mention and all the support of studios they don't own with access to games I can play and enjoy before I buy or not buy even.

Sure, Xbox could use more diversity in their killer tent pole games and better execution. They don't even have to be exclusive, but they'll come soon enough. Overall, very happy with Xbox and management of first and third party. I'm not going to lie here, very disappointed with 343 and Halo though, excited for Max's return to publicly playable stuff this year. The Xbox platform management is second to none, goes hand in hand with my gaming, friends and family.

You need to understand something here. You're entitled to your opinion on Xbox's management, but it's clear that the management isn't clicking with the majority of the market, otherwise they'd be doing more strongly in what is traditionally its strongest territory. I do mean that partially based on market position relative Sony & Nintendo, although that's not necessarily important if they are seeing growth anyway.

Which, they are. BUT, not optimally IMO. Genuinely feel the Series S is a big reason for that. And I think you can also look back and see the management issues from a wider POV and understand why more people may feel the opposite to how you feel about the division right now. Doing that and analyzing how they could improve, versus what it seems like they actually view as important towards improving, and maybe see that there are conflicts in that.

Yet I think you fell on the fallacy that ATVI must be sold because they'd never recover their ESG score. They don't.
All they need to do is get rid of the executives that were in power during the problematic occurrences, namely their CEO and all the ones below him that were directly related to those workplaces.
That shit happened under Kotick so he needs to go and ATVI needs to find a replacement.

Oh no, I'm 100% with you on the idea. Maybe a better way I should've put it is, Activision probably want the buyout because doing what you suggest would take longer and any legal cases that sprung up from employees as a result of the actions of Kotick and people he enabled, ABK would have to go through all of that of their own accord for many years and that would be solely a mess of their own to clean up. Which would probably affect market valuation prices over a longer term.

Technically, AFAIK any cases employees would feel they wanted to press against board members of ABK or Kotick himself, if they did so and MS ends up acquiring them, MS would still have to deal with the results of such and any legal fees, settlements etc. to dole out. It becomes their problem. And I think that's a reason why they've been so public showing how they're about "empowering" the ABK employees and allowing them to unionize, talking about workers rights and all that stuff. It's not just to signal good ESG value to regulators, but also to hopefully deter any employees from going forward with litigation against ABK or people in the company by having Microsoft appear as the company that'll "flush away" all of the bad stuff if those employees just wait longer for the deal to be approved.

Meanwhile, with MS basically towering over ABK's shoulders, that kind of acts as a way for employees to do things like unionize and not risk retaliation from ABK, because board members & Kotick know that if THEY try shutting that stuff down, it'll look bad for the company and drive value down, and in turn that looks bad for Microsoft, and lowers their potential interest in wanting to do the deal. So MS are basically acting as a silent enforcer right now keeping Kotick & board members in line while being this (as they've been selling it) savior for disgruntled employees and forcing ABK to tolerate employees doing just enough to rock the boat (like unionizing) but without doing TOO much that could really reflect poorly on ABK, as that would also reflect poorly on Microsoft.

I also think it's MS leveraging it as a soft power, because they know Zenimax and XGS teams may want to do some of the things ABK studios are trying to do right now. But, their current teams wouldn't try for anything the ABK studios don't try doing in terms of unionization or demands for better retirement packages, healthcare coverage plans, etc. And it's not like MS are spotless when it comes to workplace issues with their teams, we already know about the HoloLens situation for example.

That's what it means to be a higher-up in a company. You get a bigger paycheck because your decisions have more impact and you bear more responsibility.
But what Kotick & his friends are trying to do is running away from this responsibility and trying to get an early retirement as billionaires.

Yes, agreed.

This sale attempt is just where the escalation (of laughably tiny steps) from that board of directors has led them to. All of this is happening for them to gain as much money as they possibly can, no matter how much they hurt their employees and the market itself.

Let's just get a reminder of how Kotick & friends have arrived to this point:

1) Do nothing about it, until they were sued by the state of California
2) Hire Bush's former Homeland Security Advisor and get her to send an internal e-mail dismissing the lawsuit and the occurrences. She lasts a whole 4 months.
3) Change character names from WoW that were related to the people mentioned in the lawsuit (lol)
4) After they get publicly shamed by their own investment group and they get formally accused of shedding documents, they change the name of some Overwatch characters (lol^2)
5) They start hiring "inclusion and diversity officers" from Disney.
6) Kotick gets subpoena'd.
7) Their Chief Legal Officer and other executives start leaving the company
8) They hire a woman, Jen Oneal, to "co-lead" Blizzard with Ybarra. 3 months later she resigns and turns out they were offering a lower pay than her co-lead. They couldn't even get their diversity hire right.
9) Both Sony and Microsoft publicly shun Activision's doing. Phil Spencer threatens to stop doing business with Activision (a whole 2 months before announcing the acquisition and saying how great Activision is).
10) >1000 employees sign a petition for the removal of Boby Kotick
11) ATVI announces the creation of a "Workplace Responsibility Committee" (lol)
12) Microsoft announces the acquisition

Welp, I needed that refresher . Really shows how much ABK have screwed this up, and how much MS swept in to offer Kotick & the board a "get out of jail free" card. Some of this stuff looks like Kotick & co could've been facing some serious charges if investigations went a lot deeper and more stuff came out.

But now with Microsoft's intervention to attempt buying them, suddenly a lot of this stuff has faded into the background. MS's a much bigger company than ABK, and like pretty much every other even semi-big company in the world, they've got a few skeletons in their closet in terms of workplace conflicts or harassment. But they're probably a lot better at concealing it than most other companies, because a company their size means a lot of connections and a lot of ways to divert attention.

So them buying ABK can be seen as doing a favor for a good buddy in Kotick, and his board of directors, because in truth that's partially what it's about at the very least. And the events leading up to this acquisition announcement, I think it would be a good guess to say that at least some in the FTC are cognizant of these events (and, honestly, I forgot about a lot of these specifics leading up to the acquisition announcement) and know what role they play in this whole acquisition.

Which is probably a big reason they moved to sue in hopes to block the deal.

If Kotick & the board were tangentially honorable to their positions, this wouldn't have gone beyond step 1.
How we got to step 12 (and many other steps in between) is simply the product of years of running away from their responsibility and stepping down to save the company. They're not interested in saving the company. They don't care the least about the games or the IP, least of all their employees.

Sad but true. Their feelings relative the IP their company owns, and the employees that work for them, are probably repeated across a good deal of other publishers in this industry TBH, and all industries if I'm being honest. The CEOs, board members etc. just really care enough as to how much money those things can bring, and little else beyond that.

On ATVI's side, this sale is only happening for the executives to come out richer from the crisis they enabled.

And this is something I would like to think is being considered by regulators. Yeah, it may be tinged a bit into an ideological perspective, but the fact is these are events that created the scenario, the environment enabling the acquisition to even be attempted between the two companies.

So it's still very much factual evidence that has to be considered, whatever motives it would have created also need to be looked into and considered, to best determine the intent of the acquisition, alongside the usual factors that are looked at the determine market impact to competitors and the market itself.

feynoob I will take the backlash from @Pelta88 here. (Never got why things like this which is 'factual' or just reposting an article is an issue)


From Ida from Resetera from MLex. EGDF is European Game Developer Federation.

Web3? So basically NFT games? Uh...that might be a hard sell for customers for a few more years (or decade).

 

[feynoob]

because that is (among other things) what it sells, is marketable.

and and you said. is not a new thing.

you can look back at how games have been marketed since forever.

The issue is how these companies view the market and how consumers react to their behaviours.

Cyberpunk2077: Released broken: Sold millions: Did no man sky: sold alot again.

Madden 23, despite shit launch
https://ftw.usatoday.com/2022/09/madden-nfl-23-august-sales

Other sport games like 2k23 and fifa 23 are still selling insane.

COD vanguard almost outsold ER, despite how shit it was.

GTA trilogy definitive edition

Rockstar Games' controversial Grand Theft Auto: The Trilogy - The Definitive Edition remastered collection has sold over 14 million copies worldwide.

Assasin creed valhala sold 20 million players worldwide, despite being bloated game like other Assasin creed games.

Big companies are seeing alot of money, while dumb consumers are spending their money buying these games.

Its not easy fix.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

The issue is how these companies view the market and how consumers react to their behaviours.

Cyberpunk2077: Released broken: Sold millions: Did no man sky: sold alot again.

Madden 23, despite shit launch
https://ftw.usatoday.com/2022/09/madden-nfl-23-august-sales

Other sport games like 2k23 and fifa 23 are still selling insane.

COD vanguard almost outsold ER, despite how shit it was.

GTA trilogy definitive edition


Assasin creed valhala sold 20 million players worldwide, despite being bloated game like other Assasin creed games.

Big companies are seeing alot of money, while dumb consumers are spending their money buying these games.

Its not easy fix.

did you even read my post?. that is what i am saying.

 

[feynoob]

did you even read my post?. that is what i am saying.

Its why I am telling you MS wont make any impact. And there wont be any disruption, since Both parties (Publishers and consumers) are to blame for this shit.

Until consumers wake up, we would get these issues until the market collapses.

Look at mobile market. People are happily paying $100 for small packages (Total of $1k-$200k) like its normal.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

Its why I am telling you MS wont make any impact. And there wont be any disruption, since Both parties (Publishers and consumers) are to blame for this shit.

Until consumers wake up, we would get these issues until the market collapses.

Look at mobile market. People are happily paying $100 for small packages (Total of $1k-$200k) like its normal.

and as i stated earlier in this thread is not about MS perse, but the consequences/aftermath of the acquisition

 

[feynoob]

and as i stated earlier in this thread is not about MS perse, but the consequences/aftermath of the acquisition

This acquisition isn't going to have that much impact.
I don't how is your gaming knowledge. But from my experience, this purchase is just tiny bit in the industry, and the impact is very small.

If anything, MS might join these guys in order to maximize their potential gains.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

This acquisition isn't going to have that much impact.
I don't how is your gaming knowledge. But from my experience, this purchase is just tiny bit in the industry, and the impact is very small.

If anything, MS might join these guys in order to maximize their potential gains.

Experience?! .

How many 70B deals have being in the industry?

 

[Kilau]

The issue is how these companies view the market and how consumers react to their behaviours.

Cyberpunk2077: Released broken: Sold millions: Did no man sky: sold alot again.

Madden 23, despite shit launch
https://ftw.usatoday.com/2022/09/madden-nfl-23-august-sales

Other sport games like 2k23 and fifa 23 are still selling insane.

COD vanguard almost outsold ER, despite how shit it was.

GTA trilogy definitive edition


Assasin creed valhala sold 20 million players worldwide, despite being bloated game like other Assasin creed games.

Big companies are seeing alot of money, while dumb consumers are spending their money buying these games.

Its not easy fix.

I agree with the post but AssCreed Valhalla 20 million players is not the same as sold. It probably sold about half that.

 

[feynoob]

Experience?! .

How many 70B deals have being in the industry?

Its not about the deal, but the scope of the market.
The market is so huge that a deal like this means nothing, despite the huge price tag.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

Its not about the deal, but the scope of the market.
The market is so huge that a deal like this means nothing, despite the huge price tag.

but i am not talking about the market. see?

one of three things:

1. you didn't even read my post.
2. reading comprehension is fucked up.
3. you just want to write your POV disregarding what i have said.

 

[feynoob]

but i am not talking about the market. see?

one of three things:

1. you didn't even read my post.
2. reading comprehension is fucked up.
3. you just want to write your POV disregarding what i have said.

What you are hoping is that this purchase brings a big change to the landscape.

My point "it won't change, because publishers and consumers are the ones who are contributing to this behavior".

Consumers are allowing this shit to happen. Whatever your ideology is, it won't change, as long as consumers continue the way they behave.

Especially when you have grown ups with big wallets who are ready to spend their money. That is your symptoms of this problem.
Companies would continue to risk their projects in order to get a piece of that money.

 

[feynoob]

I agree with the post but AssCreed Valhalla 20 million players is not the same as sold. It probably sold about half that.

It's still a lot of copies sold.
People are rewarding Ubisoft output with this game, by doing these sales.

No wonder we get the same shit, when people are ready to spend their money buying it.

 

[Ozzy Onya A2Z]

You need to understand something here. You're entitled to your opinion on Xbox's management, but it's clear that the management isn't clicking with the majority of the market, otherwise they'd be doing more strongly in what is traditionally its strongest territory. I do mean that partially based on market position relative Sony & Nintendo, although that's not necessarily important if they are seeing growth anyway.

Which, they are. BUT, not optimally IMO. Genuinely feel the Series S is a big reason for that. And I think you can also look back and see the management issues from a wider POV and understand why more people may feel the opposite to how you feel about the division right now. Doing that and analyzing how they could improve, versus what it seems like they actually view as important towards improving, and maybe see that there are conflicts in that.

You could say the same for Callisto Protocol etc. Forza, SoT, Flight, Gears, Minecraft and others are firing on all cylinders. Halo MCC is awesome now. Infinite is shite but getting far better and gaining ground with a good release/team coming this year. So, no, I do not agree with you for the most part. Gamepass sucess, Series S success, xCloud value add and more all fly in the face of your opinion, they factually highlight Xbox success in the marketplace. The majority takes time, the Xbox ship is well and truly turned about and under its own power closing the gap on the leaders. It's like you think having Pepsi beside Coke is a bad thing. We're lucky we have so many platforms, devices and ways to play in gaming. Most other industries have well and truly been through their disruptor and consolidation phases.

Again, I already understand the value in say Sony type tentpole games and Xbox has work to do there. Factually you're off base too IMO. Xbox has reduced the Sony/Ninty gap from approx 2.5 - 1 to around 1.6 - 1 e.g. PS4/Wii/U/Xbox One era vs PS5/Switch/Series S/X. They're doing great work, not 100% optimal but that's an ideal and rarely achievable in business reality. If you focus that same lens across all of Sony or Ninty you get much the same take, room for improvement in differing ways. When you look at these cross-platform franchises having massive success you'll see Xbox isn't really about exclusives predominantly. They exist, just as does all other target segments franchises/releases (at least the Xbox roadmap for the next 2 years + current releases). We'd all like to see those AAA games hitting harder more often from all studios.

I do concede the time required for releases, the state of releases and "high notes" of Xbox are not optimal and they could be performing better in terms of uptake and really catching those market leaders. It will be an interesting time for Xbox in the next 1-3 years, with or without ActiBliz going through 100%.

 

[Heisenberg007]

Not going through, not anytime soon.

I thought they were #3. When (and how) did they become #4?

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

What you are hoping is that this purchase brings a big change to the landscape.

to what landscape?. be specific. (i am talking about AAA/Big Publishers)

My point "it won't change, because publishers and consumers are the ones who are contributing to this behavior".

you didn't said that. you said:

Its not about the deal, but the scope of the market.
The market is so huge that a deal like this means nothing, despite the huge price tag

and as i already said. i am talking about the AAA/Big Publisher

Consumers are allowing this shit to happen. Whatever your ideology is, it won't change, as long as consumers continue the way they behave.

Especially when you have grown ups with big wallets who are ready to spend their money. That is your symptoms of this problem.
Companies would continue to risk their projects in order to get a piece of that money.

yisus with you.

have you read my post? this is what i already said. even put several screenshots. i will give you even more:

is like you are trying to use my own points against me. is so weird.

i already said the consumer/market is speaking with their wallet. (you saying it is not the gocha moment you think it is).

Read my post again and if you have questions ask me before repeating the same thing i already stated as the opposite of my point. such weird strategy

 

[3liteDragon]

to what landscape?. be specific. (i am talking about AAA/Big Publishers)

you didn't said that. you said:



and as i already said. i am talking about the AAA/Big Publisher



yisus with you.

have you read my post? this is what i already said. even put several screenshots. i will give you even more:

is like you are trying to use my own points against me. is so weird.

i already said the consumer/market is speaking with their wallet. (you saying it is not the gocha moment you think it is).

Read my post again and if you have questions ask me before repeating the same thing i already stated as the opposite of my point. such weird strategy

Hey man, could you try reducing ur images? I don't wanna endlessly scroll through ur posts.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

Hey man, could you try reducing ur images? I don't wanna endlessly scroll through ur posts.

sure buddy no problemo



.

I can also reduce the font size if you want. let me know if that helps.


have nice day scrolling.




much love and appreciation.

 

[Heisenberg007]

ChorizoPicozo - to summarize the responses to our earlier conversations:

• The AAA games that failed were just not good games. At the same time, many AAA games succeeded by independent developers and publishers just because they produced good games, e.g., Elden Ring, Plague Tale, Monster Hunter Rise, Resident Evil Village, Hitman, etc. Games from big corporates also failed when they were not good, e.g., Bleeding Edge, Destruction All Stars, Halo Infinite, Marvel's Avengers.
• The industry doesn't need a shake-up via acquisitions and consolidation. It needs a shake-up in terms of direction. Gamers don't want as many forced GaaS games or NFT games. They want high-quality and polished games.
• Microsoft has more studios than PlayStation (the company they said they wanted to compete with). They already have the resources to compete. They just need to use those resources properly, i.e., produce high-quality games.
• If Xbox also gets ABK, they will have 79% more studios than PlayStation and many exclusive games and IPs that have the largest community on PlayStation. That's not fair competition, which is why regulators are calling this anti-competitive.

 

[reksveks]

Web3? So basically NFT games? Uh...that might be a hard sell for customers for a few more years (or decade).

Game devs don't want to be blocked from implementing monetization (and potentially shitty ones) from platform holders. Its just one of the requests from the EGDF and probably just trying to cause a split in policy between MS and Apple.

 

[Flutta]

I dunno how some people (they know who they are) can look at the AAA/Big Publisher environment and say: "Yep, Everything is fine".

it seems to me this industry (AAA/Big Publisher) is fucked up, is in such dire situation that their mere existence is
Hanging on a wire of ONLY BIG
ongoing perpetual successes.

Plus, the fact that these games can be released in such broken or unfinished state should be inconceivable . (is like going to see Avatar 2 but the VFX are incomplete with scenes in which you see the actors in performance capture suits instead)

but also, the insane, asinine, misguided or outright ignorant expectations/discourse-Drama around them.


just from memory:

The Order 1886's Aspect Ratio.
https://www.neogaf.com/threads/discussion-aspect-ratio-of-the-order-1886.988046/

Spiderman puddlegate:
https://www.neogaf.com/threads/spider-man-graphics-downgrade.1465266/

Halo Infinitie's graphics:
https://screenrant.com/halo-infinite-backlash-graphics-explained/

Ragnarok's FW recycled animations:
https://www.spieltimes.com/news/horizon-forbidden-west-criticized-by-fans-over-recycled-animation/

https://gamerant.com/god-of-war-ragnarok-rowing-animation-criticism-backlash-debate/

or some people happy expecting or bracing for the lack of optimization/polish in Starfield:
https://www.resetera.com/threads/wo...f-starfield-is-only-playable-at-30fps.639735/


of course we could have a liitle fun when talking about these topics...the point i am trying to make here is the Insane pressure for devs and publishers to delivered something "life-changing".

and you could argue:
But is their job, they are being paid very well.

And this is where reality comes and grabs you by the balls:

https://www.neogaf.com/threads/is-it-well-known-how-terrible-bethesda-and-zenimax-are.1005508/

so on and so forth...then you could say:
"Make better games"

https://www.resetera.com/threads/ac...-through-them-spolier-not-a-lot.475713/page-2

https://www.neogaf.com/threads/why-...s-for-single-player-campaigns-so-low.1635100/

but what is the implications of "Better Games":

Best Graphics.
Length.
New and innovative Mechanics-Gameplay?

the usual suspects dominating the charts every year.

So, you need to spend 200+ millions USD to produce and market a AAA "worth" your money.....

.....when the market, the people is driven by:

if sony (who can rely on the 30% cut from their store and consoles sells) is pivoting towards GaaS, what can you expect from a Third Party?!.


This industry need disruption ASAP, things cannot remains as they are going.

You’re taking the meaning of ”Wall of text” to another level. Out of curiosity How much time are you spending on these ’mega’ posts of yours?

 

[reksveks]

'Brevity is the soul of wit' or some other quote could be required here.

in other 'news' not really news

If you want something new to read about the case, the most recent FTCWatch has an opinion piece by Neil Averitt, someone who has practiced law at the FTC for 37 years.

It's under subscription, but there you go:

The high-wire act of the Activision case

The Biden administration has given us a series of high-risk, potentially game-changing antitrust initiatives, but this effort to rein in Big Tech is on the highest wire so far. The Federal Trade Commission's challenge to the Microsoft/Activision combination is based, amazingly enough, on the contention that acquiring a video game franchise is enough to confer market power. And even more amazingly, it's possible this is true.

The case promises a series of thrills and near-falls. It starts out on a tricky note, as a challenge to a vertical merger. But perhaps that may work. Microsoft's distribution system is very strong and if it's combined with Activision's popular game content, it may be hard for others to compete against it. But wait! That's a static view of the world, and other distributors can surely come up with alternative games that will keep them in business. Seen this way, the FTC case seems like a distinct long shot. But wait again! No one's that risk-inclined. Perhaps the agency is playing an alternative game and can prevail on some basis other than a conventional Clayton Act theory.

But none of this is a sure thing.

The proposed acquisition was announced Jan. 18, 2022, as a predominately vertical merger. Microsoft is a software creator and distribution company. It makes the popular Xbox gaming consoles, and is rolling out subscription services to allow game players to download titles from a central library, or to play games in the cloud and stream the images to a variety of relatively simple devices, including smartphones. The firm had total revenues in FY2022 of $198 billion, and gaming revenues of $16 billion. With this acquisition, it will be gaining popular material to put through these distribution systems. Activision makes several immensely popular games, including Call of Duty and Candy Crush. Titles in the Call of Duty series made up 10 of the top 15 console games sold in a recent 10-year period. Activision's annual revenue is approximately $9 billion. The overall deal is valued at a startling $69 billion — the largest ever in the video gaming industry.

The FTC has so far declined to seek an injunction in federal court (although that action is authorized), and has instead issued an administrative complaint for internal adjudication. Quite probably the agency hopes proceedings in the EU will freeze the situation anyway. It seems to be aiming to write its own decision, where it will have more control over the analysis of an innovative theory.

At first glance, the FTC's case does not seem all that innovative; it speaks in the established language of vertical foreclosure. By acquiring Activision, the complaint says, Microsoft can reverse its current policy of universal distribution and instead make its games exclusive to Microsoft, or it can degrade their quality to others. If the revenue to be gained by doing so exceeds the losses caused by giving up distribution through other channels, Microsoft may do just that. This is likely to harm consumers through higher prices, less variety, and the like. And, crucially, the competing distribution firms such as Sony will not be able to counter this move, because without equal access to Activision products — and to Call of Duty in particular — they can't be competitive in the videogaming market.

The innovation lies in how very hard the FTC will have to work to sustain these contentions.

For one thing, Microsoft's actual financial incentives will depend on the diversion ratios seen in response to various possible actions, and those will surely be open to dispute.

A bigger problem is the contention that Activision games are an essential resource, a must-have product. This implies an unrealistically static view of the market. Video games are not a finite asset; they can be created by raising money and assembling the necessary designers. The lack of particular games is therefore not a clear entry barrier. Other competitors of Microsoft — Sony, Nintendo, and perhaps firms like Amazon, Netflix and Valve, have the resources to develop or acquire games of their own.

The complaint recognizes at least five other suppliers, in addition to Microsoft and Activision, that currently make the highest-quality ("AAA") games. These include Electronic Arts (FIFA), Take-Two (Grand Theft Auto), Ubisoft (Assassin's Creed), Epic Games (Fortnite), and Sony (God of War). Surely some AA studios could up their game as well.

Other numbers tell a similar story. Microsoft ranks only No. 2 or No. 3 in the console business, behind Sony and probably also Nintendo. A combined Microsoft and Activision would control 11% of the global game business, according to the Wall Street Journal. The Call of Duty franchise, according to figures in the FTC complaint, averaged sales of $1.5 billion per year through 2020, fairly small in relation to a global gaming market that is now $170 billion per year — five times the value of all motion pictures.

To be sure, the antitrust markets might be argued more narrowly ("high-performance consoles," "AAA games," or "US only") and the resulting concentration figures might become higher. Still, none of this really looks like the obvious foreclosures seen in successful vertical cases such as Lockheed/Aerojet, Nvidia/Arm or LiveNation/Ticketmaster.

The one number that solidly supports the FTC concerns is the $69 billion purchase price for Activision. That's a lot of money — more than twice the value of Kroger/Albertsons — and Microsoft surely thinks it is getting some useable competitive value for it. It will be interesting to learn what's in the company's ordinary-course documents.

There's a decent chance, however, that Microsoft's goal is exactly what the firm says it is: to develop a popular, profitable (and addictive) ecosystem that offers gamers a variety of new, Internet-based ways to access games. These will be increasingly based on subscriptions or on cloud gaming, and not limited to traditional consoles, and will offer a mix of games, some being proprietary and others universally available.

Such a model is likely to move the gaming world toward a limited number of powerful distributors. That may be worrisome in the greater concentration it brings to the industry, but, given that Activision isn't really an essential input, it's hard to argue that competition will be harmed in any traditional Clayton Act sense as a result of this merger.

So at this point, the FTC complaint looks like a high-risk effort indeed.

But that's not necessarily right. This is a flagship litigation for the agency. It's more likely that the agency is hoping to prevail on one of three alternative, nontraditional approaches.

First, it may hope that the delay and bad publicity will persuade Microsoft to simply abandon the transaction.

Second, the FTC may be raising the costs to Microsoft in the hopes of getting a more generous settlement. Until recently, Microsoft had offered conspicuously little. The precise terms continue to evolve, but Microsoft has now undertaken to make Call of Duty available to Sony and Nintendo hardware (and perhaps also to Valve) for a 10-year period. This is helpful, but it doesn't address the FTC's main concerns, which extend to other programs beyond Call of Duty, and to newer distribution methods, such as the subscription services and cloud gaming. However, recent reports say the FTC isn't much interested in negotiating a deal, particularly one involving complex behavioral remedies. (See Microsoft-Activision remedy talks not welcome by FTC, Dec. 5, 2022.) That would bring us to the last option.

Third, the agency may be aiming to prevail by establishing some new, non-traditional principles of vertical mergers. Illumina/Grail provides a model. The case would not emphasize the existing, largely competitive market for consoles, but rather the emerging siloed markets for subscription services (where some calculate Microsoft already has a 60 percent share) and for cloud computing (where only a few big firms are likely to remain). That limited number of firms is perhaps enough to keep the market price-competitive. However, it could be challenged as insufficient to sustain the kind of flexibility, innovation, and nonprice competition that would have existed without the merger.

The complaint cites Section 5 of the FTC Act as well as Section 7 of the Clayton Act. If an aggressive theory aimed at anticipated future lines of commerce can't be squared with Clayton Act case law, the agency might choose to pursue it as an incipiency case under Section 5. Even if Activision isn't strictly essential to Microsoft's rivals, in other words, its acquisition could be an important first step toward a reasonably foreseeable world in which few competitors will remain. Serial acquisitions and salami tactics must be stopped somewhere.

That's not a totally safe litigation course, because it would use Section 5 to alter rather than just supplement Clayton Act standards. But it still involves a defensible construction of the statute, and the current leadership of the FTC is determined to get a handle on concentration in the world of Big Tech.

From Ida's from Era from https://www.mlexwatch.com/ftcwatch/articles/18923

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

ChorizoPicozo - to summarize the responses to our earlier conversations:

• The AAA games that failed were just not good games. At the same time, many AAA games succeeded by independent developers and publishers just because they produced good games, e.g., Elden Ring, Plague Tale, Monster Hunter Rise, Resident Evil Village, Hitman, etc.

Good is not enough. you need to be great; 80+ on Meta.

being good (70+ meta) is considered "trash" not worth full price. (according to some gamers).

all the games you listed are above 80+.

and you can consider some of those are part of a franchise, backed by a big publisher or made with blood, sweat and tears.

you could also say that they excel at something. right?

Hitman:
Eidos Interactive era: 4 games.
nor really a big seller despite several of those reaching 80+ meta.

Square Enix era: 2 games.
Absolution was divisive among old fans:
criticized for its linear level design and the over-use of quick-time events.

and you could said that sold well....well not according to Square Enix:

"On 26 March 2013, Square Enix announced that the game had sold about 3.6 million copies at retail, but has failed to reach predicted sales targets"

what happened next?..Hitman 2016 "World of Assesination" GaaS

despite this change:

"Contrary to the developers' expectations, Hitman's episodic format did not succeed commercially. Most of the players purchased the full-priced versions and the sales volume was significantly lower than the traditional boxed release. Due to market confusion over the game's episodic format, even when the game's development was completed, the retail version did not meet publisher Square Enix's expectations, causing it to divest from the studio"


WarnerBros. Era= 1 game.
IoI were in ptetty bad state. laying off 40% their staff.

https://gamedaily.biz/article/339/io-interactive-layoffs-were-needed-to-finish-hitman-2

IOI self publishing = 1 Game.
after a pretty rough era, they manage to find categoric success. embracing NEW business model.

i put this time line to show the point I was making:

Hitman struggle with the traditional and expected way of making games, THIEIR DISRUPTION force them to adapt or die. proves my point.


Monster hunter (another old franchise) that embraced GaaS/ MTXs. to finally become a big money maker but not big or Ongoning enough:

Elden Ring= the payoff for many years of consistency.



Plague Tale is being published by Focus Entertainment (not a big AAA) different expectations.

• The industry doesn't need a shake-up via acquisitions and consolidation. It needs a shake-up in terms of direction. Gamers don't want as many forced GaaS games or NFT games. They want high-quality and polished games.

the market says other wise. as I already illustrate with images.

GaaS/MTXs is what is driving forward industry growth; people are speaking with their wallets.

your high-quality polished games are a rarity relegated to a handfull of priviliged (thanks to the money bed generated by GaaS and/or the 30% cut of their store)

• Microsoft has more studios than PlayStation (the company they said they wanted to compete with). They already have the resources to compete. They just need to use those resources properly, i.e., produce high-quality games.

• If Xbox also gets ABK, they will have 79% more studios than PlayStation and many exclusive games and IPs that have the largest community of PlayStation. That's not fair competition, which is why regulators are calling this anti-competitive.

this is the issue with some of you (i dont think you are as bad as the black cat, AFAIK).


for a moment, drop the fanboy glasses please. and look at the big picture.

you say:
"Microsoft has more studios than PlayStation"

is having more studios = More "High-quality" games?. just look at the track record of every single Xbox and bethesda studio. (which i already illustrate they were struggling finding commercial success with several of their games)


you say:
"They just need to use those resources properly, i.e., produce high-quality games"

sure. everyone is well aware of the pathetic and complete shitshow MS/Xbox missmanagement of Studios, IP and the Xbox brand itself has been.


you say
"If Xbox also gets ABK, they will have 79% more studios than PlayStation and many exclusive games and IPs that have the largest community of PlayStation"


and i ask the same question. is having more studios means more "high-quality" games?

Activision is The Call of Duty company.

and blizzard has WoW, Overwatch (which became free to play) and diablo. Also Blizzard takes a long ass time to release.

so many studios and so few IPs.

and if you think MS (management disaster) is coming out dismantling all the studios to create a new ones and produce "High- quality" Games avery month...sowrry...you are out of your fucking mind.

and i already provided a bunch of examples of the outcomes if big mergers.


you say:
"That's not fair competition"

MS buying these companies is not a guarantee of anything.. in fact; is going to be the hardest challenge for MS/Xbox in their history. highest chances to be a massive pain in the ass. if not, catastrophic for Xbox.


and yes regulators are doing what they are supposed to be doing. and this is why the deal has been aproved without remedies in several places.why? because Xbox is so insignificant in those markets that it dosen't matter. no like the US/UK where Xbox is more competitive.


but forget about it: let say you can't take the fanboy glasses off.

i have news for you:

this deal is going to make PlayStation stronger than ever. an absolute violent, savage, agressive, arrogant , psychopath mother fucker ready to destroy any "unfair competition".

aren't you excited at how sony is going to fight to preserve its supremacy?

 

[JerryinSoCal]

Anyone who thinks this would be good for the industry isn't thinking clearly IMO, MS can't handle the studios they have now properly. They have had issues managing their studios since at least 2009 or so and Spencer was in charge of a lot back then as well. Activision doesn't need to be bought out or taken over but they do need a new guy at the top. None of us like Kotick but the fact is that company has done very well under his leadership. As someone who already owns a Series X I don't see why so many xbox fans are so high on this other than console wars nonsense, you aren't getting any games out of this deal that you wouldn't have had already, you'll just get them on game pass and that will likely lower the quality as well as the number of releases. Same thing with the Bethesda deal, how did anyone who owns an xbox benefit? we had all of those games coming to Series consoles anyway.

 

[DarkMage619]

Anyone who thinks this would be good for the industry isn't thinking clearly IMO, MS can't handle the studios they have now properly. They have had issues managing their studios since at least 2009 or so and Spencer was in charge of a lot back then as well. Activision doesn't need to be bought out or taken over but they do need a new guy at the top. None of us like Kotick but the fact is that company has done very well under his leadership. As someone who already owns a Series X I don't see why so many xbox fans are so high on this other than console wars nonsense, you aren't getting any games out of this deal that you wouldn't have had already, you'll just get them on game pass and that will likely lower the quality as well as the number of releases. Same thing with the Bethesda deal, how did anyone who owns an xbox benefit? we had all of those games coming to Series consoles anyway.

Game pass is one obvious answer. All those Bethesda games are now permanently in Game pass and this is what lots of Xbox fans are excited about when thinking of ABK. While you may be a fan of Kotick the employees are not so they too would benefit from this deal.

With regard to games coming to Xbox anyway, Final Fantasy 7 remake and Street Fighter 5 prove this isn't always true. Xbox more likely than any other platform gets passed over by 3rd parties. If MS buys Activision it guarantees support in ways it isn't now. There are plenty of positives to Xbox customers and even non-customers from this deal that have nothing to do with console wars.

 

[ToTTenTranz]

Anyone who thinks this would be good for the industry isn't thinking clearly IMO, MS can't handle the studios they have now properly. They have had issues managing their studios since at least 2009 or so and Spencer was in charge of a lot back then as well. Activision doesn't need to be bought out or taken over but they do need a new guy at the top. None of us like Kotick but the fact is that company has done very well under his leadership. As someone who already owns a Series X I don't see why so many xbox fans are so high on this other than console wars nonsense, you aren't getting any games out of this deal that you wouldn't have had already, you'll just get them on game pass and that will likely lower the quality as well as the number of releases. Same thing with the Bethesda deal, how did anyone who owns an xbox benefit? we had all of those games coming to Series consoles anyway.

Like I said before, most of the pro-Microsoft hysteria surrounding this deal is 100% based on the expectation that after the acquisition GamePass subscribers will get all these games at the exact same quality standards and exact same cadence, and for the exact same subscription price.

 

[Heisenberg007]

ChorizoPicozo (not quoting because of large images), but:

• Creating high-quality games is the responsibility of the management. In this case, Xbox's. Again, they have the studios. Nobody is stopping them from creating high-quality AAA games to compete. They are just not doing it. And that does not justify these acquisitions, as in "we can't produce games like God of War or TLOU, so let us take big popular games off of PlayStation to level the playing field."
• Currently, Activision games release on both PS and Xbox. There are equal opportunities for both platforms and their fans. This is healthy competition.
• More importantly, this does not benefit Xbox gamers. They are still ABK games, and they will get ABK games after the acquisition. Nothing changes for Xbox gamers.
• On the other hand, if Xbox invests a fraction of this money to create and/or fund 10 new AAA high-quality Xbox exclusive games, Xbox gamers benefit from additional 10 games on top of ABK games that they are gonna get anyways like they always do. And that can create a lot of healthy competition b/w Xbox and PS. I'm sure many people (including me) would welcome that level of competition. Xbox becomes more competitive; Xbox gamers get new and more games; Sony responds by creating new games. It's a win-win-win for everyone. Because it adds to the industry, not only remove from it (which this Activision acquisition will do).

 

[Three]

chorizosausage#3774 (not quoting because of large images), but:

• Creating high-quality games is the responsibility of the management. In this case, Xbox's. Again, they have the studios. Nobody is stopping them from creating high-quality AAA games to compete. They are just not doing it. And that does not justify these acquisitions, as in "we can't produce games like God of War or TLOU, so let us take big popular games off of PlayStation to level the playing field."
• Currently, Activision games release on both PS and Xbox. There are equal opportunities for both platforms and their fans. This is healthy competition.
• More importantly, this does not benefit Xbox gamers. They are still ABK games, and they will get ABK games after the acquisition. Nothing changes for Xbox gamers.
• On the other hand, if Xbox invests a fraction of this money to create and/or fund 10 new AAA high-quality Xbox exclusive games, Xbox gamers benefit from additional 10 games on top of ABK games that they are gonna get anyways like they always do. And that can create a lot of healthy competition b/w Xbox and PS. I'm sure many people (including me) would welcome that level of competition. Xbox becomes more competitive; Xbox gamers get new and more games; Sony responds by creating new games. It's a win-win-win for everyone. Because it adds to the industry, not only remove from it (which this Activision acquisition will do).

Who's that you've tagged? They're going to stroll in here wondering what the hell is going on.

 

[Heisenberg007]

Who's that you've tagged? They're going to stroll in here wondering what the hell is going on.

Oops lol. Fixed. Thank you!!

I almost created this

 

[Varteras]

I thought they were #3. When (and how) did they become #4?

Next it'll be, "Look, we haven't even been making games". Which would be somewhat accurate right now.

 

[Heisenberg007]

Next it'll be, "Look, we haven't even been making games". Which would be somewhat accurate right now.

"Look, Dad, no hands."

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

Good is not enough. you need to be great; 80+ on Meta.

being good (70+ meta) is considered "trash" not worth full price. (according to some gamers).

all the games you listed are above 80+.

and you can consider some of those are part of a franchise, backed by a big publisher or made with blood, sweat and tears.

you could also say that they excel at something. right?

Hitman:
Eidos Interactive era: 4 games.
nor really a big seller despite several of those reaching 80+ meta.

Square Enix era: 2 games.
Absolution was divisive among old fans:
criticized for its linear level design and the over-use of quick-time events.

and you could said that sold well....well not according to Square Enix:

"On 26 March 2013, Square Enix announced that the game had sold about 3.6 million copies at retail, but has failed to reach predicted sales targets"

what happened next?..Hitman 2016 "World of Assesination" GaaS

despite this change:

"Contrary to the developers' expectations, Hitman's episodic format did not succeed commercially. Most of the players purchased the full-priced versions and the sales volume was significantly lower than the traditional boxed release. Due to market confusion over the game's episodic format, even when the game's development was completed, the retail version did not meet publisher Square Enix's expectations, causing it to divest from the studio"


WarnerBros. Era= 1 game.
IoI were in ptetty bad state. laying off 40% their staff.

https://gamedaily.biz/article/339/io-interactive-layoffs-were-needed-to-finish-hitman-2

IOI self publishing = 1 Game.
after a pretty rough era, they manage to find categoric success. embracing NEW business model.

i put this time line to show the point I was making:

Hitman struggle with the traditional and expected way of making games, THIEIR DISRUPTION force them to adapt or die. proves my point.


Monster hunter (another old franchise) that embraced GaaS/ MTXs. to finally become a big money maker but not big or Ongoning enough:

Elden Ring= the payoff for many years of consistency.



Plague Tale is being published by Focus Entertainment (not a big AAA) different expectations.




the market says other wise. as I already illustrate with images.

GaaS/MTXs is what is driving forward industry growth; people are speaking with their wallets.

your high-quality polished games are a rarity relegated to a handfull of priviliged (thanks to the money bed generated by GaaS and/or the 30% cut of their store)




this is the issue with some of you (i dont think you are as bad as the black cat, AFAIK).


for a moment, drop the fanboy glasses please. and look at the big picture.

you say:
"Microsoft has more studios than PlayStation"

is having more studios = More "High-quality" games?. just look at the track record of every single Xbox and bethesda studio. (which i already illustrate they were struggling finding commercial success with several of their games)


you say:
"They just need to use those resources properly, i.e., produce high-quality games"

sure. everyone is well aware of the pathetic and complete shitshow MS/Xbox missmanagement of Studios, IP and the Xbox brand itself has been.


you say
"If Xbox also gets ABK, they will have 79% more studios than PlayStation and many exclusive games and IPs that have the largest community of PlayStation"


and i ask the same question. is having more studios means more "high-quality" games?

Activision is The Call of Duty company.

and blizzard has WoW, Overwatch (which became free to play) and diablo. Also Blizzard takes a long ass time to release.

so many studios and so few IPs.

and if you think MS (management disaster) is coming out dismantling all the studios to create a new ones and produce "High- quality" Games avery month...sowrry...you are out of your fucking mind.

and i already provided a bunch of examples of the outcomes if big mergers.


you say:
"That's not fair competition"

MS buying these companies is not a guarantee of anything.. in fact; is going to be the hardest challenge for MS/Xbox in their history. highest chances to be a massive pain in the ass. if not, catastrophic for Xbox.


and yes regulators are doing what they are supposed to be doing. and this is why the deal has been aproved without remedies in several places.why? because Xbox is so insignificant in those markets that it dosen't matter. no like the US/UK where Xbox is more competitive.


but forget about it: let say you can't take the fanboy glasses off.

i have news for you:

this deal is going to make PlayStation stronger than ever. an absolute violent, savage, agressive, arrogant , psychopath mother fucker ready to destroy any "unfair competition".

aren't you excited at how sony is going to fight to preserve its supremacy?

Applications for neogaf essay writers are currently closed. Please fuck off until a position becomes open

 

[feynoob]

Good is not enough. you need to be great; 80+ on Meta.

People and their fetish with metacritic.

 

[GHG]

Applications for neogaf essay writers are currently closed. Please fuck off until a position becomes open

After the current incumbents have vacated their positions the roles will be made redundant for obvious reasons.

 

[Heisenberg007]

11,000 are way too many! Can this have an effect on the acquisition?

Microsoft could lay off as many as 11,000 employees this week

Microsoft could announce wide-sweeping layoffs within the next few days, according to separate reports from Bloomberg and Sky News.

www.engadget.com

(not sure if it warrants a separate thread. If someone can, it'd be a good idea to keep a close eye out on the Xbox division and measure the downsizing impact on the Xbox division)

 

[Three]

11,000 are way too many! Can this have an effect on the acquisition?

What sort of effect? I doubt it has any effect. They already layed off a fair few in october, I don't think it influenced anything with regard to this deal.