• 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.

Microsoft / Activision Deal Approval Watch |OT| (MS/ABK close)

Do you believe the deal will be approved?


  • Total voters
    886
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
Because they don't want to/can't.

They still haven't reached critical mass for Gamepass, adding barriers would be the equivalent of Netflix enforcing their 1 account per household thing before they became ubiquitous.

They can as they do with other promotions, they simply just don't care about that loophole as of now, the amount of subscribers that came from that way and those that stay because of are a small fraction against the rest of their current subscribers.

I'm sure MS will fix that when they think it's time to, in the meantime make use of it.
 

KungFucius

King Snowflake
And Sony hasn’t. Neither has MS.

Which is why this deal is blocked now, and why the 10 year deal with Nintendo is an empty gesture.

Nintendo is an example why MS could be successful even without this acquisition if they could innovate and entice customers rather than coerce them to their platform.
That is utter bullshit. Nintendo has some nearly 40 year old, iconic franchises that are far more recognizable than anything MS has. They are successful because of those franchises and their platform, not just because they innovate. MS couldn't just replicate that. Nintendo is actually using their franchises and history if delivering good games to coerce people like me into buying their underpowered HW just to get a taste.
 

ToadMan

Member
Agreed and it would never come to that IMO, because the US as a country aren't in the habit of letting anything get in the way of their most important nuclear/defence and geopolitical ally relationship, and the US government seizing control of Microsoft is more likely than them doing such a thing.

People keep talking about the $3b penalty as important to Microsoft (shareholders) while forgetting what a monthly 1% swing in share price of a 2Trillion dollar company costs or gains shareholders . Such a decision if even possible to impilment - I firmly believe they couldn't - would cost their share price double digit drops and that would run to hundreds of billions in loses for shareholders, so I agree it is never happening.

Yeah. Also proceeding without the UK approval scenario is effectively impossible.

This is what was provided to ABK shareholders and the SEC prior to voting for the acquisition to proceed

Activision Blizzard and Microsoft have agreed to use their reasonable best efforts to comply with all regulatory filing and notification requirements and obtain all regulatory approvals required or recommended to consummate the merger and the other transactions contemplated by the merger agreement. These approvals include approval under, or notifications pursuant to, the HSR Act and the competition laws of the European Union, the United Kingdom, China and certain other jurisdictions.”

So any one of the EU, UK, China or USA (and certain other jurisdictions - not sure where those are listed) can block the whole deal.

Or any one of them can require remedies that are not acceptable to MS causing them to pull out. Or in the case of the FTC just drag out the process so long the financial viability of the transaction is compromised causing them to pull out.

As of today we are still zero for 4 approvals and its not even clear if MS has so far proposed any remedies that any regulator accepts as sufficient to approve an acquisition.
 

PaintTinJr

Member
That is utter bullshit. Nintendo has some nearly 40 year old, iconic franchises that are far more recognizable than anything MS has. They are successful because of those franchises and their platform, not just because they innovate. MS couldn't just replicate that. Nintendo is actually using their franchises and history if delivering good games to coerce people like me into buying their underpowered HW just to get a taste.
But that didn't help the Gamecube or WiiU against the Xbox, Xbox360/X1 for them by "market share", so the IPs alone don't give them market share.
 

ToadMan

Member
That is utter bullshit. Nintendo has some nearly 40 year old, iconic franchises that are far more recognizable than anything MS has. They are successful because of those franchises and their platform, not just because they innovate. MS couldn't just replicate that. Nintendo is actually using their franchises and history if delivering good games to coerce people like me into buying their underpowered HW just to get a taste.

All of which is a problem for MS, and MS alone.

Buying ABK makes MS’s problem everyone’s problem.

And the regulators will look into that as they did with Meta/Within.
 
But that didn't help the Gamecube or WiiU against the Xbox, Xbox360/X1 for them by "market share", so the IPs alone don't give them market share.

IP alone definitely can't get it done.

Takes a successful strategy and execution of that strategy.

Nintendo is very popular, but they have to convince people to buy their platform each generation. They've got a very difficult job.

Does someone need Mario Kart 9 if they have Mario Kart 8? When you're selling to families, graphics alone generally aren't enough to match the sales of the first game. Mario Kart still sells because that's what people want with the switch.

After years with a nintendo console, a lot of people are ready to grow up (and I don't mean that as a pejorative) and get an xbox or ps. Nintendo has to keep pulling in new fans consistently to make up for lost ones. They're fairly good at it because they do have great IP, but we consistently see them take Ls between generations.
 
And Sony hasn’t. Neither has MS.

Which is why this deal is blocked now, and why the 10 year deal with Nintendo is an empty gesture.

Nintendo is an example why MS could be successful even without this acquisition if they could innovate and entice customers rather than coerce them to their platform.

Sony has been in the console business since 1994 (29 years) and Microsoft has been in since 2000 (23 years).

In a fairly similar amount of time, Sony has created way more franchises and successful franchises than Microsoft. That goes to intent, focus, management, and strategy.

Nintendo's 1st party games kept them alive during the N64 and Gamecube and had it not been for that, it would have been an even worse experience for Nintendo. Similarly, at the time Sony really struggled to put out consistently quality titles. Sony really pumped more focus into 1st party development at the turn of the century. Microsoft did not.

And the industry changed almost overnight mirroring much of the rest of the entertainment industry and the adoption of digital over physical.
 

PaintTinJr

Member
IP alone definitely can't get it done.

Takes a successful strategy and execution of that strategy.

Nintendo is very popular, but they have to convince people to buy their platform each generation. They've got a very difficult job.

Does someone need Mario Kart 9 if they have Mario Kart 8? When you're selling to families, graphics alone generally aren't enough to match the sales of the first game. Mario Kart still sells because that's what people want with the switch.

After years with a nintendo console, a lot of people are ready to grow up (and I don't mean that as a pejorative) and get an xbox or ps. Nintendo has to keep pulling in new fans consistently to make up for lost ones. They're fairly good at it because they do have great IP, but we consistently see them take Ls between generations.
I think what is also pertinent to this acquisition is that consumer opinion years later - as with the Gamecube and WiiU - as great means little to the immediate "Ls", which is exactly why Microsoft are trying to buy ATVI for immediate disruptive narrative wins for them and their platform, and was exactly the type of narrative win Nintendo would have needed to recover their day to day positions when the Gamecube and WiiU were failing, so where the argument is that Nintendo don't need CoD as the exclusive on their system, that argument is only true in successful generations like the NES, SNES, Wii, Switch, the others would have been massively changed by the news of a $70b acquisition of ATVI and the chance to entice/snare CoDs userbase to their consoles of the future.
 

Three

Member
That is utter bullshit. Nintendo has some nearly 40 year old, iconic franchises that are far more recognizable than anything MS has. They are successful because of those franchises and their platform, not just because they innovate. MS couldn't just replicate that. Nintendo is actually using their franchises and history if delivering good games to coerce people like me into buying their underpowered HW just to get a taste.
They created those IPs, that's still innovation.
 

Topher

Gold Member
That is utter bullshit. Nintendo has some nearly 40 year old, iconic franchises that are far more recognizable than anything MS has. They are successful because of those franchises and their platform, not just because they innovate. MS couldn't just replicate that. Nintendo is actually using their franchises and history if delivering good games to coerce people like me into buying their underpowered HW just to get a taste.

I agree with this. Which is why this entire argument of "Nintendo proves <something>" when it comes to COD is also "utter bullshit".
 
Last edited:

splattered

Member
Because they don't want to/can't.

They still haven't reached critical mass for Gamepass, adding barriers would be the equivalent of Netflix enforcing their 1 account per household thing before they became ubiquitous.


Yep they are disincentivising XBLG for a reason, they want the higher spend, and are keenly aware of people using the conversion trick for GPU.


If you were Nadella, would you choose the guy who delivered failure for over a decade, or one of the most influential gaming business CEOs of all time?

10 times out of 10, Nadella would choose Kotick.

I would choose the guy who isn't a PR nightmare and potentially cause more harm than good for my company. that being said, there is no reason why he couldn't contract him on the side to work some stuff behind the scenes under certain controls but he certainly wouldn't be the head of or face of the Xbox division.
 
I think what is also pertinent to this acquisition is that consumer opinion years later - as with the Gamecube and WiiU - as great means little to the immediate "Ls", which is exactly why Microsoft are trying to buy ATVI for immediate disruptive narrative wins for them and their platform, and was exactly the type of narrative win Nintendo would have needed to recover their day to day positions when the Gamecube and WiiU were failing, so where the argument is that Nintendo don't need CoD as the exclusive on their system, that argument is only true in successful generations like the NES, SNES, Wii, Switch, the others would have been massively changed by the news of a $70b acquisition of ATVI and the chance to entice/snare CoDs userbase to their consoles of the future.

I see what you're saying. I think that is something people really ignore is that sometimes success begets success.

Sometimes games sell really well because they're good and they sell systems, but the reverse is also true.

There is a reason why FF7 is so much more successful than FF6 despite quite a large percentage thinking 6 is better. PS1 sold about 2x what the SNES sold. That larger user base lent itself to a major franchise selling more than it was accustomed to.

Same reason why Resident Evil going exclusive to Dreamcast and subsequently to Gamecube didn't significantly help either platform in the grand scheme of things and probably hurt Resident Evil in the process. The same could be said of Tomb Raider on Xbox One.

I think the problem with COD exclusive on say Gamecube is that it isn't COD anymore and the fans aren't necessarily going to move over. We've seen that time and time again.

Final Fantasy fans DID move over from SNES to PS1, but Resident Evil fans didn't move over to Dreamcast/Gamecube, and Tomb Raider fans didn't move to Xbox.

When you look at Embracer buying Tomb Raider for so little, it strikes as interesting because Microsoft could have easily bought it and added it as a pinnacle franchise, which is what I think you need these days. A catalog of varied content and IP. That's not someone one or two exclusives can accomplish.
 

ReBurn

Gold Member
I was able to let my PC game pass subscription expire and renew for $1 for successive months, but that was back in 2020.
On console it usually took at least 3 months before the offer would reset for me. When the $1 offer dropped for GPU it took 6 months before the offer reset for me. Doesn't matter much these days because I get GPU for free with Microsoft rewards points.
 

PaintTinJr

Member
I see what you're saying. I think that is something people really ignore is that sometimes success begets success.

Sometimes games sell really well because they're good and they sell systems, but the reverse is also true.

There is a reason why FF7 is so much more successful than FF6 despite quite a large percentage thinking 6 is better. PS1 sold about 2x what the SNES sold. That larger user base lent itself to a major franchise selling more than it was accustomed to.

Same reason why Resident Evil going exclusive to Dreamcast and subsequently to Gamecube didn't significantly help either platform in the grand scheme of things and probably hurt Resident Evil in the process. The same could be said of Tomb Raider on Xbox One.

I think the problem with COD exclusive on say Gamecube is that it isn't COD anymore and the fans aren't necessarily going to move over. We've seen that time and time again.

Final Fantasy fans DID move over from SNES to PS1, but Resident Evil fans didn't move over to Dreamcast/Gamecube, and Tomb Raider fans didn't move to Xbox.

When you look at Embracer buying Tomb Raider for so little, it strikes as interesting because Microsoft could have easily bought it and added it as a pinnacle franchise, which is what I think you need these days. A catalog of varied content and IP. That's not someone one or two exclusives can accomplish.
I should have used the word mindshare, and probably used the word western-mindshare at that. The examples you gave I would place alongside Sega Japan IPs that only reinforce or increase mindshare when you've already got the traditionally important western IPs - with parity, or best version - on your system like the CoDs/Fifa/Maddens, etc like PlayStation and Xbox always have.

In a dystopian world, ATVI bought by Nintendo when at the time of the WiiU, even with a 10year deal for Xbox and PlayStation would have changed 3P support for the WiiU, changed its western mindshare(marketability) and would have virtually guaranteed the next Nintendo systems would have been successful with 3P support IMO - so would have massively moved the needle in the short and longterm.
 
I should have used the word mindshare, and probably used the word western-mindshare at that. The examples you gave I would place alongside Sega Japan IPs that only reinforce or increase mindshare when you've already got the traditionally important western IPs - with parity, or best version - on your system like the CoDs/Fifa/Maddens, etc like PlayStation and Xbox always have.

In a dystopian world, ATVI bought by Nintendo when at the time of the WiiU, even with a 10year deal for Xbox and PlayStation would have changed 3P support for the WiiU, changed its western mindshare(marketability) and would have virtually guaranteed the next Nintendo systems would have been successful with 3P support IMO - so would have massively moved the needle in the short and longterm.

Despite Tomb Raider at the time being owned by Square Enix, it was still a western game and a western developed game.

If you look at the 360 sales, Madden wasn't really a big franchise for it and neither was FIFA. The success of the 360 particularly in North America was it's popularity as an FPS machine. But CoD isn't nearly as popular on the X1 or the XS, why because those systems aren't as successful.

If Nintendo had bought Activision, what would have happened is people would have shifted to Battlefield, and Nintendo probably would have gone under as a result. It wouldn't have brought much 3rd party support to the Wii U.

It's very difficult to herd people like sheep from one platform to another it rarely ever happens, which is what I was trying to illustrate with RE and Tomb Raider.

You look at the success 360 had with CoD and it was because the system had a ton of FPS.

You look at the success PS1 had with FF7 and it was because the system had a ton of RPGs.
 
Last edited:

gothmog

Gold Member
I don't think so. Not with all the baggage Kotick has. I don't think anyone is going to take over for Phil Spencer, who I think has done an incredible job, but let's say he retired or something. Kotick would not be on the list, imo.
I think Kotick is going to be hard to completely abandon. The dude has positioned himself in such a way that if he goes it will be on his terms.
 

zedinen

Member
Nintendo has sold 120 million consoles without COD or Madden. The arguments are really shallow.


Why do you think Sony is the market leader and Nintendo will be a distant third by the end of the year ?

3XvnQDN.jpeg



Cy3Ut1M.jpeg




I'm going to be honest.

The deal must be blocked because Microsoft is giving PlayStation ammo to strengthen its position within Sony group, and a free pass to consolidate the industry in Japan and Europe at the best possible moment.

Famitsu: 2023 vs 2002

Week 6

PS5 93,026
PS2 80,254

Week 7
PS5 93,574
PS2 68,660

Week 8
PS5 88,653
PS2 68,417

Week 9
PS5 91,729
PS2 60,241


PS3 is rolling over in its grave, after PS5 raised prices and increased hardware sales forecast in spite of Microsoft acquisition spree and GP

Ken Kutaragi found out that independent publishers and developers dominated the industry in the 2000s and PlayStation was disposable. The PS3 launch put at end to his time at Sony.

At the present time, PlayStation owns massive IPs and dominate game awards nominations, independent publishers are losing power, and Sony is raising prices and breaking sales records.

Thanks to Microsoft, PlayStation could end the gen with more hardware sales than ever, an army of studios and an enviable stable of properties.

To make things worse, the synergies between Game, Pictures and Music allow Sony to leverage its entertainment IPs in a way no other company can, as seen with TLOU.

Who, in his right mind, would want PlayStation to control the content on top of hardware sales ?


Buying ABK makes MS’s problem everyone’s problem.

This
 

PaintTinJr

Member
Despite Tomb Raider at the time being owned by Square Enix, it was still a western game and a western developed game.

If you look at the 360 sales, Madden wasn't really a big franchise for it and neither was FIFA. The success of the 360 particularly in North America was it's popularity as an FPS machine. But CoD isn't nearly as popular on the X1 or the XS, why because those systems aren't as successful.

If Nintendo had bought Activision, what would have happened is people would have shifted to Battlefield, and Nintendo probably would have gone under as a result. It wouldn't have brought much 3rd party support to the Wii U.

It's very difficult to herd people like sheep from one platform to another it rarely ever happens, which is what I was trying to illustrate with RE and Tomb Raider.

You look at the success 360 had with CoD and it was because the system had a ton of FPS.

You look at the success PS1 had with FF7 and it was because the system had a ton of RPGs.
I thought Tomb Raider being owned by Square was because the original publisher had already had success issue and financial difficulties, so wasn't a system selling IP by then and was only seeing a rival after the PS3/360-PS4X1 cross-gen reboot.

Madden still was getting eye watering marketing across all additions so having parity on Xbox compared to Nintendo still positions Nintendo differently in that era.

The dude bro franchise position of the xbox brand I agree helped the 360, but that IMO just happened to be the western-mindshare games of the time with massive AAA marketing across PlayStation and Xbox, and had Nintendo been able to get parity and rely on support for non-exclusive dude bro games while buying ATVI for their next-gen machine - as Microsoft are here - it would have changed mindshare and moved the needle for the WiiU at the expense of PlayStation and Xbox. Splatoon shows that there is an appetite for highly competitive shooter games on Nintendo consoles too IMO.

I don't agree that consoles are purchased based on leaning more to one genre than another, but by the quality and mindshare of the IPs and the confidence in western 3P support the console will get.
 
I thought Tomb Raider being owned by Square was because the original publisher had already had success issue and financial difficulties, so wasn't a system selling IP by then and was only seeing a rival after the PS3/360-PS4X1 cross-gen reboot.

Madden still was getting eye watering marketing across all additions so having parity on Xbox compared to Nintendo still positions Nintendo differently in that era.

The dude bro franchise position of the xbox brand I agree helped the 360, but that IMO just happened to be the western-mindshare games of the time with massive AAA marketing across PlayStation and Xbox, and had Nintendo been able to get parity and rely on support for non-exclusive dude bro games while buying ATVI for their next-gen machine - as Microsoft are here - it would have changed mindshare and moved the needle for the WiiU at the expense of PlayStation and Xbox. Splatoon shows that there is an appetite for highly competitive shooter games on Nintendo consoles too IMO.

I don't agree that consoles are purchased based on leaning more to one genre than another, but by the quality and mindshare of the IPs and the confidence in western 3P support the console will get.

Tomb Raider (2013) was VERY successful on PS3. Tomb Raider going exclusive for a year was a huge get that just didn't do much. Tomb Raider 2013 is the best selling Tomb Raider game of all time.

I'm not saying it's about leaning on one genre or another. My point was that these individual franchises have less pull and they have more success when surrounded by an overall strategy supporting the genre they fit in since the fanbase of those franchises tends to play those games.

FF7 probably wouldn't have been as popular as it was had Arc the Lad not come out before it or if Nintendo had put out a compelling RPG on N64 before FF7 came out. The entire RPG fanbase jumped on PS1 because it was getting the best RPGs in general.

If the ABK deal goes through and Microsoft did pull CoD from PlayStation, it would be the death of CoD as the primary FPS on the market. Would many people go over to Xbox? Absolutely, but that divorce would work both ways with both products being damaged. The question is who gets damaged the most and by what degree.

Was PS4 damaged by not having Rise of the Tomb Raider? Or was Rise of the Tomb Raider damaged by not being on PS4. The latter turned out to be true.
 

Astray

Member
I would choose the guy who isn't a PR nightmare and potentially cause more harm than good for my company. that being said, there is no reason why he couldn't contract him on the side to work some stuff behind the scenes under certain controls but he certainly wouldn't be the head of or face of the Xbox division.
Microsoft is literally cooperating with him right now in order to pay him millions in their purchase. How is him being a PR Nightmare a deterrent here and not when they initially made the deal?
 

gothmog

Gold Member
She travels with him pretty much everywhere now, her public presence has tripled lately. It just feels like a natural match. Perhaps I'm wrong. I don't know, so lets just call it a hunch.
Okay. Guess I'm not seeing it but I googled for a few minutes. Just seemed like she was getting more exposure because of the ABK deal.
 

Hendrick's

If only my penis was as big as my GamerScore!
She travels with him pretty much everywhere now, her public presence has tripled lately. It just feels like a natural match. Perhaps I'm wrong. I don't know, so lets just call it a hunch.
It's pretty obvious she is next in line and is being groomed for the role.
 

Fredrik

Member
It's pretty obvious she is next in line and is being groomed for the role.
She’s not a good fit imo. People hate on Phil all day long here but he actually seems to genuinely like games. He talk too much but I still like him. I don’t ever hear Sarah talk about the games she plays, to me she’s more like the typical suit we see everywhere else, fake PR smile and all, and that bores me to death.
 
Last edited:

Hendrick's

If only my penis was as big as my GamerScore!
She’s not a good fit imo. People hate on Phil all day long here but he actually seems to genuinely like games. He talk too much but I still like him. I don’t ever hear Sarah talk about the games she plays, to me she’s more like the typical suit we see everywhere else, fake PR smile and all, and that bores me to death.
I kind of agree. I mean, there is no replacing Phil, he is a God. But you are right, I don't know much about her and she doesn't seem like a person who has ever picked up a controller.
 

Punished Miku

Human Rights Subscription Service
I kind of agree. I mean, there is no replacing Phil, he is a God. But you are right, I don't know much about her and she doesn't seem like a person who has ever picked up a controller.
I think she speaks Japanese. That's about all I know. Involved in negotiations, so probably sitting in or leading all the Gamepass deals and more.
 

ReBurn

Gold Member
I don't think so. Not with all the baggage Kotick has. I don't think anyone is going to take over for Phil Spencer, who I think has done an incredible job, but let's say he retired or something. Kotick would not be on the list, imo.
There's no way Kotick stays if the acquisition were to be finalized. He and the ATVI board will get their golden parachutes and they'll be gone with Microsoft's best wishes.
 

PaintTinJr

Member
There's no way Kotick stays if the acquisition were to be finalized. He and the ATVI board will get their golden parachutes and they'll be gone with Microsoft's best wishes.
I'd question if he'll stay if/when the acquisition fails. IIRC a group of shareholders have an ongoing legal case saying that the Bobby/board are failing in their duties to ATVI shareholders by having a conflict of interest with the size of the parachute payments compared to their size of shareholdings.

If the acquisition fails, the size of those payments could IMO get intense external and internal scrutiny leading to either Bobby and the board needing to up their investment in the company by shareholdings or accept those golden handshakes are now no longer a potential conflict of interest in the eyes of the wider shareholders. If that were to happen, would Bobby still have the support he currently enjoys at ATVI?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom