Support NeoGAF

[Sleepwalker]

Aaron? Surely not

This man jinxed the deal from the very beginning. Never had a chance.

 

[ShaiKhulud1989]

ChatGPT could replace him and the outcome would be no different.

I WAS DRINKING DAMMIT

 

[demigod]

Yeah this is just as embarrassing as xbox one reveal. Microsoft will want to replace him with a new face once this deal is officially dead. They should remove Aaron greenberg and major Nelson too. Aaron greenberg especially. That crash bandicoot picture with him next to it is so embarrassing that you can never recover from such a fail. I guess it's not his fault when his superiors are also stupid and don't instruct him to shut the fuck up and be professional. The entire company is arrogant and too loud. They talk the talk but when it comes to action, they can barely even crawl.

What, you don’t like my avatar? How dare you.

 

[Dick Jones]

This man jinxed the deal from the very beginning. Never had a chance.

Hey, that's the next boss of Xbox you're speaking about. His work speaks for itself.

 

[demigod]

I hope not.

It'd be a sad day for PlayStation fans when Phil Spencer leaves as the head of Xbox. No kidding.

Best fucking Sony CEO evar!!!!

 

[demigod]

Our dear friend is working hard

Did he cry on twitter that he was permed on GAF like he did when era permed him?

 

[Sleepwalker]

Hey, that's the next boss of Xbox you're speaking about. His work speaks for itself.

Well, microsoft did always have a sleazy used car salesman vibe. He will fit right in as boss.

 

[mansoor1980]

 

[Dick Jones]

Did he cry on twitter that he was permed on GAF like he did when era permed him?

No, he didn't. He is confident in his appeal that ModofWar and Evilore were acting irrationally. Mueller has proof and will ask President Biden to reverse this ban. This is the darkest day since 9/11 (possibly darker) and this move shows the world that GAF isn't open for open fanboy warrioring. Sad!

 

[Dick Jones]

Well, microsoft did always have a sleazy used car salesman vibe. He will fit right in as boss.

Aaron can't be trusted to run a bath.

 

[poppabk]

Good lord. What has to happen to someone, that they behave like this? I used to think it was just kids but it's not. We have multiple examples of grown men in their 30s 40s and even 50s acting this way? So embarrassing! What the hell is wrong with these people? Are they going to get paid a million if the deal goes through? Why would you be so invested like this?

We are naturally a tribal people. Look at how people behave with regards to sports which has zero impact on anything in the real world. Posting a few things on Twitter pales in comparison to riots (when you win) etc. We pick a side and we lose perspective.

 

[TheGodfather07]

It's called fanboyism, aren't you familiar with it?

This is to an extreme level though. There are many fanboys on gaf but most are capable of behaving like normal human beings too. Then you got the likes of that twat SenjutsuSage, who's entire life and wellbeing seems to revolve around xbox. The guys mentally ill and needs treatment.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

We are naturally a tribal people. Look at how people behave with regards to sports which has zero impact on anything in the real world. Posting a few things on Twitter pales in comparison to riots (when you win) etc. We pick a side and we lose perspective.

 

[MasterCornholio]

Aaron can't be trusted to run a bath.

Aaron running a bath house?

That sounds horrible.

 

[TheGodfather07]

We are naturally a tribal people. Look at how people behave with regards to sports which has zero impact on anything in the real world. Posting a few things on Twitter pales in comparison to riots (when you win) etc. We pick a side and we lose perspective.

That's a small group though. Most sports fans can enjoy and fanboy over their team and also behave like normal people too. The extreme ones are mentally ill. Something just ain't right with them.

 

[Dick Jones]

Aaron running a bath house?

That sounds horrible.

I was thinking a small bath in his house. I wasn't thinking bigger

 

[MasterCornholio]

I was thinking a small bath in his house. I wasn't thinking bigger

Oh he's running a bath all right.

 

[poppabk]

That's a small group though. Most sports fans can enjoy and fanboy over their team and also behave like normal people too. The extreme ones are mentally ill. Something just ain't right with them.

Yeah there is always a small fraction that just go down a rabbit hole never to reappear - they commit so hard, and very importantly get attention for doing so.

 

[gothmog]

The question is whether the people at Microsoft welcome getting the sack. The Ian St John interviews(DirectX project leader) from the past said that you only get to keep your share options from Microsoft if you get sacked, so maybe these people are happy this deal has given them an early exit option - finally - while getting to keep their shares.

That's normal in all business. Unvested options or grants are not yours until they are vested. You get them via either time (these options vest on July 1, 202X) or by some event like them letting you go.

Nobody tries to get fired but that outcome is pretty good when it happens.

 

[NeroDaGod]

Sony have a folder full of Lulu's tweets printed out waiting for that meeting.

Won’t be surprised if she loses her job because they refuse to do business with them whilst she’s still there.

 

[mrmustard]

This is to an extreme level though. There are many fanboys on gaf but most are capable of behaving like normal human beings too. Then you got the likes of that twat SenjutsuSage, who's entire life and wellbeing seems to revolve around xbox. The guys mentally ill and needs treatment.

For me all fanboys are mentally ill to an extent. The thing with mental illnesses is that the affected don't see it. That Senju guy thinks he's completely normal and so does the rest of the fanboys. Being a fan is fine, being a fanboy is very concerning.

 

[Astray]

Mueller tried so hard and got so far, but in the end, it doesn't even matter.

 

[gothmog]

The CMA doesn't care about concessions. They had a a mission just like Khan of the FTC are is trying to flex power. Any concession needed had already be made. If you read the CMA report the entire thing is full of inaccuracies,flat out lies and BS. It shows how incompetent government agencies are and how they need to modernize or hire people who actually know different Industries

 

[tmlDan]

finally a level headed chat about the CMA blocking in the skillup pod today

 

[ChuckeRearmed]

One potential problem is that with Xbox losing marketshare it might be difficult to acquire studios simply because developers might not want to make exclusive games to Xbox only (like Bungie did not want to go full exclusive). So the value of acquisitions will lower.

 

[GHG]

Epic have been losing court battles left right and center and I don't see these people having the same strong reactions.

This isn't about "free" games. It never was.

 

[MasterCornholio]

One potential problem is that with Xbox losing marketshare it might be difficult to acquire studios simply because developers might not want to make exclusive games to Xbox only (like Bungie did not want to go full exclusive). So the value of acquisitions will lower.

I think most studios would be OK with Microsofts financial backing. As long as they get paid they won't care on which platforms the game release on. If they depend on game sales to stay in business then the situation is different.

 

[Zannegan]

I was afraid the decision would bring the drama to an end. Happy to be proven wrong.

 

[XesqueVara]

One potential problem is that with Xbox losing marketshare it might be difficult to acquire studios simply because developers might not want to make exclusive games to Xbox only (like Bungie did not want to go full exclusive). So the value of acquisitions will lower.

Naaah, In Acquisitions money speaks, not marketshare.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

finally a level headed chat about the CMA blocking in the skillup pod today

finally? have you seen twitter?

 

[Poltz]

One potential problem is that with Xbox losing marketshare it might be difficult to acquire studios simply because developers might not want to make exclusive games to Xbox only (like Bungie did not want to go full exclusive). So the value of acquisitions will lower.

I think they value financial backing over that tbh.

 

[Banjo64]

The CMA doesn't care about concessions. They had a a mission just like Khan of the FTC are is trying to flex power. Any concession needed had already be made. If you read the CMA report the entire thing is full of inaccuracies,flat out lies and BS. It shows how incompetent government agencies are and how they need to modernize or hire people who actually know different Industries

Can we not create a special sub forum?

 

[GHG]

Can we not create a special sub forum?

The reality of what all of this is about for some people is just a click away:

Why would a 10 yr agreement not be good enough? That's literally 2 console generations of games. A binding legal contract to be basically on parity and included in sonys own ps+ plus other financial benefits. If I was MS and the cma does try to block it I'd still buy them say f-ofd to the UK and let battlefield reign supreme there. Then work out some kind of exclusive deal with ea to fk over Sony some more

 

[jonnyp]

I really wonder what he does for a living. I teach piano and whenever I have to write feedback to the parents I take 15 minutes to carefully type out my message and another 5-10 minutes before that to think about what I have to say. And that's just 2-3 short paragraphs. And i get very exhausted after doing that.

Dude writes fucking essays the entire fucking day!! Just imagine how much energy and time that takes. And he does it every fucking day!

Imagine if he uses that time and energy on doing actual useful things. Or just relaxing or spending time with family or friends. Or picking up a skill.


Dude would be a fucking genius if he spent all that time and energy learning something.

Nah, there's no fixing a certain type of stupid I'm afraid.

 

[Drell]

Why would a 10 yr agreement not be good enough? That's literally 2 console generations of games. A binding legal contract to be basically on parity and included in sonys own ps+ plus other financial benefits. If I was MS and the cma does try to block it I'd still buy them say f-ofd to the UK and let battlefield reign supreme there. Then work out some kind of exclusive deal with ea to fk over Sony some more

I guess Microsoft wouldn't make a lot of money if you were deciding things for them.

 

[IlGialloMondadori]

Why would a 10 yr agreement not be good enough? That's literally 2 console generations of games. A binding legal contract to be basically on parity and included in sonys own ps+ plus other financial benefits. If I was MS and the cma does try to block it I'd still buy them say f-ofd to the UK and let battlefield reign supreme there. Then work out some kind of exclusive deal with ea to fk over Sony some more

Tell me you’re a fanboy and love monopolies without telling me you’re a fanboy and love monopolies.

 

[ChuckeRearmed]

Naaah, In Acquisitions money speaks, not marketshare.

Bungie did not think so for example.

 

[IlGialloMondadori]

Just reading this makes me want the deal to go through.

If Sony had had the money to hoover up a publisher or two during the PS4 era they would have done. And would have taken great delight in curb stomping Microsoft out of the console business.

You’re seriously fantasising about a scenario 10 years ago that never happened as a reason for a gigantic corporate merger.

Some people are legitimately insane and need other hobbies.

 

[Topher]

The Microsoft and Activision Blizzard deal is being scrutinized for the wrong reasons

For over a year, one of the biggest singular sources of news and drama in the video games industry has been Microsoft's ongoing attempts to acquire games publisher Activision Blizzard in a landmark deal worth nearly $69 billion. Since the announcement, the deal has been a frequent source of conversation and debate within the community. It has been heavily scrutinized by a myriad of governmental bodies and regulatory committees on its way to completion.

At this point in the journey, most relevant organizations have approved Microsoft's attempt to acquire Activision Blizzard. The remaining obstacles between Microsoft and welcoming Activision Blizzard into its Xbox ecosystem include approval from the USA's FTC, the UK's CMA, and the EU's European Commission.

Recent reports have suggested that Microsoft planned to complete the deal despite the FTC's ongoing lawsuit, but the latest hurdle in the deal has shown once again how skewed the priorities of these investigations have been. This past week, the CMA has voted to formally block the Microsoft and Activision Blizzard deal, citing risks to the emerging "cloud gaming market."

Microsoft is moving to appeal the decision while assuring its employees that Xbox will continue with or without Activision Blizzard. The CMA's decision highlights how the biggest obstacles to Microsoft succeeding in acquiring Activision Blizzard continue to move their respective goalposts to serve their needs and fail to scrutinize the deal for the right reasons.

Sony's PlayStation is the dominant platform, so why does it need protecting? (Image credit: Windows Central)
In the early days of the Microsoft and Activision Blizzard deal (now a distant memory for those of us in the industry, weary and ready to move past this ordeal), most of the conversation surrounding it was regarding the potential harm to Sony. Yes, most regulators saw fit to criticize the deal and challenge it on the basis that Sony, the market leader in the video games industry compared to Xbox's distant third, wouldn't actively benefit from the deal.

Sony infamously made a huge fuss over the deal, repeatedly making headlines due to its transparent attempts to block the deal. Of course, no one was surprised that Sony would fight against a deal that, while still leaving Xbox in third place in the industry, would potentially take revenue away from PlayStation and give the long-running market leader more substantial competition. However, it was surprising how various regulatory bodies like the FTC and CMA actively pursued these objections, forcing Microsoft to continually reiterate its commitments and overall position.

For months, regulators continued to argue for Sony's sake despite Microsoft's attempts to address concerns.

Most of this centered around the Call of Duty franchise. Being one of the world's largest and most profitable single franchises, Call of Duty generates a ton of revenue for platform holders like Sony, which takes a 30% cut of all digital sales on PlayStation. Sony argued that Microsoft would remove Call of Duty from PlayStation following the deal or sabotage Call of Duty on PlayStation by making it inferior or less content-complete than other versions (this, despite the fact that Sony actively makes deals for exclusive Call of Duty content on PlayStation).

Microsoft repeatedly reaffirmed that Call of Duty would stay on PlayStation and even offered Sony a legally binding 10-year agreement for Call of Duty with full content and feature parity. Microsoft also offered similar deals to other companies like Nintendo (which were agreed to), promising that Call of Duty would come to more platforms and players after the deal, not less. Despite these accommodations, regulators continued to protect Sony and argue against the deal, using Call of Duty as the basis.


Call of Duty was a huge focal point in the beginning, but why does it matter who's cashing the checks if Call of Duty comes to more platforms and more players? (Image credit: Activision)
Rather than protect against unfair monopolies and market manipulation, these arguments ignored the facts and actively fought against healthier competition in the industry. Simply put, Microsoft's move to acquire Activision Blizzard centers around three pillars: mobile gaming, cloud gaming, and Xbox Game Pass. Microsoft never moved to acquire Activision Blizzard just for Call of Duty, with Microsoft Gaming CEO Phil Spencer once stating, "We need Candy Crush, not Call of Duty."

It makes no financial sense for Microsoft to remove such a prominent third-party franchise from third-party platforms, as the revenue gained from having Call of Duty as an Xbox and PC exclusive would be minuscule compared to the revenue Call of Duty already generates by being in as many places as possible. While some Activision Blizzard games would undoubtedly become Xbox and PC exclusives in the future, this is the nature of the industry; Sony's success has largely been built on the success of its PlayStation-exclusive games and content. Sony also regularly pays for third-party games to specifically skip Xbox or Xbox Game Pass, a practice for which Microsoft has been criticized in the past (and now avoids).

Regulators eventually realized the Call of Duty argument wasn't enough and moved on to other areas, like cloud gaming.

Microsoft's commitment to bringing Call of Duty to even more platforms and more players, where the franchise's strengths are most evident, is anathema to Sony's self-serving business practices, which thinks not of how best to benefit gamers but how to increase its market power. This is mirrored by Microsoft's approach to games like Minecraft, Minecraft Dungeons, and Minecraft Legends, all of which are fully multi-platform despite being first-party Xbox games. Microsoft has also proven its ability to honor its agreements, with games like Deathloop and Ghostwire: Tokyo released as PlayStation console exclusives even after Microsoft acquired Bethesda Softworks, the publisher of those games.

As time passed, these Call of Duty and Sony-centric arguments lost their little sway, as regulators realized building arguments out of straw and sticks was no way to stop the deal from happening. Thus, regulators moved on to scrutinize cloud gaming — Better, but not good enough.

Denying cloud gaming the investment it needs


The Logitech G Cloud is part of a new class of devices, but right now only showcases how far cloud gaming still has to go. (Image credit: Windows Central)
As I stated before, the Microsoft and Activision Blizzard deal revolves around three primary objectives for Microsoft. One: Microsoft can finally gain a foothold in the highly competitive and lucrative mobile gaming market where it has traditionally struggled, thanks to publisher King (a part of the Activision Blizzard group). This would allow Microsoft to increase pressure on Apple and Google(opens in new tab) — who hold near monopolies on their respective platforms — to loosen restrictions and encourage healthier competition in the industry.

Two: Microsoft can further bolster its Xbox and PC Game Pass subscriptions, which offer incredible value to gamers and has shown to improve engagement and overall digital spending. Subscription services like Xbox Game Pass have proven to be immensely successful and undeniably make it easier for gamers with limited budgets to enjoy great video games. Competitors like Sony have been hesitant to compete directly with Xbox Game Pass because it would require a shift in their business strategies, but the addition of Activision Blizzard games could further cement Xbox Game Pass as the ultimate value for gamers and progress Microsoft's subscriptions and engagement-focused strategy.

Even valid criticisms of the deal's impact on cloud gaming have been addressed by Microsoft's commitments.

Three: The Activision Blizzard deal could give Microsoft the resources to invest in cloud gaming and bolster it from a fragile, negligible emerging market to a proper new market bustling with innovation and competition. Under this, the CMA has voted to block Microsoft's acquisition, stating that it would actively damage competition in the cloud gaming market. Sadly, the CMA has a clear misunderstanding of the nascent nature of cloud gaming. As my colleague Richard Devine wrote, Microsoft is "being punished over Google Stadia's failure."

I won't rehash everything that Devine wrote in his editorial, as he covered a lot of what I would've said. Suffice it to say the CMA is using the failure of Google Stadia as a reason to fight against Microsoft's Activision Blizzard deal, stating that it would give Microsoft a dominant position in a new market. There are a lot of problems with this stance, though, and even valid criticisms have been addressed by Microsoft's commitments.



Google Stadia failed for a lot of reasons, but if it could've had (and been saved) by Call of Duty, it would have been. (Image credit: Google)
For one, the CMA has suggested that Google Stadia failed because it lacked Call of Duty. There's no way to prove this, there's little reason to believe it's true in the first place, and even if it were, Microsoft buying Activision Blizzard likely would've been beneficial to Stadia(opens in new tab) rather than detrimental. Stadia failed because of a lot of reasons, like Google's inconsistent messaging and marketing, the slow rollout of promised features, a modest library of games, and the fact that Google positioned Stadia as a separate gaming platform rather than a supplemental way to play games you already love.

All that aside, Google Stadia proved that cloud gaming is a fragile market that just doesn't generate profit. It represents a tiny fraction of the wider industry and is very far from being a "mainstream" way to play games. Even all of Google's resources and investment couldn't make Stadia a success, and somehow the CMA believes that much smaller companies have a chance of making it work entirely on their own? Cloud gaming requires a huge level of investment to become viable, and Microsoft is prepared to make that investment off the back of its other cloud pursuits. The cloud gaming market could greatly benefit from Microsoft's success, especially considering Microsoft's commitment to aid the competition.


Microsoft has made it clear it doesn't intend to directly hurt competition with this deal, especially when it comes to cloud gaming. (Image credit: Windows Central)
Activision Blizzard's portfolio of games won't just bolster the Xbox Cloud Gaming roster; it'll also come to the libraries of competing cloud gaming services like NVIDIA GeForce Now. Microsoft has signed agreements with a variety of competitors to ensure that, should the deal go through, the entire cloud gaming market benefits. Yeah, this often includes even the best Xbox games from Microsoft's own studios. This sudden influx of high-quality, high-profile games to a variety of cloud gaming services will increase interest, investment, and innovation in the market and make those services more viable gaming alternatives for more people.

Cloud gaming needs stronger players to succeed, but Microsoft certainly doesn't need help with Windows.

Yes, it can be argued that Activision Blizzard can do this without Microsoft's help, but the company hasn't. Porting games costs money, and investing anything in cloud gaming is a risky proposition when there isn't a clear way to make money. If Google Stadia could've had Call of Duty, it would have. Microsoft's cloud gaming efforts are just one part of the Xbox business strategy, with every aspect of the business supporting each other. Microsoft can afford to take risks that other companies can't because it's not putting all its gaming eggs into one basket, so to speak.

If Google Stadia was still around today and Microsoft had signed an agreement with Google to bring Call of Duty to it, would the CMA have had enough ground to stand on to block the deal? It doesn't seem like it, but that's because cloud gaming isn't an important market right now. It has the potential to be in the future, but it isn't right now. Instead, regulatory committees should've been scrutinizing the one area where Microsoft absolutely has power in a mature, profitable market — Windows(opens in new tab).

Forgetting that Microsoft is the Windows PC ecosystem


Microsoft has struggled to remain relevant with PC gaming, even with the inherent advantage of being the Windows platform holder. (Image credit: Windows Central)
When it comes to the traditional video games market, Microsoft and Xbox are in a distant third place, far behind the market share, revenue, and community mindshare of Sony's PlayStation. When it comes to mobile gaming, Microsoft isn't even in the conversation, despite mobile gaming actually being far larger and more profitable than anyone likes to admit. When it comes to Xbox Game Pass, Microsoft is only at the top because it innovated in the space first. It built the subscription on offering great value to consumers, and competitors like Sony refuse to alter their lucrative (yet often exploitative) business strategies to meet the rising relevancy of value-first subscription services.

When it comes to cloud gaming, the market desperately needs high investment in exchange for low profits at present, a risk that only Microsoft and a handful of others are willing to make until the market (hopefully) matures. In all of these areas, Microsoft isn't the market leader, and it isn't taking advantage of its position to suppress competition or manipulate the market to its benefit. Microsoft has actually committed to improving competition over the current market leader, Sony, and disrupting the status quo because "that's just how business is done" is never a good reason to keep doing something.

That's not to say the Activision Blizzard deal isn't worth scrutinizing. It absolutely is, because governments and regulatory bodies need to be educated on the current state of the markets they oversee. There are absolutely cases in which a market leader will attempt to further its control over the market, and this education is necessary to prevent that from happening. Unfortunately, many of these regulatory bodies have proven to be the opposite of knowledgeable on the video games industry, refusing to acknowledge the facts and pursuing ulterior agendas to protect current affairs.

Activision Blizzard could succeed where Xbox integrations into Windows have failed. (Image credit: Future)
The one basis on which I could legitimately see the Activision Blizzard deal being worth blocking is the one area I never see discussed by these organizations: Microsoft's power as the Windows platform holder. Yeah, the one area where Microsoft is a market leader and does have overwhelming influence and doesn't need the added power offered by Activision Blizzard's huge catalog of games, tech, and experience? That's not why the CMA voted to block the deal.

The vast majority of PC gamers are on Windows, a Microsoft OS. While they usually use Steam(opens in new tab) to download their games, Microsoft still owns the platform on which those games run. As it stands now, Microsoft isn't particularly influential when it comes to PC gaming despite its efforts to expand the Xbox brand to Windows, but that's because the experience just isn't good. Windows Central's Jez Corden recently wrote about how the Xbox experience is suffering while Microsoft is distracted with its other investments, and he also touches on how the Xbox app on PC, PC Game Pass, and the Microsoft Store are just not good.

Activision Blizzard could give Microsoft the tools it needs to leverage its position as Windows' platform holder.

Activision Blizzard could change this. With Blizzard's beloved, stable, and feature-packed Battle.net launcher and the huge library of high-profile PC games like World of Warcraft(opens in new tab), Call of Duty, Overwatch, and much more, Activision Blizzard's PC presence feels more substantial than Microsoft's. With all of that under its belt, Microsoft could turn its PC gaming efforts around and, from there, begin to influence the entire market as a platform holder.

If Battle.net becomes a first-party hub for Microsoft's PC gaming efforts, but with first-party integrations into Windows, PC Game Pass(opens in new tab), and the Xbox ecosystem that only Microsoft can accomplish, Microsoft will have the leverage it needs to actually compete with the current PC gaming market leader, Steam. Microsoft could use its more generous revenue share (Microsoft only keeps 12% from PC games sales, versus Steam keeping 30%) to further influence developers and publishers to prioritize supporting Windows directly rather than third-party storefronts. The way games are distributed on PC could begin to shift, with Microsoft retaining control over Windows as a platform and profiting more directly off the massive PC gaming market built on top of Windows.


Steam has mostly avoided the pressure of Microsoft's PC gaming efforts. (Image credit: Windows Central | Jez Corden)
I want to be clear; this is a rather far-fetched future. Steam is practically indomitable in the space, and Microsoft, by necessity, takes a hands-off approach with Windows in regard to third-party storefronts and applications. Also, Microsoft's smaller revenue share is nothing but good for developers that get to keep more from their game sales, and Steam should absolutely follow suit. My point is that there's a difference between these arguments. When it comes to Xbox and mobile gaming, Microsoft isn't a market leader and is looking to bolster competition. When it comes to cloud gaming, Microsoft is looking to invest in an emerging market that doesn't have a lot of competition one way or the other right now.

When it comes to Windows, Microsoft is the irrefutable market leader and could take advantage of that position to expand horizontally into a market in which it has historically struggled to compete. PC gaming is the only major Windows-centric market where Microsoft does not enjoy a significant cut of the pie, and Activision Blizzard could give the company the tools it needs to leverage its control over Windows and change that reality.

Scrutinization is needed, but only for the right reasons
World of Warcraft: Dragonflight, Diablo 4, and Call of Duty; Modern Warfare 2 images sliced together

Overall, the Microsoft and Activision Blizzard deal could be great for gamers, as long as regulatory bodies and governments hold Microsoft to its agreements and commitments. (Image credit: Activision Blizzard / Windows Central)
From the beginning, I was uncertain if Microsoft would succeed in acquiring Activision Blizzard. It's a massive deal and would undoubtedly force shifts in the video games industry. As an Xbox fan and someone who wholeheartedly supports healthy competition in the space, I believe those changes would be good (as long as regulatory bodies did their jobs and regulated, meaning they focused on holding Microsoft to its existing agreements rather than make up unlikely scenarios).

I wouldn't be surprised if the deal fell through, though, but not for the reasons it's currently at risk. If Microsoft fails in its quest because the CMA touted cloud gaming as the reason for its block, I'll have to laugh. Cloud gaming is... not good right now. It's getting better, but it needs a lot of time, effort, and investment to make that happen. Stopping one of the only companies actively putting in that time, effort, and investment from doing so (and literally helping its competition in the same breath) doesn't help the cloud gaming market in any way.

All these regulatory bodies are here to protect consumers, not companies.

Scrutinization is absolutely needed to prevent companies from exploiting their positions and harming consumers in the name of more profits, but I can only stand behind that scrutiny if it's for the right reasons. From the beginning, it seems many regulatory bodies hold the stance of "stop Microsoft from doing this and figure out a reason later" instead of "consider the potential consequences and work with Microsoft to either prevent them or conclude that the deal could only be harmful to consumers." That's the keyword, there: consumers.

The FTC, the CMA, the European Commission, and all these organizations are here to protect consumers, not companies. Sony doesn't need protection, and neither does its dominant market position. If a deal is proven to provide more value and options to consumers, though, it's in the best interest of these regulatory bodies and governments to facilitate the necessary agreements, regulate and enforce those agreements, and ultimately support the deal. So far, I don't have confidence that's what is happening.

The Microsoft and Activision Blizzard deal is being scrutinized for the wrong reasons

Any deal of this size needs to be carefully scrutinized, but a lot of people are focusing on the wrong details.

www.windowscentral.com

There you go, Q quest . Another article you can laugh at.

---

Jez talks a lot about Google Stadia here because he says the "CMA has suggested that Google Stadia failed because it lacked Call of Duty". That's false. That was from a competitor submission:

CMA said that "evidence suggests" Stadia failed in part due to lack of content.

Jez actually says MS buying ABK could been beneficial to Stadia. lol

"For one, the CMA has suggested that Google Stadia failed because it lacked Call of Duty. There's no way to prove this, there's little reason to believe it's true in the first place, and even if it were, Microsoft buying Activision Blizzard likely would've been beneficial to Stadia(opens in new tab) rather than detrimental. Stadia failed because of a lot of reasons, like Google's inconsistent messaging and marketing, the slow rollout of promised features, a modest library of games, and the fact that Google positioned Stadia as a separate gaming platform rather than a supplemental way to play games you already love."

Then he says Microsoft owning Windows is a more legit reason to block the deal. lol....ok

 

[Venom Snake]

The reality of what all of this is about for some people is just a click away:

All these "if i was MS, i would..." posts are so naive i feel real second-hand embaressment when i read them.

It's like watching a cheap cartoon where the motivations of heroes and anti-heroes have to be simplified enough for any 10-year-old to understand who is good and who isn't.

This is the type of consumer mentality that corporations love so much, a walking, breathing money sack that will voluntarily abandon common sense in favor of primitive tribalism. There's a reason high-profile people post childish crap on twitter, they know who they are writing to.

 

[Dick Jones]

Aaron Greenberg making chicken salad out of the past week

Sorry Eddie-Griffin

 

[Banjo64]

The Microsoft and Activision Blizzard deal is being scrutinized for the wrong reasons

The Microsoft and Activision Blizzard deal is being scrutinized for the wrong reasons

Any deal of this size needs to be carefully scrutinized, but a lot of people are focusing on the wrong details.

www.windowscentral.com

There you go, Q quest . Another article you can laugh at.

---

Jez talks a lot about Google Stadia here because he says the "CMA has suggested that Google Stadia failed because it lacked Call of Duty". That's false. That was from a competitor submission:

CMA said that "evidence suggests" Stadia failed in part due to lack of content.

Jez actually says MS buying ABK could been beneficial to Stadia. lol

"For one, the CMA has suggested that Google Stadia failed because it lacked Call of Duty. There's no way to prove this, there's little reason to believe it's true in the first place, and even if it were, Microsoft buying Activision Blizzard likely would've been beneficial to Stadia(opens in new tab) rather than detrimental. Stadia failed because of a lot of reasons, like Google's inconsistent messaging and marketing, the slow rollout of promised features, a modest library of games, and the fact that Google positioned Stadia as a separate gaming platform rather than a supplemental way to play games you already love."

Then he says Microsoft owning Windows is a more legit reason to block the deal. lol....ok

I don’t know if I can read any more of Microsoft’s paid astroturfers.

Quite frankly I find it a disgusting practice that should be illegal.

The regulators initially made it all about Sony? Try reading. The initial CMA report leaned heavily in to cloud and infrastructure concerns. It’s only MS who’ve tried to make this all about Sony.

As I said; disgusting, embarrassing and scummy tactics by MS.

 

[Three]

What's even more sad is that some of these people would have been toeing the company line weeks ago about MS wanting more people to play games 'wherever they choose to play'. Now they're championing removing games even from their fellow xbox gamers. Nothing but corporate cheerleaders.

 

[POKEYCLYDE]

Can't say for sure but so far it seems like (1) you buy the game on Microsoft Store, paying MS 100% of the revenue, (2) subscribe to the cloud gaming service, such as Boosteroid or GeForce Now, and (3) stream the game you bought (from the MS store) using Boosteroid/GeForce Now.

The Cloud gaming company, in this case, will not receive any revenue share if you make an in-game purchase, e.g., buying an MTX.

Interesting. Games can also be streamed if they're bought from Steam right? I'd assume the 30% of MTX revenue would go to Steam, not the cloud streaming service.

 

[Heisenberg007]

Interesting. Games can also be streamed if they're bought from Steam right? I'd assume the 30% of MTX revenue would go to Steam, not the cloud streaming service.

We don't know how that partnership works, but I'd assume there is some sort of revenue sharing between the two. No exchange of consideration between the two would be more surprising to me.

 

[POKEYCLYDE]

One potential problem is that with Xbox losing marketshare it might be difficult to acquire studios simply because developers might not want to make exclusive games to Xbox only (like Bungie did not want to go full exclusive). So the value of acquisitions will lower.

Bungie since they bought their independence from Microsoft haven't wanted to be owned. Bungie is a strange case. Same could probably be said for a lot of independent studios. I doubt someone like Level 5 wants to be purchased.

But a publicly traded company, it's all about what kind of payout they get. What creatives want doesn't play a role (unless they hold a majority of shares)

 

[FrankWza]

This isn't about "free" games. It never was

Semjutsu told me he had 15k in atvi in one sentence and then went on about free games for four paragraphs

First, I have over $15k in activision stock. So that's the first part. Second, this makes Xbox and Game Pass wayyyy better. I want that. It makes the industry more competitive, it means way more day one big first-party games in game pass. Anybody telling anybody who wants the deal approved that they're not getting anything isn't really being forthcoming.

There is a difference with having to either pay $69.99 to buy a game outright, or maybe a game I wouldn't buy anyway because I'm not that interested, compared to a game dropping into game pass effectively free, and now because it's there I suddenly try it because all skepticism is gone.. cause Game Pass. I turn out to enjoy it. Win, win for my favorite hobby on my preferred platform. And just what the deal does for Xbox financially alone is another thing that can end up making Xbox first party as well as game pass better. It may help them land more big AAA third party day ones due to the money swirling around. The more Game Pass grows the more likely Game Pass keeps being awesome for people that love Game Pass.

And, as seen in the case of Bethesda, when Microsoft acquires something, they seek to create exclusive games from it. It just won't be Call of Duty. I want more exclusives to come because I personally feel, even when I'm annoyed at specific exclusive deals, it helps the industry overall. It's competition. I as a PS5 owner want Sony under pressure. I as an Xbox owner, wants Xbox to get its ass kicked here and there. I'm a big believer in the "let them fight" mantra. The more Microsoft and Sony are fighting, the better it is for me.

If Sony doesn't kick Microsoft's ass on Xbox One, you all know we don't get Game Pass, right? So now I like Game Pass, and I want it to be strengthened as much as possible. Therefore I fully support this deal for that reason.

For xbox and phil it was about taking games from PlayStation and funneling the business into something they control. For fanboys it's about both but mostly getting games day one on gp.

 

[POKEYCLYDE]

We don't know how that partnership works, but I'd assume there is some sort of revenue sharing between the two. No exchange of consideration between the two would be more surprising to me.

Hypothetically, the deal goes through. I buy CoD through steam, I then stream it through GeForce Now. Buy a skin. In this scenario... what should the revenue split be of that Microtransaction?

 

[Topher]

Hypothetically, the deal goes through. I buy CoD through steam, I then stream it through GeForce Now. Buy a skin. In this scenario... what should the revenue split be of that Microtransaction?

I would think Valve will get their normal take no matter what.

 

[Slicker than your average]

The best part of this is the clowns thinking MS should ignore the UK and not do business over some failed acquiring of Activision.

UK is one of the biggest markets in the world and Xbox clowns want MS to ignore this market because of Xbox. MS has many fingers in many pies in the UK, not just Xbox related.