• 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.
Were these before or after the attempting the Acti Blizzard acquisition?

Times changed, and I dont believe they get an easier time buying something in the future.

FTC and CMA has made a new attention on this subject, probably making it was harder for Microsoft.
There is no evidence to suggest that. You guys realize that ABK is being purchased for $70b USD by one of the largest companies on the entire planet. ABK is the largest 3rd party publisher on the planet, and MS chief rival, Sony, themselves are only worth $20b more than this deal. If you can't see why MS is facing roadblocks and scrutiny here then you aren't being objective to the facts.
 
Last edited:

The_Mike

I cry about SonyGaf from my chair in Redmond, WA
There is no evidence to suggest that. You guys realize that ABK is being purchased for $70b USD by one of the largest companies on the entire planet. ABK is the largest 3rd party publisher on the planet, and MS chief rival, Sony, themselves are only worth $20b more than this deal. If you can't see why MS is facing roadblocks and scrutiny here then you aren't be objective to the facts.
Xbox is the minority of Microsoft, while Playstation is the majority of Sony.
 

Heisenberg007

Gold Journalism
Were these before or after the attempting the Acti Blizzard acquisition?

Times changed, and I dont believe they get an easier time buying something in the future.

FTC and CMA has made a new attention on this subject, probably making it was harder for Microsoft.
Yes, that is true.

After Zenimax, and the way Microsoft/Xbox behaved in terms of their exclusivity, things have become difficult for Xbox to acquire further studios.

WjCTDWq.jpg


This is Microsoft's own fault, however. Having said that, I expect smaller acquisitions by Xbox to go through easily.
 

NickFire

Member
Yes, that is true.

After Zenimax, and the way Microsoft/Xbox behaved in terms of their exclusivity, things have become difficult for Xbox to acquire further studios.

WjCTDWq.jpg


This is Microsoft's own fault, however. Having said that, I expect smaller acquisitions by Xbox to go through easily.
That's why they'd be fools to trust behavioral remedies. MS won't care about a couple million in fines if that's the cost of making COD exclusive somehow.
 

Heisenberg007

Gold Journalism
That's why they'd be fools to trust behavioral remedies. MS won't care about a couple million in fines if that's the cost of making COD exclusive somehow.
Those behavioral remedies are a long shot anyway.

The CMA has made clear that they don't believe behavioral remedies would work in this case. However, Microsoft is welcome to propose and change CMA's mind.
  • So, first of all, Microsoft needs to convince the CMA that behavioral remedies would even work in the first place.
  • Then MS needs to propose behavioral remedies that would be in line with the SLC and achieve the same goals
  • One part of the SLC is console parity. In other words, the multiplatform existence of all ABK games (including COD) in perpetuity (no 10-year deals).
  • The second part is even tricker, which is about the console cloud gaming. They would have to put ABK games, especially COD, on all cloud services: Amazon Luna, GeForce, PS Plus, Ubisoft+, Shadow, etc in perpetuity. In addition, they will also have to put it in writing that ABK games and COD will be available on all future entrants in the cloud gaming market (how do you even write it lol).
I'm sure the CMA will even make these clauses not breakable via extremely hefty fines.
 

X-Wing

Member
The Lies of Phil - a bedtime story - PART I
Phil-Spencer-ga.jpg



During the last few years Phil Spencer has spent a lot of time giving interviews trying to build the narrative that Xbox's change of focus from hardware to services was a granted positive to Xbox as well as for the rest of the industry. He also made several other allegations regarding Microsoft's plans for the industry. A lot of the things that Phil Said seem to have blown up on his face yesterday when the CMA released their provisional findings concerning the Activision deal.
Let's dig into some of them.

1. Xbox boss says Facebook and Amazon are its main gaming competitors
Phil has argued before that Xbox's main rival in gaming were other big tech companies. Yet, when looking through CMA's document you will find no remedies targeting any concerns related to Facebook or Amazon. You could make an argument that this is about cloud gaming, but even then the CMA shows that xCloud is the leading game streaming platform. So Microsoft actually has an advantageous position over their rivals and the acquisition wouldn't protect the gaming industry from them but simply strengthen Microsoft's number 1 place.

image.png


image.png



2. Game Pass drives game sales
Phil has also exhaustively repeated that Game Pass drives game sales. This is only partially true, apparently, yes maybe gamers buy more DLC, but total game sales are, according to Microsoft itself, cannibalized by Game Pass.

Nns4zXi.png


image.png



3. Xbox MAUs were at 120 million, which is a new all-time high.
This is a tricky one. Microsoft loves to shout out loud that they have record MAUs but apparently this either isn't true or they manipulated numbers and lied to regulators as they have told the CMA that their MAU is lower than PlayStation's.
image.png



Stay tuned for Part II as I read through the 277 pages document.
 
The Lies of Phil - a bedtime story - PART I
Phil-Spencer-ga.jpg



During the last few years Phil Spencer has spent a lot of time giving interviews trying to build the narrative that Xbox's change of focus from hardware to services was a granted positive to Xbox as well as for the rest of the industry. He also made several other allegations regarding Microsoft's plans for the industry. A lot of the things that Phil Said seem to have blown up on his face yesterday when the CMA released their provisional findings concerning the Activision deal.
Let's dig into some of them.

1. Xbox boss says Facebook and Amazon are its main gaming competitors
Phil has argued before that Xbox's main rival in gaming were other big tech companies. Yet, when looking through CMA's document you will find no remedies targeting any concerns related to Facebook or Amazon. You could make an argument that this is about cloud gaming, but even then the CMA shows that xCloud is the leading game streaming platform. So Microsoft actually has an advantageous position over their rivals and the acquisition wouldn't protect the gaming industry from them but simply strengthen Microsoft's number 1 place.

image.png


image.png



2. Game Pass drives game sales
Phil has also exhaustively repeated that Game Pass drives game sales. This is only partially true, apparently, yes maybe gamers buy more DLC, but total game sales are, according to Microsoft itself, cannibalized by Game Pass.

Nns4zXi.png


image.png



3. Xbox MAUs were at 120 million, which is a new all-time high.
This is a tricky one. Microsoft loves to shout out loud that they have record MAUs but apparently this either isn't true or they manipulated numbers and lied to regulators as they have told the CMA that their MAU is lower than PlayStation's.
image.png



Stay tuned for Part II as I read through the 277 pages document.
This is why people should spend more time playing games and less time worrying about what Phil and Jim have to say. Giving these CEOs rockstar status and hanging on their every word is a mistake. Their goal is to generate as much revenue as possible generally by whatever means they can get away with, and if that means they smile and say positive things when its not reality, they will.
 
Last edited:

Orbital2060

Member
It's not difficult to understand. If divesture is the route then they need to investigate whether it's possible to do so in a way that ensures the status quo.

I.e if COD requires Activision then that means Activision also needs to go
So how is that going to work? Activision just going to stop making videogames and refund all stockholders and so on?

I knew what you meant with it, but its such a ridiculous thing to say when all the time its clear you HAVE to say that because its the final piece of argument to make in order to make the whole CMA cabal to work out.

Bye bye then Activision, you made some great videogames.

Thanks CMA and Sony.

Good job.

/s
 

DenchDeckard

Moderated wildly
I think they should just sack it off and go buy some really good timed exclusives.

Save the 69 bill and invest in a few loss leaders for a few years.

Invest in SOAs over Xmas period and shave 100 to 150 off a series x. Try that for a few years and if you still can't make a dent in sonys market share just accept defeat lol
 

Poltz

Member
I think they should just sack it off and go buy some really good timed exclusives.

Save the 69 bill and invest in a few loss leaders for a few years.

Invest in SOAs over Xmas period and shave 100 to 150 off a series x. Try that for a few years and if you still can't make a dent in sonys market share just accept defeat lol
69 billion for ABK doesnt mean 69 billion for Xbox though. ABK offered a unique profile to kickstart Xbox mobile store and A&B drive game pass subs. It’s safe to say Series X is in the minority of the Series consoles so a 100-150 cut could be too much.
 
Last edited:

gothmog

Gold Member
I think they should just sack it off and go buy some really good timed exclusives.

Save the 69 bill and invest in a few loss leaders for a few years.

Invest in SOAs over Xmas period and shave 100 to 150 off a series x. Try that for a few years and if you still can't make a dent in sonys market share just accept defeat lol
Why not just go for the gold and buy Sony?
 

Ezekiel_

Banned
The Lies of Phil - a bedtime story - PART I
Phil-Spencer-ga.jpg



During the last few years Phil Spencer has spent a lot of time giving interviews trying to build the narrative that Xbox's change of focus from hardware to services was a granted positive to Xbox as well as for the rest of the industry. He also made several other allegations regarding Microsoft's plans for the industry. A lot of the things that Phil Said seem to have blown up on his face yesterday when the CMA released their provisional findings concerning the Activision deal.
Let's dig into some of them.

1. Xbox boss says Facebook and Amazon are its main gaming competitors
Phil has argued before that Xbox's main rival in gaming were other big tech companies. Yet, when looking through CMA's document you will find no remedies targeting any concerns related to Facebook or Amazon. You could make an argument that this is about cloud gaming, but even then the CMA shows that xCloud is the leading game streaming platform. So Microsoft actually has an advantageous position over their rivals and the acquisition wouldn't protect the gaming industry from them but simply strengthen Microsoft's number 1 place.

image.png


image.png



2. Game Pass drives game sales
Phil has also exhaustively repeated that Game Pass drives game sales. This is only partially true, apparently, yes maybe gamers buy more DLC, but total game sales are, according to Microsoft itself, cannibalized by Game Pass.

Nns4zXi.png


image.png



3. Xbox MAUs were at 120 million, which is a new all-time high.
This is a tricky one. Microsoft loves to shout out loud that they have record MAUs but apparently this either isn't true or they manipulated numbers and lied to regulators as they have told the CMA that their MAU is lower than PlayStation's.
image.png



Stay tuned for Part II as I read through the 277 pages document.

Thread worthy

The Rock Clapping GIF
 

Ezekiel_

Banned
I think they should just sack it off and go buy some really good timed exclusives.

Save the 69 bill and invest in a few loss leaders for a few years.

Invest in SOAs over Xmas period and shave 100 to 150 off a series x. Try that for a few years and if you still can't make a dent in sonys market share just accept defeat lol
They could host a really good Sting concert
 
Billions might be puffery talk. Or a nice way to say we want to dominate the entire industry across the planet.

Another poster has brought up the office. Cant buy it anymore. Why? Because the company that owns GP once decided Office would be subs only going forward.

Now imagine they keep buying big pubs. Once consolidated and 10 yr deals (or whatever) run out, they say no more competitor platforms. Give that a few years, decrease options elsewhere, and then tell everyone subs only from now on. Where’s the consumer going to go?
Key difference here - Office was already the monopoly marketshare leader in enterprise software/services *before* they turned office into a sub service. There were almost no viable competitors operating in that arena, although right now, GSuite is eating up quite a bit of their pie, and they offer out office services for free even. And as far as big pubs are concerned, its pretty clear based on what we're seeing with the CMA/FTC/EU that they probably, at most, are only going to get away with purchasing one more big pub and thats it.

Also, the big pubs we primarily are talking about all operate, like I said in my original post, in core gaming - console/PC games with AA/AAA budgets. The majority of revenue coming in from gaming, and the overwhelming larger slice of the user pie, is currently in mobile, something that GamePass doesn't offer any incentive for. The consumer has plenty of places to go - Sony is going anywhere, and if we enter a scenario where MS is allowed to just consolidated while uncontested, Sony will also move to massively expand their production output and maintain their position (From/Capcom/SE will all get bought if Sony has to).

These two situations (office/GP) are nowhere near close enough. GP's scope and potential userbase is infinitely more limited than Office, its never been in a market dominant position as Office has been, and Office has never had to operate deep in the red in order for it to sustain itself, which GP currently (and for the foreseeable future) does.

No clue. If I had to guess, cloud and mobile would be how they get their. Regardless, it's a future Microsoft is pursuing and the way they're pursuing it is through content acquisition.
Again, no idea how you convince a mobile user to sub to GP, but nothing either in their slate, or what they'd potentially get from ATVI would move that needle. They don't even have a GP app on the App/Play Store, let alone any meaningful way to put out a Mobile GP tier without having to shell out a cut to Apple/Google, a cut which is currently what is preventing GP from being pushed onto Steam/PSN.

Current analysis i've seen pegs the core gaming audience somewhere around 200-300m users, and thats including Nintendo and Steam in the mix. The larger issue with core gaming is that its user demo has been steadily getting older, and although Nintendo is bringing in a significant number of new users on the young-side of the spectrum, as those users have gotten older, they routinely go into mobile gaming primarily, with some core games coming up as a secondary gaming interest for them. That isn't to say that core games is in anyway doomed, since the revenue this userbase can generate is still unbelievable, and has only gone up as this demo has aged and their disposable income has increased.

As for Cloud - while some analysts continue suggesting that Cloud will become the defacto standard for the core games industry, there has simply never been some market indicator that its being adopted or generating profit. For MS, it makes sense cause it bolsters their Azure vertical integration and serves as a nice test bed for the cloud suite, but as far as a userbase is concerned, Cloud simply may as well not exist.
 
Last edited:

Banjo64

cumsessed
I think they should just sack it off and go buy some really good timed exclusives.

Save the 69 bill and invest in a few loss leaders for a few years.

Invest in SOAs over Xmas period and shave 100 to 150 off a series x. Try that for a few years and if you still can't make a dent in sonys market share just accept defeat lol
The timing isn’t there now, but they should have paid the couple of hundred million for the Tomb Raider IP, Crystal Dynamics, Square Enix Montreal and Edios Montreal.

Could have bought a minority stake in Asobo who wanted to retain independence. Instead Asobo sold to an investment firm.

Could have funded small promising teams like Team Cherry, Moon, Playtonic (before Tencent did) and Gears For Breakfast. Just going for the ‘easy win’, what a backfire if indeed they don’t end up with CoD.
 

X-Wing

Member
Trying to cast shade by making up suspicions of corruption between PlayStation and the UK government because they can't cope.



Back a little in time and Microsoft was caught red handed bribing politicians and is constantly spending money lobbying regulators.
 
Last edited:
The Lies of Phil - a bedtime story - PART I
Phil-Spencer-ga.jpg



During the last few years Phil Spencer has spent a lot of time giving interviews trying to build the narrative that Xbox's change of focus from hardware to services was a granted positive to Xbox as well as for the rest of the industry. He also made several other allegations regarding Microsoft's plans for the industry. A lot of the things that Phil Said seem to have blown up on his face yesterday when the CMA released their provisional findings concerning the Activision deal.
Let's dig into some of them.

1. Xbox boss says Facebook and Amazon are its main gaming competitors
Phil has argued before that Xbox's main rival in gaming were other big tech companies. Yet, when looking through CMA's document you will find no remedies targeting any concerns related to Facebook or Amazon. You could make an argument that this is about cloud gaming, but even then the CMA shows that xCloud is the leading game streaming platform. So Microsoft actually has an advantageous position over their rivals and the acquisition wouldn't protect the gaming industry from them but simply strengthen Microsoft's number 1 place.

image.png


image.png



2. Game Pass drives game sales
Phil has also exhaustively repeated that Game Pass drives game sales. This is only partially true, apparently, yes maybe gamers buy more DLC, but total game sales are, according to Microsoft itself, cannibalized by Game Pass.

Nns4zXi.png


image.png



3. Xbox MAUs were at 120 million, which is a new all-time high.
This is a tricky one. Microsoft loves to shout out loud that they have record MAUs but apparently this either isn't true or they manipulated numbers and lied to regulators as they have told the CMA that their MAU is lower than PlayStation's.
image.png



Stay tuned for Part II as I read through the 277 pages document.
Phil is a conman. I don’t want to see anyone quote him again like they are quoting Jesus or something. Everyone shits on Jim Ryan for being a shady character (rightfully so) but Phil is on par and even arguably worse than Jim and people eat up every bullshit he says.

He swindles the gaming media and the throngs of fanboys/fangirls that follow his every word in interviews and social media. He’s the same as Jim, he’s just a lot better at PR than Jim is and that’s why he gets away with it.
 

NickFire

Member
Key difference here - Office was already the monopoly marketshare leader in enterprise software/services *before* they turned office into a sub service. There were almost no viable competitors operating in that arena, although right now, GSuite is eating up quite a bit of their pie, and they offer out office services for free even. And as far as big pubs are concerned, its pretty clear based on what we're seeing with the CMA/FTC/EU that they probably, at most, are only going to get away with purchasing one more big pub and thats it.

Also, the big pubs we primarily are talking about all operate, like I said in my original post, in core gaming - console/PC games with AA/AAA budgets. The majority of revenue coming in from gaming, and the overwhelming larger slice of the user pie, is currently in mobile, something that GamePass doesn't offer any incentive for. The consumer has plenty of places to go - Sony is going anywhere, and if we enter a scenario where MS is allowed to just consolidated while uncontested, Sony will also move to massively expand their production output and maintain their position (From/Capcom/SE will all get bought if Sony has to).

These two situations (office/GP) are nowhere near close enough. GP's scope and potential userbase is infinitely more limited than Office, its never been in a market dominant position as Office has been, and Office has never had to operate deep in the red in order for it to sustain itself, which GP currently (and for the foreseeable future) does.
I appreciate your post. And there are certainly differences and hurdles MS would face, plus better competition. Where we fundamentally disagree, I think, is in terms of capacity to trust MS and our tolerance for risk on this. I cannot trust them at all after showing their spots with Bethesda and relying so heavily on PR that often seems suspect at best. And I do not think we should tolerate risk of them consolidating the industry. With enough money hurdles go away. And I'll never believe Phil got MS to spend damn near 100 Billion over what, 2 years, without convincing someone that the investment would pay off with something much more substantial than a boost to market share.
 
I think CoD is sought after by MS to stop that churn rate and less about reaching billions of users. The only other way I see billions of users is if MS actually believe they can create a gamepass on mobile that rivals Apple arcade, and I don't mean via xCloud. I mean mobile games like Diablo Immortal, Candy Crush, Cod Mobile, etc are given perks with Gamepass or put behind it entirely (though I see that as unlikely).
Except CoD wouldn't really stem the tide on their churn rate. Sure, the MP suite of CoD is still locked behind its yearly price tag, but the far and away bigger deal for CoD is Warzone, the F2P mode. I'm sure they'll come up with something should they need to, but right now, F2P titles just aren't bringing and keeping users in GP. The big value offer GP gives a user is a means by which you can bypass the asking price of brand new, AA/AAA games. F2P games can simply be accessed without issue.

As long as the majority of big MP titles continue releasing with some sort of Free Entry point, they'll never be the magnet for GP that MS would hope they'd be. That isn't to say that we wouldn't see some growth if they did include CoD in it, but at most we'd see a growth spike similar to what the pandemic did in 2020, at most.
 

drganon

Member
Trying to cast shade by making up suspicions of corruption between PlayStation and the UK government because they can't cope.



Back a little in time and Microsoft was caught red handed bribing politicians and is constantly spending money lobbying regulators.

That idlesloth guy just seems like a less obnoxious Jez Corden.
 

Banjo64

cumsessed
Trying to cast shade by making up suspicions of corruption between PlayStation and the UK government because they can't cope.



Back a little in time and Microsoft was caught red handed bribing politicians and is constantly spending money lobbying regulators.
[/URL]
[/URL]

Ah yes, blatantly circumventing government regulation - what could go wrong?
 
I appreciate your post. And there are certainly differences and hurdles MS would face, plus better competition. Where we fundamentally disagree, I think, is in terms of capacity to trust MS and our tolerance for risk on this. I cannot trust them at all after showing their spots with Bethesda and relying so heavily on PR that often seems suspect at best. And I do not think we should tolerate risk of them consolidating the industry. With enough money hurdles go away. And I'll never believe Phil got MS to spend damn near 100 Billion over what, 2 years, without convincing someone that the investment would pay off with something much more substantial than a boost to market share.
Sure, but Phil Spencer over-promising and under-delivering is a story that can be traced back through his entire tenure at MS circa 2008. And while the pitch he made in 2017 that gave him the room to do all that he's done certainly made it sound like they'd be seeing outrageous growth, the current results are far from where they thought they'd be, and thats with the significant increase in investment he's asked for. MS wanted more Minecraft-type deals, which is the one and only move Spencer did that seemingly went well. Instead, the whole experiment has been a money pit. And with entertainment sub services growth now basically stalling (D+ just announced today they lost something like 2m users!), its pretty clear MS might wind up having a massive, expensive lemon of a business plan on their hands if they can't find a way to turn this whole mess around.

That all said, I appreciate the perspective being shared in this thread by you and many others. No one can truly predict how any of this will play out. I myself worry about the ramifications that all of MS' efforts will have had on the core gaming business once its all said and done. The only upside is seeing the massive gulf in receipts between Sony and Nintendo, and MS. They won't admit it outright, but its clear this direction isn't working out so far.
 
Last edited:

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
Trying to cast shade by making up suspicions of corruption between PlayStation and the UK government because they can't cope.



Back a little in time and Microsoft was caught red handed bribing politicians and is constantly spending money lobbying regulators.

It's a cult.
 

Thirty7ven

Banned
The MAU number isn’t a lie per say. It’s just outside of their Xbox ecosystem, they count all the people playing Bethesda games and Minecraft on other ecosystems like Steam and PlayStation.

They do this to impress their shareholders who don’t understand where the numbers come from.

It’s MS what do you expect?
 
Last edited:
So how is that going to work? Activision just going to stop making videogames and refund all stockholders and so on?

I knew what you meant with it, but its such a ridiculous thing to say when all the time its clear you HAVE to say that because its the final piece of argument to make in order to make the whole CMA cabal to work out.

Bye bye then Activision, you made some great videogames.

Thanks CMA and Sony.

Good job.

/s

Microsoft buys Actibliz. Shareholders get paid. Microsoft then has to sell the Activision segment

Try educating yourself before claiming something is ridiculous? Just a recommendation. It's done well for myself
 
Last edited:

Orbital2060

Member
It's a cult.
Its not a cult when anyone can read and make up their own minds about the statements from competitors in the CADE inquiry.

Sony are the only competitor opposing the deal, and the only company that has a problem with Call of Duty being part of it.

Same competitors as in the CMA inquiry, where they chose to favor Sonys main points and arguments over everyone elses.

Thats not a cult, its common sense.
 

GHG

Member

So now they're just trying to drag everyone into this.

It will be interesting to see what Nintendo have said regarding this in private to regulators.


Sony are the only competitor opposing the deal... Thats not a cult, its common sense.

In this situation common sense requires reading, which you've clearly failed at.
 
Last edited:

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
Its not a cult when anyone can read and make up their own minds about the statements from competitors in the CADE inquiry.

Sony are the only competitor opposing the deal, and the only company that has a problem with Call of Duty being part of it.

Same competitors as in the CMA inquiry, where they chose to favor Sonys main points and arguments over everyone elses.

Thats not a cult, its common sense.
Fucking CADE :pie_roffles:

We really do need a bingo chart.
 

X-Wing

Member
Its not a cult when anyone can read and make up their own minds about the statements from competitors in the CADE inquiry.

Sony are the only competitor opposing the deal, and the only company that has a problem with Call of Duty being part of it.

Same competitors as in the CMA inquiry, where they chose to favor Sonys main points and arguments over everyone elses.

Thats not a cult, its common sense.

False! Both Google and Nvidia have spoken.
 
Its not a cult when anyone can read and make up their own minds about the statements from competitors in the CADE inquiry.

Sony are the only competitor opposing the deal, and the only company that has a problem with Call of Duty being part of it.

Same competitors as in the CMA inquiry, where they chose to favor Sonys main points and arguments over everyone elses.

Thats not a cult, its common sense.

Uk2YL1J.png
 

Ezekiel_

Banned
Microsoft buys Actibliz. Shareholders get paid. Microsoft then has to sell the Activision segment

Try educating yourself before claiming something is ridiculous? Just a recommendation. It's done well for myself
Hypothetically, who could actually buy Activision?

We know it can't be a platform holder, for obvious reasons, so Sony, Nintendo, Amazon, Epic, Valve can't be considered, so who's left?

EA, TakeTwo, Embracer Group, Tencent? They're the only ones supporting multiple store fronts and are device agnostics.
 
Last edited:
Hypothetically, who could actually buy Activision?

We know it can't be a platform holder, for obvious reasons, so Sony, Nintendo, Amazon, Epic, Valve can't be considered, so who's left?

EA, TakeTwo, Embracer Group, Tencent? They're the only ones supporting multiple store fronts and are device agnostics.
That's an interesting question. What if Tencent, EA, Embracer etc... either can't afford or aren't interested in just the Activision part? Would MS be required to keep lowering the price until someone bites? Would it just be spun off into it's own separate company?
 

James Sawyer Ford

Gold Member
Hypothetically, who could actually buy Activision?

We know it can't be a platform holder, for obvious reasons, so Sony, Nintendo, Amazon, Epic, Valve can't be considered, so who's left?

EA, TakeTwo, Embracer Group, Tencent? They're the only ones supporting multiple store fronts and are device agnostics.

Probably those names or they just become a new company
 

Dr_Ifto

Member
Hypothetically, who could actually buy Activision?

We know it can't be a platform holder, for obvious reasons, so Sony, Nintendo, Amazon, Epic, Valve can't be considered, so who's left?

EA, TakeTwo, Embracer Group, Tencent? They're the only ones supporting multiple store fronts and are device agnostics.
Depends on the price, but EA or Ubisoft could merge with them, could be Tencent, could be Sony, Amazon or NetEase
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom