• 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.

DJ12

Member
He did that fine by himself.

He was dealing with absolutes instead of having sober discussions, even by Gaf standards.
Without a hint of irony.....

Last gen xbox used paid shills and got caught. Don't be surprised if they are doing the same this gen.
Theres 4 types of xbox fans, paid shills, people hoping to get noticed by doing pro bono shilling work, militant brand fans, and just your everyday fan.

Sony just have the last 2 as they cannot afford the guerrila marketting.
 
Last edited:

DForce

NaughtyDog Defense Force
Consumer bias. Only looking after themselves.
Never trust them on business side.
We might bring some business data, but we are all in the dark on the actual business spending and profits.



You lose money early, but once you have sizable userbase, it can bring alit of profits. And the good thing about that, is that money is guaranteed, and not a risky money.

For example, if gamepass can generate $3.5b - $4b yearly at 35m-40m userbase, with spending cost of 2.5b to maintain it, the service can bring $1b to $1.5b profit.

GOW makes 375m at 5.5m copy sold. That money would generate 2.6x-4x of gow sales. You add what the game makes from copy sold, and you are guaranteed huge profits.

Gamepass isn't there yet, but it will be in the future. MS is looking after that revenue.
"If" and "can."

Nothing is guaranteed.
God of War is also one game. You have to factor in the number of first-party games that are going to be released day-one on the service within that year. Sony released God of War, Horizon, Gran Turismo 7 this year. That could be around 1b in revenue within that year. This doesn't factor in the money they could be losing when it comes to collector\special edition releases.

These are also single-player games. They'll have to add content in between those releases, which will cost even more money to maintain the subscriber count. There's also no



They expected growth, but console sales and 1st party made them not reach that target.
2023 might change, considering the huge catalog which gamepass has.



If you haven't used gamepass for 3-4 months, you can use the 1$ promotional. But after that month, you will pay the regular cost money. Not alot of people abuse that, as that means canceling gamepass for 3-4 month.



Fanboys will use anything to score a win.
Gamepass is good, but that is about it. If it doesn't have the games you want, it's not worth it. Just like any other subscription service.

And boosting for profits is only for extreme fanboys.

Discussing business side is fine. But using it as a win is mental deficit. That person would need to touch some grass.
The lack of growth is explained by their lack of big titles.

How many big titles were released after Halo Infinite and Forza?


If they releaed games that were not delayed (Starfiled) you would see growth and more consumers buying their consoles.
 

feynoob

Banned
"If" and "can."

Nothing is guaranteed.
It's guaranteed, because the money is a yearly generated from stable subs numbers.
40m-50m are stable, and can generate stable income, which is guaranteed.

Unless there is drastic change to the model, the subs won't drop dramatically.

Think of it like ps+ numbers. It can lose few millions, but it doesn't go below 35m. That is a guaranteed income.


God of War is also one game. You have to factor in the number of first-party games that are going to be released day-one on the service within that year. Sony released God of War, Horizon, Gran Turismo 7 this year. That could be around 1b in revenue within that year. This doesn't factor in the money they could be losing when it comes to collector\special edition releases.
You can buy the game. You aren't restricted to gamepass only. Plus they do day1 steam, which is another income, and doesn't have gamepass.

If both service can generate 1m-2m at 50$ average price, that would be 50m-100m+35m-70m(steam cut). 75m-170m plus gamepass money is what MS would get.

These are just examples. As long as people want to buy the games, MS would see the sales of those copies. Gamepass or not.


These are also single-player games. They'll have to add content in between those releases, which will cost even more money to maintain the subscriber count.
If we follow epic spending on those free games, then the cost is actually cheap. Unless they are doing day 1 AAA games big budget, the cost won't be that high. At most, you are looking at 1.5b bill. Then add the marketing and mainting cost, and you are looking around $2b. That is if they are adding alot of AAA day1 3rd party games.

The higher the sub is, the more money it will make, compared to the cost of 3rd party games and the maintenance.


The lack of growth is explained by their lack of big titles.

How many big titles were released after Halo Infinite and Forza?


If they releaed games that were not delayed (Starfiled) you would see growth and more consumers buying their consoles.
I can agree with you on this part. 2021-2022 have been lackluster.
Hope 2023 can change that output.
 

Three

Member
Not a conspiracy theory when it has actually happened my man. I didn't imagine all the points I made earlier. Just because it doesn't fit your narrative doesn't mean it isn't true.
Ironically you're the one with a narrative. The narrative you're pushing is verbatim MS' one. You think the CMA is bias. Doing a wordcount of the word Sony in a report to suggest the CMA are bias is about as daft as doing a wordcount of Series S and gamepass on your posts. Of course a CMA report would mention the main competitor. What is a good wordcount of a competitor to suggest the CMA aren't bias? how many hits would I need on my post search of you for Series S and gamepass to be able to call you a MS shill for instance?

Then you should be happy MS will be adding the CoD input on the Switch. It would be doomed without this acquisition.
Why would it take what you consider a competitor like MS to be doing that?

Wouldn't Activision just do it independently? Activision was making CoD for Wii and Wii U before.

It was just mentioned in a press briefing by MS (Brad Smith) when the acquisition was announced trying to get ahead of regulators about how this was about "choice" and games will release on Playstation with a "we'd like to bring COD to Nintendo". It's pretty obvious why that announcement was made.

Activision is more likely to do it than MS. If they cared about games on Nintendo they would actually announce and release the games they already own and haven't acquired. Battletoads, Rare replay, and Perfect Dark announcement would have all made sense on Nintendo. But no it's this acquisition that they would like to bring to Nintendo.

CoD isn't currently available day and date on subscriptions or cloud right now and would not be with out this acquisition.
CoD and Activision content was avaliable on subs before, not day and date because the CoD games sell but day and date is not relevant to restricted access. It was available on cloud too until it was removed just prior to deals with Google, then an acquisition by MS.
 

DForce

NaughtyDog Defense Force
It's guaranteed, because the money is a yearly generated from stable subs numbers.
40m-50m are stable, and can generate stable income, which is guaranteed.

It's stable if it can maintain that amount. Maintaining that amount is not guaranteed.
Unless there is drastic change to the model, the subs won't drop dramatically.

Think of it like ps+ numbers. It can lose few millions, but it doesn't go below 35m. That is a guaranteed income.
The difference is that it's easier to maintain PS+ subscriptions. That's why it's not comparable. In order to play online, you need to pay for PS+
You can buy the game. You aren't restricted to gamepass only. Plus they do day1 steam, which is another income, and doesn't have gamepass.

If both service can generate 1m-2m at 50$ average price, that would be 50m-100m+35m-70m(steam cut). 75m-170m plus gamepass money is what MS would get.

These are just examples. As long as people want to buy the games, MS would see the sales of those copies. Gamepass or not.
GP will eat up retail sales not only for the first year but also long term sales too. There's a reason why publishers wait almost a year to put their games on a subscription service.

If we follow epic spending on those free games, then the cost is actually cheap. Unless they are doing day 1 AAA games big budget, the cost won't be that high. At most, you are looking at 1.5b bill. Then add the marketing and mainting cost, and you are looking around $2b. That is if they are adding alot of AAA day1 3rd party games.

The higher the sub is, the more money it will make, compared to the cost of 3rd party games and the maintenance.



I can agree with you on this part. 2021-2022 have been lackluster.
Hope 2023 can change that output.

I'm sure Sony pays cheap games for PS+ every month. I'm also sure they pay a cheap price to put the games on PS+

The fact still remains. Big budget titles are what attract gamers. They're always at the top of the list whenever you see the most played games list. Single player games will suffer the most. The bigger the title, the more they're going to request. If the title becomes more popular, then they're going to request more money.
 

feynoob

Banned
GP will eat up retail sales not only for the first year but also long term sales too. There's a reason why publishers wait almost a year to put their games on a subscription service.
Not everyone will subs to a subscription service.
Not to mention, people want to own their games. As long as that exist, gamepass isn't going to cannibalize the sales of those games.
Steam also covers those lost sales too.

As for 3rd party, they want to maximize their sales. They aren't interested in gamepass or any service.


The fact still remains. Big budget titles are what attract gamers. They're always at the top of the list whenever you see the most played games list. Single player games will suffer the most. The bigger the title, the more they're going to request. If the title becomes more popular, then they're going to request more money.
The cost of those games is covered by the increase of the sub.

Right now it's 25m, and it will go higher as time goes on.

If it reaches 35m and higher, it can actually cover the cost of those AAA day1 games.
If MS pays 100m for those AAA games, they would be able to get 10 of them at $1b cost. Which would increase the sub more, until they hit the ceiling of the sub on consoles.

The sub isn't staying at 25m forever. The projected rate on the console is 35m-50m. It all depends on how much consoles MS can sell, and how much investment they do on PC gamepass.
 


FCfQYIa.gif
 
Ironically you're the one with a narrative. The narrative you're pushing is verbatim MS' one. You think the CMA is bias. Doing a wordcount of the word Sony in a report to suggest the CMA are bias is about as daft as doing a wordcount of Series S and gamepass on your posts. Of course a CMA report would mention the main competitor. What is a good wordcount of a competitor to suggest the CMA aren't bias? how many hits would I need on my post search of you for Series S and gamepass to be able to call you a MS shill for instance?
It is a fact that the CMA mentioned Sony more than consumers. Consumer protection not market leader protection should be the primary focus for regulators. No proof has been provided that this acquisition breaks the law. There is no evidence that MS is currently a gaming monopoly or will be one post acquisition. No evidence of competition being harmed or Sony being unable to compete over CoD. The general arguments against the deal have been specious.

Your talking points mirror Sony's arguments so this idea of my biases is pretty silly overall. The shill garbage is tossed at anyone who doesn't follow the herd with regard to PlayStation loyalty. I shudder to think of your word count 'shilling' for Sony. See how asine that argument is? Shill accusations are the refuge of the weak minded. Be better.

I have a PlayStation like lots of people but that doesn't prevent me from pointing out places where they have ridiculous arguments with regard to this acquisition and horrible consumer policies with regard to refunds, digital PS5 games sales, and price increases and upgrade fees.
Wouldn't Activision just do it independently? Activision was making CoD for Wii and Wii U before.
There is no evidence that Activision was planning to ever put their games on a subscription service day and date or making all their games cloud streamable or putting a CoD game on Switch. You should keep up with the times the Wii and WiiU aren't getting games made for them anymore. You might not know this but MS resources have allowed their studios to do things they otherwise wouldn't. Like putting games on more platforms and services.
It was just mentioned in a press briefing by MS (Brad Smith) when the acquisition was announced trying to get ahead of regulators about how this was about "choice" and games will release on Playstation with a "we'd like to bring COD to Nintendo". It's pretty obvious why that announcement was made.
It was obvious that MS saw how CoD was an input to gaming and they wanted to right the wrong that Switch was being denied. Looks like they just wanted to make that platform viable. Again that input argument is ridiculous.

Seriously, MS was showing how the acquisition benefits gamers on more than just Xbox platforms which is was a real concern for some people. Say what you want the idea has credibility based on MS previous practices with Minecraft unlike arguments like the deal will cause price increases and CoD is an input to successful platforms.
Activision is more likely to do it than MS. If they cared about games on Nintendo they would actually announce and release the games they already own and haven't acquired. Battletoads, Rare replay, and Perfect Dark announcement would have all made sense on Nintendo. But no it's this acquisition that they would like to bring to Nintendo.
MS has already made their IP available on more platforms than any other console maker. When their competitors do the same you can talk. Right now MS leads in that area and have nothing to prove.
CoD and Activision content was avaliable on subs before, not day and date because the CoD games sell but day and date is not relevant to restricted access. It was available on cloud too until it was removed just prior to deals with Google, then an acquisition by MS.
Well day and date is the biggest selling point to Game pass. You can't ignore the main advantage. Unless an alternative product is doing the same thing again you can't talk. Show me where Activision was proposing the same things MS has planned and you might be on to something.
 
Last edited:

Topher

Gold Member


Article starts with:

"Blocking the deal is as likely to harm consumers as it is to protect them"

Article ends with:

"Preventing Microsoft from buying Activision Blizzard is as likely to harm consumers by stopping a new product from taking shape as it is to protect them from a big company with excessive market power."

Those are the only two times "consumers" are referenced or mentioned at all.
 

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
Ahh yes they did actually. There’s been plenty of social commentary of a ‘very sympathetic to Sony’ CMA issues statement.
Because that is what sells in the great console war for engagement. The actual documents did not mention Sony more than Consumers.
 
Last edited:

Thirty7ven

Banned
Article starts with:

"Blocking the deal is as likely to harm consumers as it is to protect them"

Article ends with:

"Preventing Microsoft from buying Activision Blizzard is as likely to harm consumers by stopping a new product from taking shape as it is to protect them from a big company with excessive market power."

Those are the only two times "consumers" are referenced or mentioned at all.

 

Menzies

Banned
Because that is what sells in the great console war for engagement. The actual documents did not mention Sony more than Consumers.
Not sure if we’re talking about the same ‘end of phase 1’ issue statements then? Microsoft remarked about it in their response. Happy to be proven wrong.
 

Pelta88

Member
Without a hint of irony.....


Theres 4 types of xbox fans, paid shills, people hoping to get noticed by doing pro bono shilling work, militant brand fans, and just your everyday fan.

Sony just have the last 2 as they cannot afford the guerrila marketting.

Pro... bono... shilling work!

giphy.gif


DJ12 DJ12 You damn near f'd up my keyboard my backlight is on the fritz right now because I just spilt OJ over it.
 

Topher

Gold Member
Is there an actual author for this piece? I don't have a log in.

No name that I can see. Here is the text of the column:

Trustbusters have two main worries. The first is the jewel in Activision Blizzard’s portfolio: “Call of Duty”, a military-themed first-person shooter game, the latest version of which sold over $1bn-worth of copies in just ten days. It is available on both Microsoft’s Xbox games consoles and Sony’s competing PlayStation. Regulators fear Microsoft could make “Call of Duty” exclusive to the Xbox, undermining competition between the ecosystems.

Microsoft says that it does not want to freeze out PlayStation. Its aim is to add titles to Game Pass, its monthly subscription service which, in effect, rents out a bundle of games rather than selling them individually. Herein lies regulators’ second concern. At the moment Game Pass is chiefly an Xbox service, but it could one day have much broader reach as games are streamed from cloud-computing services onto people’s televisions, web browsers and phones. Microsoft’s cloud-computing business, Azure, might give it a technological edge while Game Pass—expanded to include Activision Blizzard’s portfolio—provides the best content. Trustbusters worry that Microsoft could gain an insurmountable lead in a nascent market.

n the past two decades video gaming has gone from a nerdy hobby to a blockbuster industry, with revenues over five times bigger than the cinema box office. Today it is home to one of the largest tech mergers in history. In January Microsoft agreed to pay $69bn to buy Activision Blizzard, a game studio. Yet the megadeal may not go ahead. America’s Federal Trade Commission—one of 16 regulators around the world to have taken an interest—will probably say soon that it will sue to block it.

Neither worry is a reason to block the merger. Take “Call of Duty”. Microsoft is starting from third place in the console market—in which it sells the Xbox at a loss—and Activision Blizzard earns hundreds of millions of dollars a year from selling “Call of Duty” to more numerous PlayStation users. Recent history suggests Microsoft should hesitate to give up those revenues. In 2018 at&t, a telecoms company, bought Time Warner, a media giant. It then pulled stellar exclusive content, such as the sitcom “Friends”, from rival broadcasters’ streaming platforms in an effort to promote its own service. That helped cause a collapse in profits and the unwinding of the merger. Although Microsoft would have good reason not to make “Call of Duty” exclusive, regulators could in any case insist it honours a promise to keep selling the game to PlayStation users on reasonable terms.

Television also offers a lesson about game streaming. In 2016 Hollywood was rife with fears that Netflix would become a monopoly. Some argued it wielded so much power that fed-up creative types were scared to criticise it. Its advantage did not last. Today its growth is stalling as it faces competition from Amazon and Disney. Games are harder to make and stream than sitcoms. But plenty of firms are capable of challenging Microsoft, including gaming rivals like Nintendo and technology giants like Nvidia and Apple. Microsoft would not own blockbuster games from “Fortnite” to “fifa”, made by the studios Epic Games and Electronic Arts, respectively. By one estimate, a merged Microsoft-Activision Blizzard would account for only 14% of global gaming revenues among the biggest listed gaming companies.

Stay frosty
Trustbusters are twitchy about technology mergers, having failed to stop Facebook buying Instagram and WhatsApp in the early 2010s, which led to a time when social media was less competitive than it should have been. But Microsoft is experimenting with an unproven business model, not picking off a competitor. Game Pass is only about 15% of Microsoft’s revenues from Xbox games and streaming accounts for well under 1% of game spending today. The fact that a market is only just getting off the ground is a reason for regulators to be cautious, not for them to intervene. Preventing Microsoft from buying Activision Blizzard is as likely to harm consumers by stopping a new product from taking shape as it is to protect them from a big company with excessive market power.
 

bxrz

Member
Article starts with:

"Blocking the deal is as likely to harm consumers as it is to protect them"

Article ends with:

"Preventing Microsoft from buying Activision Blizzard is as likely to harm consumers by stopping a new product from taking shape as it is to protect them from a big company with excessive market power."

Those are the only two times "consumers" are referenced or mentioned at all.
Funny, Microsoft used this argument in their response to the CMA's report.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom