Microsoft acquires ZeniMax Media (Bethesda, id Software, Arkane + 5 more) [2020-09-21, 2021-03-09]

[Johnny Awesome]

At least those companies make games.

 

[eastmen]

Around $64 Billion, but much better balance wise than AT&T. I think its $54 billion of long term debt and $11 billion of short term raised to cover operating shortfalls due to Covid19.

Disney is slow playing Hulu. They don't want to expand it since the price of their buyout of Comcast's 33% shares will be set in 2024. If they expand it or improve on its outlook, they'll just end up having to pay more. Once that purchase is complete, they can take it international, greatly expanding its value, like they've done with Disney+.

MS can always buy the parts of AT&T it would want and leave the debt with the dead company. Isn't that what happened with Kaybee toys ?

 

[Shortbread]

MS can always buy the parts of AT&T it would want and leave the debt with the dead company. Isn't that what happened with Kaybee toys ?

AT&T isn't going through bankruptcy and liquidation like Kaybee Toys, so investors and debtors aren't nipping at AT&T heels on selling off assets and/or parts of the company.

 

[eastmen]

AT&T isn't going through bankruptcy and liquidation like Kaybee Toys, so investors and debtors aren't nipping at AT&T heels on selling off assets and/or parts of the company.

at the same time warner brothers is apparently selling off parts of itself already. They were looking to sell the games division and are trying to sell crunchy roll

 

[BRiT]

at the same time warner brothers is apparently selling off parts of itself already. They were looking to sell the games division and are trying to sell crunchy roll

It's better for everyone if they do divest themselves of control of Crunchy Roll. Everything AT&T touches dies. So the earlier you can remove them from any company, the better.

AT&T kind of reminds me of Sinclair Media's RSNs (Regional Sports Network), where they entirely overpaid for all of them. They're now asking more than any entity wants to pay for them, so they're struggling with earning income -- Sinclair and AT&T. The only difference is AT&T was looking to sell them off completely while Sinclair is talking carriage fees.

 

[ChuckeRearmed]

Fundamentally MS need will have to solve the issue with Japanese market directly or indirectly - I doubt that Xbox will be able to settle there, but deal with Sega is possible. Personally I think there some deal with Sega already - I think it is esports related deal. Microsoft can probably purchase exclusive licenses for Sega IPs or Konami's IPs (but they need more developers for that). They can also buy Valve and it is also possible, but depends on Gabe.

4) Yes DIsney+ onto Xcloud/ Azure but Disney + doesn't seem to be doing that great from what I can see. covid threw a wrench into their content plans and i think it ran out of steam once Mandalorian ended. Maybe season 2 into wanda vision and other stuff can get subscriber count growing again but they need something sustained.

I thought Disney+ was doing fine? But well movie industry was hit hard by COVID.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1328417675790462977

 

[AzBat]

https://seekingalpha.com/article/43...interactive-entertainment-virtual?part=single

Tim Stuart

Yes. I think the short answer to still looking is we will continue to be acquisitive. We'll continue to look around the industry to find who has the great IP, who are great leaders, who has great product development, who can we rely on and say, we need a AAA game launching in FY '24 Q1 for Game Pass. Let's line that -- let's line the road map up to go land that -- plan that perspective.

So we'll continue to look at. In the past, Bethesda was a little bit of a different lens to what we've done in the past, whether it's Ninja Theory or Obsidian or inXile, some of the smaller studios that had great IP. Bethesda gave us a great sort of launch with -- I'll say, launch into a big, let's call it, group of content, a big catalog of content that we can use for Game Pass.

And we said this as part of the announcement. When we think about Bethesda, it's going to be the continuing to allow -- I'll say allow, but continue to sell their games on the platforms that they exist today, and we'll determine what that looks over time and will change over time. I'm not making any announcements about exclusivity or something like that. But that model will change.

But really, it's about how do you take that content and put it into a service like Game Pass to drive that subscription of the North Star metric? So I think the long -- the short answer to your question is we'll continue to look at content, we will continue to look at bolstering our first-party studios. And as always, if the right value is there with the right content creators with the right IP, we'll continue to look at opportunities like that.

Alex Giaimo

That's helpful. And another question we're getting from the line here is with the acquisition of Bethesda, is the plan to make certain Bethesda franchises, like Fallout and DOOM, exclusive to Xbox? Or will you still support cross-platform play?

Tim Stuart

Yes. The goal here is, we're -- I'll say it from a cross-platform perspective. Microsoft is a platform. We're one of the first to really support Minecraft, Roadblock, Fortnite across platforms. So we highly encourage cross-platform play, simply from this landscape of, if it's good for the gaming ecosystem, it's good for us, classic rising tide lifts all boats.


What we'll do in the long run is we don't have intentions of just pulling all of Bethesda content out of Sony or Nintendo or otherwise. But what we want is we want that content, in the long run, to be either first or better or best or pick your differentiated experience, on our platforms. We will want Bethesda content to show up the best as -- on our platforms.

Yes. That's not a point about being exclusive. That's not a point about we're being -- adjusting timing or content or road map. But if you think about something like Game Pass, if it shows up best in Game Pass, that's what we want to see, and we want to drive our Game Pass subscriber base through that Bethesda pipeline.

So again, I'm not announcing pulling content from platforms one way or the other. But I suspect you'll continue to see us shift towards a first or better or best approach on our platforms.

Tommy McClain

 

[cheapchips]

Free horse armour on Gamepass confirmed!

 

[Nesh]

I still dont see it positive that one company can purchase one huge with lots of hige IPs. Buying some small talented studios with new IPs sounds a lot healthier for the infustry.

Despite what MS says I can easilly see them locking popular IPs and their content from other platforms.

 

[cheapchips]

I still dont see it positive that one company can purchase one huge with lots of hige IPs. Buying some small talented studios with new IPs sounds a lot healthier for the infustry.

Despite what MS says I can easilly see them locking popular IPs and their content from other platforms.

My interpretation of Tim Stuart's comments were that they're not removing anything that's already there but see how it evolves in the future with new stuff. Which in a sense means there's nothing really new in his comments over what MS have said already.

 

[Deleted member 7537]

I'd be extremely surprised if new IPs are released on non-MS platform. Hopefully it turns out that way, and, as I mentioned before there is a lot money to be made on software than on hardware.

 

[Johnny Awesome]

They want to drive GamePass so it makes sense to, for example, put the next Fallout on all systems for $70, but "free" on GamePass a month early or something. MS's goal is to make GamePass irresistible. That won't happen with Halo, Forza, Gears, but add Fable, Fallout, Doom, Ori, Wolfenstein, Elder Scrolls, Avowed, Everwild, ... 23 studios worth of content etc... to the mix and they believe they will make it irresistible to many many gamers. Time will tell.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

I still dont see it positive that one company can purchase one huge with lots of hige IPs. Buying some small talented studios with new IPs sounds a lot healthier for the infustry.

That's why there is a requirement for regulatory approval in several territories and why Microsoft have not bought Zenimax, they have indicated their intention to buy - and Zenimax their intention to sell. Now they have to leap the same regulatory hoops that happens when somebody like Microsoft buys someone like Nokia. Or Zenimax.

The final acquisition isn't expected until the second half of next year. There are plenty of publishers in the sea.

 

[liams]

The final acquisition isn't expected until the second half of next year. There are plenty of publishers in the sea.

Its actually supposed to be completed in the second half of Microsofts financial year, which means the first half of the calender 2021 year. Phil has also said they expect it to close early next year. I imagine they just give a lot of wiggle room for themselves in case something comes up. I would be surprised if it isn't a done deal by the end of feb 2021

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Its actually supposed to be completed in the second half of Microsofts financial year, which means the first half of the calender 2021 year. Phil has also said they expect it to close early next year. I imagine they just give a lot of wiggle room for themselves in case something comes up. I would be surprised if it isn't a done deal by the end of feb 2021

You're right, my bad. They'll be lucky to get approval from the EU Commission by February 2021 mid-pandemic. I'm not even sure the Commission's investigation into Zenimax (along with Bandai Namco, Capcom, Focus Home and Koch Media) has been concluded?

 

[liams]

You're right, my bad. They'll be lucky to get approval from the EU Commission by February 2021 mid-pandemic. I'm not even sure the Commission's investigation into Zenimax (along with Bandai Namco, Capcom, Focus Home and Koch Media) has been concluded?

I don't think the EU has any say in it, its an American company buying an American company

 

[Deleted member 11852]

I don't think the EU has any say in it, its an American company buying an American company

When it comes to monopolies and mergers, it is the territories in which the companies operate which dictate which regulatory approval is required. In addition to US and EU, both parties will need Chinese regulatory approval as well because they also operate there.

Don't forget that Zenimax have had a European operation (called Zenimax Europe) for over a decade

 

[Silent_Buddha]

When it comes to monopolies and mergers, it is the territories in which the companies operate which dictate which regulatory approval is required. In addition to US and EU, both parties will need Chinese regulatory approval as well because they also operate there.

Don't forget that Zenimax have had a European operation (called Zenimax Europe) for over a decade

It doesn't operate like that in the US. In the US the only times it matters if it is a foreign company is:

• Foreign company is attempting to buy a US company.
  • Depending on the importance of the company it may require regulatory approval.
• A foreign company trades stock in the US (registered) and US stockholders hold greater than 10% of the foreign company. And that foreign company is being acquired or merged into another company.
  • No regulatory approval is needed, however disclosures must be filed with the US government in order to ensure that US stockholders are protected.

https://iclg.com/practice-areas/mergers-and-acquisitions-laws-and-regulations/usa

So, for example, the US would have no say in approving Toyota acquiring Honda. However, if greater than 10% of Honda is owned by US stockholders then Toyota would be required to disclose the terms of the deal as well as how Honda's US stockholders would be compensated. But, it would still not be subject to regulatory approval by the US.

Now, if greater than 50% of Honda were owned by US stakeholders then they would be considered a US owned company and likely subject to regulatory approval.

Regards,
SB

 

[Deleted member 11852]

It doesn't operate like that in the US. In the US the only times it matters if it is a foreign company is:

In the EU and China the purpose of regulating monopolies and mergers is because this can impact consumers by way of leaving less choice which is why much of the regulation isn't framed about where companies are, but the impact.

It's unsurprising the US process is different because it's been designed to protect companies, not consumers.