Microsoft acquired Activision Blizzard King for $69 Billion on 2023-10-13

[Deleted member 11852]

If a member state wants to violate EU customs by implementing it's own border checks then it should be prepared to face retaliation by other members doing the same to the original offending member state ...

I cannot think of any other way to say but acquisitions and mergers are not trade. There is a good reason why inside the Commission, there is a DG and Department for Trade and a completely separate DG and Department for Competition. There is no overlap.

Article 30 of the Treaty for on the Functioning of European Union states that "Customs duties on imports and exports and charges having equivalent effect shall be prohibited between Member States. This prohibition shall also apply to customs duties of a fiscal nature" which effectively means no customs border's between the different member states ...

Again, trade and customs do not cover acquisitions. I also would point out a principle that runs through much EU policy and that is the things on which EU law has primacy and things where EU law acknowledges that Member States can play the national security card. And an area where this is becoming more commonplace is for acquisitions and mergers.

There are two reasons for this and the first is that whilst it is the Commission's role to look is assess impact, vis-a-vis competition to consumers, across the Union, acquisitions and mergers - particularly large ones - can have an impact on an individual members states economic security. The second is that acquisitions and mergers can be detrimental to member states' national security. Foreign acquisitors of sensitive technologies is something a lot of countries are concerned about.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Not uniformly. Its mostly for some businesses rather for gamers

Eh? In terms of gamers, is it not better that instead of COD only being available on PlayStation, Xbox and PC that it's also available on NSW and basically any device capable of streaming from the web? So, all mobile devices would also get access to the "core" COD experience? And all TV's capable of streaming a cloud game would also get access to COD?

But yes, it is definitely better for gamers that it's only available on PlayStation, Xbox and PC. Screw those Nintendo gamers, they aren't real anyway according to the CMA and FTC after all. And screw mobile gamers that might want to have the "core" COD experience on their mobile phones ... even if they'd still have to deal with the latency of cloud gaming. I mean mobile gamers aren't real gamers either, am I right?

Regards,
SB

 

[Deleted member 11852]

But yes, it is definitely better for gamers that it's only available on PlayStation, Xbox and PC. Screw those Nintendo gamers, they aren't real anyway according to the CMA and FTC after all. And screw mobile gamers that might want to have the "core" COD experience on their mobile phones ... even if they'd still have to deal with the latency of cloud gaming. I mean mobile gamers aren't real gamers either, am I right?

Huh? The CMA are not stopping Activision-Blizzard putting Call of Duty on as many platforms as Microsoft want too. Activision-Blizzard can do that any time they like.

 

[Inuhanyou]

It's kind of strange why some think things only become possible because of the merger and the lack of the merger is somehow stopping them.

 

[iroboto]

It's kind of strange why some think things only become possible because of the merger and the lack of the merger is somehow stopping them.

Typically with mergers and acquisitions, the way businesses are organized will actually determine how business is conducted. It's why we have cheaper brands, normal brands and luxury brands, like Toyota needs Lexus, or that telcos have discount flanker brands and expensive ones even though the service is the same.

A large organization cannot easily build everything from the ground up, so its easier and desirable to pull an entire structure over that is capable of that functionality immediately.

ie. Sony doesn't have that massive online experience, so they bought Bungie.

 

[wco81]

Eh? In terms of gamers, is it not better that instead of COD only being available on PlayStation, Xbox and PC that it's also available on NSW and basically any device capable of streaming from the web? So, all mobile devices would also get access to the "core" COD experience? And all TV's capable of streaming a cloud game would also get access to COD?

But yes, it is definitely better for gamers that it's only available on PlayStation, Xbox and PC. Screw those Nintendo gamers, they aren't real anyway according to the CMA and FTC after all. And screw mobile gamers that might want to have the "core" COD experience on their mobile phones ... even if they'd still have to deal with the latency of cloud gaming. I mean mobile gamers aren't real gamers either, am I right?

Regards,
SB

How good will some of those ports be?

 

[Inuhanyou]

@iroboto

I can tell you Activision is not hurting for funds to do anything on their own. Nor is Microsoft. As two separate entities they held some of the greatest away in the industry. in addition, contrary to some hopes and dreams, MS has made clear they take a hands off approach to all these studios they are buying outside of canning projects for other competing platforms.

They are not going to change Activision's terrible corporate culture or tell them what they are going to be making in the future. The only thing Activision has to fear on their own is more public pressure without a shield like Microsoft

 

[eastmen]

It's kind of strange why some think things only become possible because of the merger and the lack of the merger is somehow stopping them.

Businesses make choices on where to allocate their resources all the time. COD isn't on Switch or Cloud not because Activision can't do it but because they feel its not worth it to allocate those resources to those platforms. Switch being an older much weaker piece of hardware vs the xbox and playstation that are extremely similar in hardware and then pc . Cloud being an absolutely tiny market.

MS on the other hand have the incentive to put COD on more platforms as a way to close the acquisition.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Huh? The CMA are not stopping Activision-Blizzard putting Call of Duty on as many platforms as Microsoft want too. Activision-Blizzard can do that any time they like.

And that's the point, ABK does NOT want to do that. The only way that happens is if MS (edit: or anyone) acquire them. So, not getting acquired is worse for gamers.

Regards,
SB

 

[Nesh]

Eh? In terms of gamers, is it not better that instead of COD only being available on PlayStation, Xbox and PC that it's also available on NSW and basically any device capable of streaming from the web? So, all mobile devices would also get access to the "core" COD experience? And all TV's capable of streaming a cloud game would also get access to COD?

But yes, it is definitely better for gamers that it's only available on PlayStation, Xbox and PC. Screw those Nintendo gamers, they aren't real anyway according to the CMA and FTC after all. And screw mobile gamers that might want to have the "core" COD experience on their mobile phones ... even if they'd still have to deal with the latency of cloud gaming. I mean mobile gamers aren't real gamers either, am I right?

Regards,
SB

Well if you assume that the market share of streaming consumers are enormous, that ABK is just COD, that ABK cant bring COD to Switch without MS and that all platforms will be getting every ABK game release, then in that imaginative senario yes

 

[Silent_Buddha]

How good will some of those ports be?

Only one of those would be a port. The Nintendo version. And who knows whether it would be a good port or a bad port, either way it would at least exist.

Regards,
SB

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Well if you assume that the markrt share of streaming consumers are enormous, that ABK is just COD, that ABK cant bring COD to Switch without MS and that all platforms will be getting every ABK game release, then in that imaginative senario yes

I mean have you been paying attention? ABK does NOT want COD to be streamed. They have actively sent cease and desist letters when companies (Nvidia in this case) attempted to allow users to stream it.

Regards,
SB

 

[iroboto]

@iroboto

I can tell you Activision is not hurting for funds to do anything on their own. Nor is Microsoft. As two separate entities they held some of the greatest away in the industry. in addition, contrary to some hopes and dreams, MS has made clear they take a hands off approach to all these studios they are buying outside of canning projects for other competing platforms.

They are not going to change Activision's terrible corporate culture or tell them what they are going to be making in the future. The only thing Activision has to fear on their own is more public pressure without a shield like Microsoft

I would disagree, otherwise they wouldn't seek moving into a platform.
Microsoft is looking to acquire IP and experience.

• They don't have MMO experience
• They don't have the ability to release a blockbuster AAA title annually
• And they don't have mobile game experience and everything that comes with selling on mobile market places

I think Activision is quickly becoming a COD shop, which means they are dead in the water if COD is no longer the flavour of choice. They need platform support to build out to more types of games, go back to risk taking and expanding their portfolio. They need support if they want to move their games to cloud and multi-game pass subscriptions.

 

[eastmen]

Only one of those would be a port. The Nintendo version. And who knows whether it would be a good port or a bad port, either way it would at least exist.

Regards,
SB

Nintendo already allows cloud games on the switch. Likely we would see the xcloud version for the switch that doesn't have access to any other games but cod.

 

[Nesh]

I mean have you been paying attention? ABK does NOT want COD to be streamed. They have actively sent cease and desist letters when companies (Nvidia in this case) attempted to allow users to stream it.

Regards,
SB

Pay more attention to what I m actually saying

 

[Shortbread]

I mean have you been paying attention? ABK does NOT want COD to be streamed. They have actively sent cease and desist letters when companies (Nvidia in this case) attempted to allow users to stream it.

Regards,
SB

Yeah, but if this merger doesn't go through, their investors will make sure of that (if and when game streaming services becomes more relevant, sizeable and profitable). Look at Sony, they were ultimately forced into offering their first-party games on PC, regardless of their prior feelings. Point being, things change...

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Yeah, but if this merger doesn't go through, their investors will make sure of that (if and when game streaming services becomes more relevant, sizeable and profitable). Look at Sony, they were ultimately forced into offering their first-party games on PC, regardless of their prior feelings. Point being, things change...

It might change, it might not. Streaming may never get large enough for ABK to view it as a decent financial risk. The same way that are opposed to their games being on a subscription service.

Considering their risk averse corporate culture and shareholders, I'm extremely doubtful that ABK will ever want their games on a streaming service or a subscription service. Although perhaps if/when the company starts to go bankrupt they'll reconsider, but by that point the company would be on borrowed time anyway.

There is currently very little financial incentive to have your games on streaming unless you are the gambling type. The market for cloud gaming would have to increase by multiple orders of magnitude before ABK would even consider it.

Regards,
SB

 

[Deleted member 11852]

And that's the point, ABK does NOT want to do that. The only way that happens is if MS (edit: or anyone) acquire them.

Have Activision-Blizzard said this? Is it known that they absolutely are not working on this, and never plan to do this? Or is this an assumption that because they have not done this yet, nor announced it that they are opposed to doing this?

 

[SmooTh]

Activision’s ordinary course internal business documents, as well as the sworn testimony of its executives, has made clear that there are no plans to do so in the future absent the Merger.

 

[Nesh]

Basically for a tiny fraction that will play COD through streaming lets make a 69 billion merger that will potentially affect negatively tenths of millions of existing gamers who dont like streaming and will not see many games on their platform