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

[Silent_Buddha]

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

Who is it hurting? It's not leaving and there are no plans for it to leave any existing platforms it is on. Or do you mean by hurting that PlayStation users would lose exclusive access to content in COD?

OTOH - the game would be brought to potentially 10's of millions more players.

No. MS have said they believe in the cloud, they are pushing the cloud, they want gaming on every device, etc. Game streaming is clearly part of their long-term goals and something they are betting big on.

Keep in mind, MS also bet big on Nokia and Windows Phone and those were quite clearly a large part of their long term goals.

Also, keep in mind that MS bet big on Tablets back in the early 2000's (Windows XP Tablet Edition and OEM Windows Tablets predate Apple's entry into the market by 8 years) and tablets were a long term goal of theirs. They invested heavily in the tech and the platform and in OEM relations to get them to release devices. Let's see how dominant they are in the Tablet space ... hmmmm. Yup. And that despite MS having a monopoly on high performance Tablets which they can't even make a claim to for "Cloud gaming".

Just because a company has long term goals and believes in something doesn't mean that what they want to happen will ever actually happen.

As Scott Arm has talked about at length, predicting anything tech or market related 10 years into the future is a fools errand. Anybody that thinks they can predict what is going to happen that far into the future has clearly lost it.

Regards,
SB

 

[eastmen]

Who is it hurting? It's not leaving and there are no plans for it to leave any existing platforms it is on. Or do you mean by hurting that PlayStation users would lose exclusive access to content in COD?

OTOH - the game would be brought to potentially 10's of millions more players.



Keep in mind, MS also bet big on Nokia and Windows Phone and those were quite clearly a large part of their long term goals.

Also, keep in mind that MS bet big on Tablets back in the early 2000's (Windows XP Tablet Edition and OEM Windows Tablets predate Apple's entry into the market by 8 years) and tablets were a long term goal of theirs. They invested heavily in the tech and the platform and in OEM relations to get them to release devices. Let's see how dominant they are in the Tablet space ... hmmmm. Yup. And that despite MS having a monopoly on high performance Tablets which they can't even make a claim to for "Cloud gaming".

Just because a company has long term goals and believes in something doesn't mean that what they want to happen will ever actually happen.

As Scott Arm has talked about at length, predicting anything tech or market related 10 years into the future is a fools errand. Anybody that thinks they can predict what is going to happen that far into the future has clearly lost it.

Regards,
SB

To be fair the surface line that was spawned from tablets has been extremely successful hardware wise.

Also I think the phone shows you how important platform lock in actually is and how important it is for MS to gain large amounts of popular IP to bring in gamers before they get locked out of the industry

 

[Nesh]

Who is it hurting? It's not leaving and there are no plans for it to leave any existing platforms it is on. Or do you mean by hurting that PlayStation users would lose exclusive access to content in COD?

OTOH - the game would be brought to potentially 10's of millions more players.

Basically you ensure one game to reach a tiny fraction of streaming gamers, with questionable demand for the short term, while you would potentially expect Activision projects to not reach another platform that has a far bigger install base due to exclusivity in general.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

do you have more information on this? I couldnt find anything on google because all the search results is about the activision case lol

I think this is the one:

When the culture secretary, Nicky Morgan, warned that the broadcaster had to adapt or become like Blockbuster, the chain of video rental stores annihilated by Netflix, the reply was trenchant.

“The BBC tried to set up a Netflix service a decade ago while they [Netflix] were still sending DVDs in the post, but was prevented from doing so by regulators,” the statement read.

2007 - Highfield had just overseen the launch of the iPlayer – BBC’s online catch-up service. Now he wanted to try and build a commercial equivalent that would earn more. For that reason that he was meeting over drinks with Ben McOwen-Wilson, then head of strategy at ITV.

Scribbling on the back of a coaster, the two mapped out the plan for a British digital television streaming service which would feature selected Hollywood films alongside content from the BBC, ITV and Channel 4. That service would be named Kangaroo.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Keep in mind, MS also bet big on Nokia and Windows Phone and those were quite clearly a large part of their long term goals.

Also, keep in mind that MS bet big on Tablets back in the early 2000's (Windows XP Tablet Edition and OEM Windows Tablets predate Apple's entry into the market by 8 years) and tablets were a long term goal of theirs. They invested heavily in the tech and the platform and in OEM relations to get them to release devices. Let's see how dominant they are in the Tablet space ... hmmmm. Yup. And that despite MS having a monopoly on high performance Tablets which they can't even make a claim to for "Cloud gaming".

Microsoft were first to tablets, and phones, but arguably - I used a Windows XP tablet device and a WindowsCE phone - a bit too early because the experience outside of specific applications where the positives outweighed the technological drawbacks, the mass market was not ready to dive in.

I don't think acquisition and mergers regulators are quite ready to approach these deals from the perspective that Microsoft will cock it up! ;-)

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Also, keep in mind that MS bet big on Tablets back in the early 2000's (Windows XP Tablet Edition and OEM Windows Tablets predate Apple's entry into the market by 8 years)

Apple Newton says, "hello."

Just because a company has long term goals and believes in something doesn't mean that what they want to happen will ever actually happen.

It doesn't. But the argument isn't just, "MS are interested so let's regulate their ambitions" - Cloud gaming is conceptually almost a certainty. We've talked about it here; local hardware is going to reach a manufacturing limit, while internet will only improve. The case for remote computing increases every year, and people are now using productivity in the Cloud. The argument cloud gaming will never amount to anything isn't really based in realistic projections, but just saying the current state isn't great and extrapolating linearly from that current state. Realistically, unless the economics are unsustainable (and in those discussion, it's pointed out gaming should be more profitable than video streaming) it seems an inevitability. When the BBC was regulated to prevent it gaining a monopoly on a nascent video streaming market, it was done with a pretty confident view that, though the video streaming market didn't exist, it was going to end up huge. That was a pretty easy forecast, and I don't think cloud gaming is that far behind in predictability.

That's why these tech companies are involved and investing. They are all looking at the same market and technology states and coming to the same logical predictions. It might not be in only ten years, which may well still be dominated by local hardware. But at some point game streaming will very likely be the future and the idea is to let society enter that future with a rounded landscape of players. Which ironically won't happen because other markets will allow players to ascend to total dominance before the industry really takes off, and when it does, they'll be the Sony/Nintendo of the future.

 

[iroboto]

Cloud gaming is conceptually almost a certainty

but just saying the current state isn't great and extrapolating linearly from that current state

Agreed, but the further out something is the more inaccurate the forecast is. When something is so far off, are the actions of today going to be relevant 15+ years from now? It's very hard to predict where hurricanes land several weeks in advance and at what force, we know it's coming, but it would be far too early to place bets on which city needs to be evacuated and walled up while the storm is barely a tropical depression. If you don't even have a fairly strong forecast of a hurricane even being formed, yet alone landing, then one has to question what the blocking is about. Is MS going to be the best cloud provider because they are chasing to become the best cloud provider? Or is it because 15+ years from now that acquisition of Call of Duty this year is going to start finally paying dividends. I very much doubt the latter is the reason they win market leadership, if they win.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Agreed, but the further out something is the more inaccurate the forecast is. When something is so far off, are the actions of today going to be relevant 15+ years from now?

I fully agree with you, but I think this also diminishes the value of the ten year commitments being proffered by Microsoft for making Call of Duty, and other titles, available to others. Earlier in the thread I indicated that ten years felt short - more so in the cloud space

Unless there is a rapid and widespread overhaul on basic internet infrastructure, the various technical issues with streaming are not going to be solved. Because of the ever-narrowing wavelengths being used, which solve both bandwidth and latency issues, 6G may be the most promising technology development that makes cloud gaming viable for large numbers of people. But 6G isn't even off the standards starting blocks yet so will not be something deployed in the next ten years.

 

[iroboto]

I fully agree with you, but I think this also diminishes the value of the ten year commitments being proffered by Microsoft for making Call of Duty, and other titles, available to others. Earlier in the thread I indicated that ten years felt short - more so in the cloud space

Agreed, but at the same time, nauseating to think that at a release schedule of 1 COD per year, and knowing that MW1 and MW2, are their highest rated CODs and have already been remade - that there will be 10 more CODs on everyone's platforms. I just can't see it ever being as important as it's made out to be. The developers for COD are clearly gold, but the game itself, I'm SMH.

Unless there is a rapid and widespread overhaul on basic internet infrastructure, the various technical issues with streaming are not going to be solved. Because of the ever-narrowing wavelengths being used, which solve both bandwidth and latency issues, 6G may be the most promising technology development that makes cloud gaming viable for large numbers of people. But 6G isn't even off the standards starting blocks yet so will not be something deployed in the next ten years.

And to add, I think 5G transition is taking longer than expected, but it's promising, but a lot will need to change around data caps for 5g/6g game streaming to become affordable.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Apple Newton says, "hello."

It doesn't. But the argument isn't just, "MS are interested so let's regulate their ambitions" - Cloud gaming is conceptually almost a certainty. We've talked about it here; local hardware is going to reach a manufacturing limit, while internet will only improve. The case for remote computing increases every year, and people are now using productivity in the Cloud. The argument cloud gaming will never amount to anything isn't really based in realistic projections, but just saying the current state isn't great and extrapolating linearly from that current state. Realistically, unless the economics are unsustainable (and in those discussion, it's pointed out gaming should be more profitable than video streaming) it seems an inevitability. When the BBC was regulated to prevent it gaining a monopoly on a nascent video streaming market, it was done with a pretty confident view that, though the video streaming market didn't exist, it was going to end up huge. That was a pretty easy forecast, and I don't think cloud gaming is that far behind in predictability.

I would argue that it is anything but a certainty. I know some people and many corporations hope it's the future, but there are still a lot of technical hurdles that I don't believe are solveable without a massive amount of money, IE - data centers serving the games in every local municipality.

If you have a data center that is hundreds of miles away from a person is playing it, there's going to be unavoidable and unsolvable problems related to latency.

Sure, it's great for people that live in a large metropolitan area and can afford a quality internet service and live in location within that metropolitan area that has quality internet service. NOTE - by quality I mean both the bandwidth necessary as well as quality of connection (latency, reliability and low congestion [oversubscription of service]). There it can make financial sense to have a data center dedicated to serving up games to the cloud, but smaller cities are likely to fall outside of that as well as have less robust internet services.

Living in a mid-sized city in the US that has multiple Amazon distribution centers but no local data centers (closest one is roughly 280 miles away), I have a rather dim view on corporation's (especially smaller cloud gaming providers) ability or desire to have localized data centers in anything but the largest metropolitan area's that would be able to provide a gaming experience that is at least close to local hardware with minimal degredation in the experience. I imagine in some less prosperous countries (for example, many in the SEA region), a data center servicing cloud gaming might be shared among multiple countries.

And without local data centers, cloud gaming is definitely anything but a "certainty".

Regards,
SB

 

[stu11]

Microsoft seem to be spreading mixed messages, first Cloud Gaming is the future and now they, According to Microsoft, Xbox Cloud Gaming on mobile devices has been "unsuccessful, So which is it? I'm thinking Xbox are looking at pivoting away from Cloud and possibly even dedicated consoles and working with companies like PC manufacturers like ASUS and other companies like Valve to put out a range of GamePass compliant handheld devices like the Steamdeck and the new ROG Ally.

Quote: "Coupled with the requirement for an always-online connection, Microsoft indicated that there's "unlikely" to be a "material demand" for cloud gaming any time soon. Furthermore, Microsoft noted that consumer spending on cloud devices accounted for a "de minimis" proportion of the overall pie — a Latin term often used in legal text to describe something too trivial to be even worthy of consideration. The redacted figures pertained to both mobile and PC cloud gaming. "

Hardly sounds a convincing reason to spend 70 billion buxx, does it?

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Microsoft seem to be spreading mixed messages, first Cloud Gaming is the future and now they, According to Microsoft, Xbox Cloud Gaming on mobile devices has been "unsuccessful, So which is it? I'm thinking Xbox are looking at pivoting away from Cloud and possibly even dedicated consoles and working with companies like PC manufacturers like ASUS and other companies like Valve to put out a range of GamePass compliant handheld devices like the Steamdeck and the new ROG Ally.

Quote: "Coupled with the requirement for an always-online connection, Microsoft indicated that there's "unlikely" to be a "material demand" for cloud gaming any time soon. Furthermore, Microsoft noted that consumer spending on cloud devices accounted for a "de minimis" proportion of the overall pie — a Latin term often used in legal text to describe something too trivial to be even worthy of consideration. The redacted figures pertained to both mobile and PC cloud gaming. "

Hardly sounds a convincing reason to spend 70 billion buxx, does it?

Yup, as mentioned cloud gaming is basically just a statistical anomaly for accounting purposes. MS likely still hopes that'll change, but I'm still extremely doubtful.

The 70 billion buying price isn't just for cloud and cloud likely wasn't a large reason for wanting to acquire ABK despite how important the CMA makes it sound. Cloud is just something that could potentially benefit from it.

Game Pass, the IP portfolio, mobile gaming (remember King is part of ABK) and large revenue stream (dependent on key franchises staying on existing platforms and brought to expanded platforms) are the main reasons. Cloud is just a, "hey, this could help make cloud potentially more than just a statistical accounting error in our revenue stream".

Regards,
SB

 

[Johnny Awesome]

I just think it's strange that everyone is buying that the CMA actually cares about Cloud. This is just an excuse to block MS from acquiring ABK in a way that won't bring Sony into the mix. IMO it's extremely naïve to take this at face value when it's so obvious that it can't be the reason. It's bullshit guys. The CMA didn't want this to happen. Period. They first tried to block on the console side and then MS offered COD to everyone under the sun for 10 years, so that approach failed. Now they're claiming Cloud power is the reason. It's hilarious. I don't buy it for a second.

 

[eastmen]

Subscribe to read | Financial Times

News, analysis and comment from the Financial Times, the worldʼs leading global business publication

www.ft.com

Activision hires its own heavy weight

David Pannick KC, whose recent cases include Boris Johnson’s partygate probe, will lead the gaming group’s legal challenge

 

[Nesh]

I just think it's strange that everyone is buying that the CMA actually cares about Cloud. This is just an excuse to block MS from acquiring ABK in a way that won't bring Sony into the mix. IMO it's extremely naïve to take this at face value when it's so obvious that it can't be the reason. It's bullshit guys. The CMA didn't want this to happen. Period. They first tried to block on the console side and then MS offered COD to everyone under the sun for 10 years, so that approach failed. Now they're claiming Cloud power is the reason. It's hilarious. I don't buy it for a second.

Why would CMA care about protecting Sony specifically?

 

[Inuhanyou]

Why would CMA care about protecting Sony specifically?

Apparently according to some people, Sony used their secret UK goverment connections to bias them in favor of Sony even though they didn't even block the deal on behalf of Sony and the CMA isn't even a governmental body but an independent institution

It can't be that the CMA and the FTC dont approve of corporate consolidation of that size or don't believe they can fully regulate the markets involved to make the merger "safe" at the scale of everything involved. It's just a conspiracy against Microsoft for some reason. Because people are emotionally invested in the deal going through at all costs and MS getting a "win" and don't care/want to hear about any of the contrary arguments.

 

[eastmen]

Apparently according to some people, Sony used their secret UK goverment connections to bias them in favor of Sony even though they didn't even block the deal on behalf of Sony and the CMA isn't even a governmental body but an independent institution

It can't be that the CMA and the FTC dont approve of corporate consolidation of that size or don't believe they can fully regulate the markets involved to make the merger "safe" at the scale of everything involved. It's just a conspiracy against Microsoft for some reason. Because people are emotionally invested in the deal going through at all costs and MS getting a "win" and don't care/want to hear about any of the contrary arguments.

Yea of course the FTC doesn't approve of corporate consolidation of that size or believe it can fully regulate those markets....

OH shit would you look at this https://www.wsj.com/articles/disney-completes-buy-of-foxs-entertainment-assets-11553074200 ain't that a peach okaying a 71.3B dollar deal for Disney purchasing fox. Now isn't 71.3B more than 68.7B ? So not only does the FTC approve of corporate consolidation but they allow even bigger ones to go through.


Also lets not act like this is the biggest purchase in history. Verizon bought Vodafone for 130B in 2013 and AB Inbev bought Sabmiller for a 107B in 2015. Both would have had to be approved by the UK/CMA since they are both Uk business. The ftc would have been involved with Verizon purchasing vodafone also

On the usa side you have had AT&T / Time warner for 108B , Dow Chemical with Du pont for a 130B , United technologies with Raytheon for a 120m. heck in 2000 AOL purchased time warner for 182B , in todays money its 286B

In 1999 Vodafone which is a UK company bought Nannesmann for a 183B adjusted for inflation it be 297B

Lets be real here , both the FTC and CMA have allowed deals through that have much more affect on people's lives than video games

 

[Nesh]

Yea of course the FTC doesn't approve of corporate consolidation of that size or believe it can fully regulate those markets....

OH shit would you look at this https://www.wsj.com/articles/disney-completes-buy-of-foxs-entertainment-assets-11553074200 ain't that a peach okaying a 71.3B dollar deal for Disney purchasing fox. Now isn't 71.3B more than 68.7B ? So not only does the FTC approve of corporate consolidation but they allow even bigger ones to go through.


Also lets not act like this is the biggest purchase in history. Verizon bought Vodafone for 130B in 2013 and AB Inbev bought Sabmiller for a 107B in 2015. Both would have had to be approved by the UK/CMA since they are both Uk business. The ftc would have been involved with Verizon purchasing vodafone also

On the usa side you have had AT&T / Time warner for 108B , Dow Chemical with Du pont for a 130B , United technologies with Raytheon for a 120m. heck in 2000 AOL purchased time warner for 182B , in todays money its 286B

In 1999 Vodafone which is a UK company bought Nannesmann for a 183B adjusted for inflation it be 297B

Lets be real here , both the FTC and CMA have allowed deals through that have much more affect on people's lives than video games

The simple answer to your arguments is: you are comparing apples to oranges. And still havent touched the argument.
Why does CMA care about Sony? Even "Communist" China and Sony's homeland didnt have a problem. But for some mysterious reason, CMA secretly loves Sony even though CMA themselves said that Sony's concerns were unfounded.

 

[stu11]

Also lets not act like this is the biggest purchase in history. Verizon bought Vodafone for 130B in 2013 and AB Inbev bought Sabmiller for a 107B in 2015. Both would have had to be approved by the UK/CMA since they are both Uk business. The ftc would have been involved with Verizon purchasing vodafone also

It would probably help if you Googled ( or for you BING!) your facts first. Verizon didn't buy Vodaphone. Verizon Communications bought out Vodaphone's 45% share of Verizon Wireless which was a joint venture between the 2 companies.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Agreed, but at the same time, nauseating to think that at a release schedule of 1 COD per year, and knowing that MW1 and MW2, are their highest rated CODs and have already been remade - that there will be 10 more CODs on everyone's platforms. I just can't see it ever being as important as it's made out to be. The developers for COD are clearly gold, but the game itself, I'm SMH.

Microsoft said they didn't see Call of Duty as being important either, but when the CMA presented with all parties with the option to remove that title for approval, nobody was interested. Something does not add up. CoD isn't my thing but you can't deny the influence it has, nor the numbers of copies it sells relative to competitors.

On the principle about approving the deal to improve the availability of titles on platforms on which they are not currently supported, this is outside the scope of the assessment criteria of both the UK and EU processes. The processes are very specific and trigger when there is an assessment that competition will be reduced or made more difficult. Making certain Activision-Blizzard games available to more people via streaming is not isn't a relevant factor.