EA acquires Codemasters for $1.2 Billion [2020-12]
- Thread starter AlNom
- Start date
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
EA buying companies (then killing them softly later) has been their thing since the 1980s. If sleeping giants are looking for maximum profit, they don't want to own a platform they want to be the next Activision, EA or Ubisoft because those companies profits dwarf those of the entire division at Microsoft that Xbox is just one part.
For Google, Nvidia and Amazon, cloud gaming isn't a big investment for them, it's taking what they already do and exploring where there is profitability in the same way there if for cloud computing services. Having a hook, like exclusives, is appealing but they don't need as many studios of Nintendo or Sony.
Just as Microsoft triggers consolidation among the industry, they are inviting themselves and the rest of the industry to regulatory scrutiny under antitrust laws so realistically no one corporation can hold as much cards in their hands as you can possibly imagine ...
ChuckeRearmed
Regular
EA is trying to position itself as sports game subscription platform basically. Aside NBA - it has other popular genres. Not to mention probably some NASCAR and other licenses. Also there is esports F1. Considering that MS started to begin involvement in esports, there probably some additional things considering how close EA and MS are.
Now put those games on EA Play and GamePass EA
Then it means that the time has come. Everything happens naturally.
Microsoft is buying now because of that very thing. In a few years the government would stop them from buying other companies but not now.
MS has been in the gaming scene for 3 generations or almost 20 years. First generation they entered they were tied for 2nd place selling what an 8th of sony who was in first place ? Second generation they were virtually tied for second place with sony selling roughly 80m units but still behind nintendo. 3rd generation they were in 3rd by a good margin again.
So MS can make the case that them buying companies isn't anti competitive for now. But if they are able to move up to first place and grow xcloud really fast I think they will get antitrust scrutiny .
Silent_Buddha
Legend
They've been in console gaming for 20 years.
They've been in the gaming scene for 38 years.
They were making games before the NES came out.
Regards,
SB
I know , just talking the industry at large. Their output back when I was a one year old wasn't huge in gaming lolThey've been in console gaming for 20 years.
They've been in the gaming scene for 38 years.
They were making games before the NES came out.
Regards,
SB
Makes me think that if MS can justify it they will scoop up an EA or Take 2 sooner rather than later, with the thinking that if they need to they can just spin it off again. With how aggressive companies are getting in the acquisitions/expansion game I'm surprised no one has started up a digital arts university in somewhere like India, and just funnel all the talent into a giant support studio organisation, where you would spin-off full studios every now and again that would lead development on titles.
ChuckeRearmed
Regular
I don't think MS will try to devour huge companies with cap over 10 billion. I do think they will buy Valve eventually but that's it.
What I wonder is if EA will introduce its own channel on Amazon Luna - like Ubisoft.
Judges, legislators and regulators could stop Microsoft if they needed to regardless of the timing since antitrust laws have existed for well over a century ...
Microsoft can't go on an uncontested buying spree without provoking one of the higher powers. Microsoft acquiring other game publishers would potentially be classified as a horizontal integration which will spark even greater antitrust concerns ...
It's not just America that Microsoft needs to worry about, They'd have to get approval from Europe and Japan or face the full extent of the law in those jurisdictions too...
They all would need justification to stop a purchase. I laid out why I don't think currently any country would have a case. With the previous case MS had a monopoly on the OS and then tied in their web browser to get a monopoly in that. MS is far from a monopoly in gaming
ChuckeRearmed
Regular
Exactly. People throw word monopoly on MS all the time while Sony and Nintendo the ones who are close to be a monopolies.
Nope, that's not necessarily the case. These decisions can be be made on an ideological basis rather than a rational basis. If a judge, bureaucrat, or a political party don't like the said entity then they can make whatever ruling/law they feel like for whatever superfluous reason ...
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
Many countries have legislation to control foreign investment (including acquisitions) into domestic companies. It's not always about conventional market monopolies forming, if you have a company that is doing well and is good for the economy (employing people, paying them money so they can spend money which transfers into taxes) then the risk of foreign investment is they may be after IP or other assets rather than keeping the company as a going concern. Many countries have legislation which allows them to control and deny foreign investment for cultural, political, heritage, commercial and national security reasons - nor do they need to give a detailed explanation of a rejection and some, like in France and Poland, do not even give the right of appeal if the rejection is made under certain criteria.
well yes we can see that with DA's not charging antfia members in the united states. But of course you can always appeal upwards it would be a hard case for the DOJ to win against microsoft and it would set a precedent that would send apple , google and others running
You can see it happening with the facebook anti trust stuff .
All sales have to go through regulatory review. But that has nothing to do with anti trust issues and it will be easier for a company that doesn't control a market to purchase a company vs one that does
Also when looking at other countries , sometimes it may be better to have a foreign company with no or a minimum amount of presence in the country. For example if Nintendo Bought square then a lot of support staff like HR would be let go as that would be a redundancy. But if microsoft was to buy square ? There is more of a chance for that staff to remain employeed.
But anyway each deal will be judged on its own merits for any company purchasing another company
