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

[chris1515]

Maybe or maybe not. Did any regulator step in when they bought Bungie ?

No because Bungie is nothing again you compare something small studio/publisher to something big. If MS have bought Bungie regulator would have said nothing. with 2 billions dollars Sony bought Bungie. With 1 billion dollars, they only have 3.17% of Epic. They aren't on the same scale at all.

Sony don't have the money to buy Epic, this is not even a question the regulator will have in the future.

 

[RobertR1]

I don't care if games end up on Sony platforms as long as I get them Gamepass. I don't see how games being on Gamepass hurts Sony.

 

[mr magoo]

I'd be perfectly happy if there were some regulation that is universally applied that any acquired studio must have all of its titles available across all competitor's platforms. Would be amusing to see Sony and Microsoft being forced to release titles on NSW if they wanted to acquire a company.

So, go ahead Sony and MS, acquire all the developers you want, you just have to make sure that any title they develop is also on competitor's platforms.

Exclusives (if still allowed) would then only be available from a platform holder if and only if that platform holder created the studio in the first place.

Of course, I'd love to see a world where exclusives just didn't exist.

Regards,
SB

Some sort of rules like in F1 how much Sony and msft are allowed to spend on acquisitions yearly . I like the idea with keeping multi platform titles multi platform.
Exclusives are ruining everything I want to enjoy games on platform of my choice.

 

[eastmen]

Seeking Alpha has this story.

FTC staff recommendation Activision sale to Microsoft expected by mid December - report

A staff recommendation by Federal Trade Commission on Microsofts (MSFT) planned $69 billion purchase of Activision (ATVI) is said to be expected by mid December.The FTC is then expected...

seekingalpha.com

If the article is to be believed there might not be any Xbox or Gamepass exclusives from this deal at all the way the article phrases it.

Doesn't sound like that at all to me

 

[eastmen]

No because Bungie is nothing again you compare something small studio/publisher to something big. If MS have bought Bungie regulator would have said nothing. with 2 billions dollars Sony bought Bungie. With 1 billion dollars, they only have 3.17% of Epic. They aren't on the same scale at all.

Sony don't have the money to buy Epic, this is not even a question the regulator will have in the future.

Most people cut a tree down one swing a time. Sony has made 3 swings now. How many more till they own it. Who can say but if they keep taking whacks at the tree eventually they will

 

[chris1515]

Most people cut a tree down one swing a time. Sony has made 3 swings now. How many more till they own it. Who can say but if they keep taking whacks at the tree eventually they will

But again the regulator will step up very fast long before Sony take control of Epic and I doubt Epic want to lose independence. This is just fund they invest for growing. Imo invest in metaverse is not something clever but this is another problem.

 

[eastmen]

But again the regulator will step up very fast long before Sony take control of Epic and I doubt Epic want to lose independence. This is just fund they invest for growing. Imo invest in metaverse is not something clever but this is another problem.

again why ? no one stepped in with Sony purchasing Bungie. Why are you so sure a regulator would step in ?

 

[Remij]

Sony, please buy Epic, and fix the Unreal Engine on PC.

-Thanks

 

[chris1515]

again why ? no one stepped in with Sony purchasing Bungie. Why are you so sure a regulator would step in ?

Again when you will understand Bungie is not at the same scale like when MS bought Bethesda or Ninja Theory. Again you have the fanboy theory than regulator don't scrutinize Sony if Sony tried to buy Activision-Blizzard they would have the same shit happening to them than Microsoft.

2 billion dollars was 6.34% of Epic Games when Sony bought the stake of Epic. With 2 billion dollars they have the full control of Bungie. A 8 years old child is able to understand the math.

 

[eastmen]

Again when you will understand Bungie is not at the same scale like when MS bought Bethesda or Ninja Theory. Again you have the fanboy theory than regulator don't scrutinize Sony if Sony tried to buy Activision-Blizzard they would have the same shit happening to them than Microsoft.

2 billion dollars was 6.34% of Epic Games when Sony bought the stake of Epic. With 2 billion dollars they have the full control of Bungie. A 8 years old child is able to understand the math.

Because I disagree with you.

I don't need a fanboy theory. I just have history on my side. Where were the regulators regulating Bungie and why do you claim I can't bring up sony slowly buying epic.

Also last I checked 2B is less than 3.6B sony spent on Bungie. So perhaps keep petty insults to yourself

 

[see colon]

Again when you will understand Bungie is not at the same scale like when MS bought Bethesda or Ninja Theory. Again you have the fanboy theory than regulator don't scrutinize Sony if Sony tried to buy Activision-Blizzard they would have the same shit happening to them than Microsoft.

2 billion dollars was 6.34% of Epic Games when Sony bought the stake of Epic. With 2 billion dollars they have the full control of Bungie. A 8 years old child is able to understand the math.

While this is true, and I don't disagree with any of it, I am curious why Microsoft would face this level of scrutiny in the games market when post merger they would be the 3rd or 4th largest company in the market, while Sony can essentially purchase 70%+ of the anime market with Aniplex, Crunchy Roll and Funimation and face nearly no regulatory scrutiny. I guess none of the competitors complained, but they were all owned by Sony already.

I'm not really sure Sony would get the same level of scrutiny that Microsoft has, to be honest, because the perception that Microsoft is trying to leverage Gamepass and Windows to unfairly steal sales from it's competitors is a concern it's competitors have voiced. But the same level of accusations have not been voiced by Sony's competitors. And maybe that's the problem.

 

[stu11]

Do you think every xbox bought is owned by a singular person and I am that person ? Just because I don't like those games doesn't mean other people who have an xbox don't. There are plenty of people who really liked.

Not only that but I enjoyed Edge of No where , Unspoken and Stormlands. I also enjoyed Sunset overdrive on the xbox. So insominac made a lot of other games outside of third person adventure games.

You say they have been affiliated most of their 30 years of existence and yet released an xbox only game for their 20th anniversary. It seems like only their early history is closely affiliated with sony while their later works were not. Sony only purchased them after Spiderman was a hit.

I bring up older companies from the past because it's been a habit of sony to purchase studios sine they entered the gaming market. It is nothing new for sony. They have been doing it since the start and many of these amazing sony games were made from third party studios that they bought up.

Looking at your post I guess it was fine that MS bought bethesda because they were associated with Microsoft. After all their games and id's games were all first on PC and then other big games like elder scrolls franchise came first to xbox ?

I guess the same with Activision right ? They had marketing deals for COD on xbox and the big break out hit for them was COD 2 at xbox 360s launch. So I guess that is fine too oh and all those awesome blizzard games were all on pc way before console ?

Or do you need more time to come up with a new reason why its okay for sony to do something but not MS ?

Oh gee it looks like you got a bit upset by my post, my apologies. I have to say I did have a good laugh at your warped Console Warrior logic. So let me get this straight, because Bethesda launched a bunch of PC games, that automatically makes them associated to microsoft, and COD 2 was "soo big" on Xbox which of course means that Activision is "associated" to microsoft. So I guess EA will be next since they launched a bunch of old Westwood Studios games in the past on PC and Mass Effect did debut on the xbox360 first since microsoft bought exclusivity, then probably Ubisoft since I'm sure you'll find a PC game to "associate it to Microsoft" oooh lets not forget they'll bid for Epic next since Gears of War was developed by Epic for Xbox360 and therefore >>> you guessed it >>> Association.

Maybe then you won't need to whine that "micorsoft is still in 3rd place behind Sony and trensent" all the time.

Of course that works both ways, since microsoft didn't think that GTAIII was going to be a successful game they passed on it and it launched on PS2 instead (whoops) I guess that means that Sony can buy Take Two/Rockstar because GTA is associated with the PlayStation brand .. and of course Square Enix. Man this association game works good, doesn't it?

 

[chris1515]

Because I disagree with you.

I don't need a fanboy theory. I just have history on my side. Where were the regulators regulating Bungie and why do you claim I can't bring up sony slowly buying epic.

Also last I checked 2B is less than 3.6B sony spent on Bungie. So perhaps keep petty insults to yourself

I didn't remember it is 3.6B but do the calculation with 3.6B and it the same. Sony can't buy Epic with 3.6B. They are a minor shareholder of Epic nothing more.

While this is true, and I don't disagree with any of it, I am curious why Microsoft would face this level of scrutiny in the games market when post merger they would be the 3rd or 4th largest company in the market, while Sony can essentially purchase 70%+ of the anime market with Aniplex, Crunchy Roll and Funimation and face nearly no regulatory scrutiny. I guess none of the competitors complained, but they were all owned by Sony already.

I'm not really sure Sony would get the same level of scrutiny that Microsoft has, to be honest, because the perception that Microsoft is trying to leverage Gamepass and Windows to unfairly steal sales from it's competitors is a concern it's competitors have voiced. But the same level of accusations have not been voiced by Sony's competitors. And maybe that's the problem.

Because it is not a matter of being 3rd largest company just after buying i and this is not like Tencent is a platform holder. It is because it is a huge barrier of entry for other competitor and Sony can't buy Activision. The moment Call of duty and all other game are exclusive, Sony will be behind Microsoft. If Sony was able to do it maybe the regulators won't do anything. Because in multiple antitrust regulation Microsoft is accused by regulator to use it power/money coming from there other product to beat competition.

I have no idea why regulator don't made anything about anime maybe they consider Netflix and other streaming service to be competitor. Crunchyroll lost an anime to Disney plus and they will probably lost more because D+ have a partnership with Kodansha.

Tokyo Revengers Season 2: Anime show to stream on Disney Plus as Walt Disney expands partnership with Kodansha

The Walt Disney Company has decided to expand its partnership with the Japanese Publishing company Kodansha. So, Anime fans can look forward to the coming up of several original shows on the Disney Plus streaming service. The Season 2 of Tokyo Revengers is set to be aired exclusively on the...

economictimes.indiatimes.com

 

[Nesh]

While this is true, and I don't disagree with any of it, I am curious why Microsoft would face this level of scrutiny in the games market when post merger they would be the 3rd or 4th largest company in the market, while Sony can essentially purchase 70%+ of the anime market with Aniplex, Crunchy Roll and Funimation and face nearly no regulatory scrutiny. I guess none of the competitors complained, but they were all owned by Sony already.

I'm not really sure Sony would get the same level of scrutiny that Microsoft has, to be honest, because the perception that Microsoft is trying to leverage Gamepass and Windows to unfairly steal sales from it's competitors is a concern it's competitors have voiced. But the same level of accusations have not been voiced by Sony's competitors. And maybe that's the problem.

MS didnt get any scrutiny when they bought other companies either.
MS is getting investigated for the size of the merger and possibly due to the size of MS itself. Why Sony was not stopped from buying "70% of the Anime market" is an interesting discussion for another thread, but doesn't contribute anything here because its a different market, and the reasons are for that particular market. Maybe the regulators don't view the anime market as a separate one but as a small part of the grand TV/movie/series market where Disney, Netflix, HBO etc are even bigger so Sony is just a small participator in that market in comparison. They isolate themselves in a particular genre. Maybe it was mistakenly overlooked. I dont know. Maybe we can start a thread in the General discussion and find out.

But the "argument" that regulators have a special favor towards Sony because it's Sony sounds like fanboyish whining that doesn't make sense. They have nothing to gain and MS was allowed to make the second biggest acquisition in gaming history after ABK. I mean......Zenimax is not small thing. That alone is far bigger and crazier than any other acquisition in gaming history besides ABK. No other platform holder ever acquired such a huge portfolio of popular games and studios before. And they were allowed to proceed immediately.

Why do YOU think MS's ABK acquisition is investigated by all the regulators?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

So if I parse the graph correctly they acquired 7 studios after they said they weren't interested in acquisitions. At first it seemed like you were claiming they wouldn't do acquisitions, but now I see you were pointing out how they are doing acquisitions despite that public statement.

My point preceding my Sony quotes about acquisitions:

"Notice Sony's strategy has been changed in recent years."

My line before the graph reiterating my point:

"The changing policy of Sony that I was talking about."

I never, ever claimed Sony wouldn't do acquisitions, did I? None of my words can even be construed to mean that. I stated, clearly, in English, twice, that Sony's attitude towards acquisitions has changed into wanting to buy up talent. This is entirely my point, that there's an arms race.

And no matter how much time and effort is put in presenting a point, nonsense responses like these will happen from people who can't parse the information correctly because their brains are fossilised around a current way of thinking.

 

[see colon]

Why do YOU think MS's ABK acquisition is investigated by all the regulators?

Every merger gets some sort of investigation, but the fact that it's moved to a higher level of scrutiny is because Microsoft's competitors have "raised concerns". I'm not implying that the commission has some sort of bias against Microsoft. I'm saying that Sony (and other unnamed competitors) are voicing concerns to the commission in an effort to protect themselves while Sony's competitors aren't petitioning the commission when Sony makes acquisitions.

I don't disagree that Activision is a large company, and it's acquisition is of a larger than usual scale. But it isn't like we haven't seen acquisitions on this scale, or even larger, in other entertainment industries. We just saw WB/Discovery merge, and that's on a much larger scale. This is more on the level of Disney buying Lucas.

Why Sony was not stopped from buying "70% of the Anime market" is an interesting discussion for another thread, but doesn't contribute anything here because its a different market, and the reasons are for that particular market.

I disagree. Because we aren't really talking about video games, we are talking about regulatory scrutiny.

Crunchyroll lost an anime to Disney plus and they will probably lost more because D+ have a partnership with Kodansha.

Exactly. If Microsoft's purchase of Activision goes through, the market will adjust just as the anime market adjusted. This whole hubub about Microsoft having control of these established franchises is almost even less impactful because Microsoft has shown through it's actions and public statements that it won't deny access to the largest franchises it purchases to it's competitors.

 

[chris1515]

Every merger gets some sort of investigation, but the fact that it's moved to a higher level of scrutiny is because Microsoft's competitors have "raised concerns". I'm not implying that the commission has some sort of bias against Microsoft. I'm saying that Sony (and other unnamed competitors) are voicing concerns to the commission in an effort to protect themselves while Sony's competitors aren't petitioning the commission when Sony makes acquisitions.

I don't disagree that Activision is a large company, and it's acquisition is of a larger than usual scale. But it isn't like we haven't seen acquisitions on this scale, or even larger, in other entertainment industries. We just saw WB/Discovery merge, and that's on a much larger scale. This is more on the level of Disney buying Lucas.

I disagree. Because we aren't really talking about video games, we are talking about regulatory scrutiny.

Exactly. If Microsoft's purchase of Activision goes through, the market will adjust just as the anime market adjusted. This whole hubub about Microsoft having control of these established franchises is almost even less impactful because Microsoft has shown through it's actions and public statements that it won't deny access to the largest franchises it purchases to it's competitors.

The streaming market isn't the videogames market it is not useful to compare it. There is no Netflix or Disney plus. The console market is clear this is Sony against MS. Nintendo is on another segment of the market. For example if Sony had the power to buy Take Two they could let MS buy Activision Blizzard and Sony could say ok take your franchise exclusive and you will never see a GTA on your platform again or vice versa.

We speak about a competitor who is able to buy anything and another one poor compared to MS. Out of a share exchange I don't think Sony can buy something more than 5/6 billion dollar.

 

[eastmen]

Oh gee it looks like you got a bit upset by my post, my apologies. I have to say I did have a good laugh at your warped Console Warrior logic. So let me get this straight, because Bethesda launched a bunch of PC games, that automatically makes them associated to microsoft, and COD 2 was "soo big" on Xbox which of course means that Activision is "associated" to microsoft. So I guess EA will be next since they launched a bunch of old Westwood Studios games in the past on PC and Mass Effect did debut on the xbox360 first since microsoft bought exclusivity, then probably Ubisoft since I'm sure you'll find a PC game to "associate it to Microsoft" oooh lets not forget they'll bid for Epic next since Gears of War was developed by Epic for Xbox360 and therefore >>> you guessed it >>> Association.

Maybe then you won't need to whine that "micorsoft is still in 3rd place behind Sony and trensent" all the time.

Of course that works both ways, since microsoft didn't think that GTAIII was going to be a successful game they passed on it and it launched on PS2 instead (whoops) I guess that means that Sony can buy Take Two/Rockstar because GTA is associated with the PlayStation brand .. and of course Square Enix. Man this association game works good, doesn't it?

Stu do you not remember posting this ?

Naughty Dog has mostly been a Sony affiliated studio, since 1996, before that they released a few games on the Genesis, 3DO, and old home computers ( yes I can hardly wait for the Way of the Warrior reboot ..lol)

As I've previously posted, Insomniac has been Sony affiliated for most of their almost 30 years in existence, the released ONE Xbox game and a few PC/Iphone/VR games, also If Microsoft were interested in Insomniac they had the opportunity to acquire them in 2016, they didn't so they snooze they lose.

Sucker Punch was formed by a few ex-microsoft developers who had "had become disenchanted with their careers in Microsoft" and became affiliated with PlayStation since their formation in 1997. I guess they were so "disenchanted" with Microsoft that they didn't want to be bought by microsoft or work with them either ..lol

So before they were bought by Sony, ALL of these studios were Sony linked, 2nd party studios (mostly in the case of Insomniac) working on PlayStation exclusive and Sony owned IP.
Contrast that to Bethesda and Activision who are both large Multiplatform publishers who Microsoft either have bought or and in the process of being bought, which will take all or most of their output exclusive to Xbox/Gamepass.

You are the one who put forth the premise that since these studios were most linked with sony at some period of time that it was okay that sony bought them. I simply brought up reasons why Bethesda and Activision were linked with MS.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander. If you dislike the logical conclusion of your premise perhaps rethink your premise.

I didn't remember it is 3.6B but do the calculation with 3.6B and it the same. Sony can't buy Epic with 3.6B. They are a minor shareholder of Epic nothing more.


Because it is not a matter of being 3rd largest company just after buying i and this is not like Tencent is a platform holder. It is because it is a huge barrier of entry for other competitor and Sony can't buy Activision. The moment Call of duty and all other game are exclusive, Sony will be behind Microsoft. If Sony was able to do it maybe the regulators won't do anything. Because in multiple antitrust regulation Microsoft is accused by regulator to use it power/money coming from there other product to beat competition.

I have no idea why regulator don't made anything about anime maybe they consider Netflix and other streaming service to be competitor. Crunchyroll lost an anime to Disney plus and they will probably lost more because D+ have a partnership with Kodansha.

Tokyo Revengers Season 2: Anime show to stream on Disney Plus as Walt Disney expands partnership with Kodansha

The Walt Disney Company has decided to expand its partnership with the Japanese Publishing company Kodansha. So, Anime fans can look forward to the coming up of several original shows on the Disney Plus streaming service. The Season 2 of Tokyo Revengers is set to be aired exclusively on the...

economictimes.indiatimes.com

They are a minor share holder that keeps growing. They have increased their stake 3 times in as many years

I am not sure how you think Call of Duty going exclusive to MS (which will take at least 10 years now) will change the market. You think that little of sony's excusive games ?

If all it takes to be accused of antitrust is to use money from other sectors to make it into a new sector wouldn't the playstation be the poster child for it ? Sony was not part of the market. They tried to get in using sega and nintendo. When that failed they used their cd patents and other technical know how and money from other industries to get into the video game market.

If we look at microsoft they don't have a single monopoly anywhere. However they make a great piggy bank for the UK which seems to be completely collapsing and the EU which is also under a ton of issues.

My point preceding my Sony quotes about acquisitions:

"Notice Sony's strategy has been changed in recent years."

My line before the graph reiterating my point:

"The changing policy of Sony that I was talking about."

I never, ever claimed Sony wouldn't do acquisitions, did I? None of my words can even be construed to mean that. I stated, clearly, in English, twice, that Sony's attitude towards acquisitions has changed into wanting to buy up talent. This is entirely my point, that there's an arms race.

And no matter how much time and effort is put in presenting a point, nonsense responses like these will happen from people who can't parse the information correctly because their brains are fossilised around a current way of thinking.

How can it change when they were purchasing companies before , during and after those comments were made ? They were just straight up lies

 

[eastmen]

The streaming market isn't the videogames market it is not useful to compare it. There is no Netflix or Disney plus. The console market is clear this is Sony against MS. Nintendo is on another segment of the market. For example if Sony had the power to buy Take Two they could let MS buy Activision Blizzard and Sony could say ok take your franchise exclusive and you will never see a GTA on your platform again or vice versa.

We speak about a competitor who is able to buy anything and another one poor compared to MS. Out of a share exchange I don't think Sony can buy something more than 5/6 billion dollar.

Why do you exclude Nintendo ? There are 3 companies in the console world. MS has sold half of what Nintendo and Sony have sold last gen. If sony can't compete against MS after buying a company then what has sony been doing these last 30 years ?

I've said this a thousand times on this forum but I will say it again. I would rather Sony buy GTA and it is only on Playstation and I know I need to buy a playstation to buy it. I rather that vs Sony pay for some type of exclusivty deal and then I have to wait a year to have it on my platform of choice or two years or who knows cause they hardly ever tell you (right ff7 remake) or for them to leave out content from my preferred platform of choice to have it as exclusive on the sony platform (right hogwarts).

On one hand if Take 2 is purchased I know not to expect them on other platforms. However the exclusivity deals and exclusive content can come at any time during a generation and on as many games as a platform holder is willing to pay


At the end of the day you are going to see Microsoft start objecting to every single purchase Sony makes claiming they are the market leader and buying up these companies will allow them to foreclose on competitors in the console market and cloud market.

 

[chris1515]

Why do you exclude Nintendo ? There are 3 companies in the console world. MS has sold half of what Nintendo and Sony have sold last gen. If sony can't compete against MS after buying a company then what has sony been doing these last 30 years ?

I've said this a thousand times on this forum but I will say it again. I would rather Sony buy GTA and it is only on Playstation and I know I need to buy a playstation to buy it. I rather that vs Sony pay for some type of exclusivty deal and then I have to wait a year to have it on my platform of choice or two years or who knows cause they hardly ever tell you (right ff7 remake) or for them to leave out content from my preferred platform of choice to have it as exclusive on the sony platform (right hogwarts).

On one hand if Take 2 is purchased I know not to expect them on other platforms. However the exclusivity deals and exclusive content can come at any time during a generation and on as many games as a platform holder is willing to pay


At the end of the day you are going to see Microsoft start objecting to every single purchase Sony makes claiming they are the market leader and buying up these companies will allow them to foreclose on competitors in the console market and cloud market.

Nintendo is not important because it is on another segment of the market and the CMA agree with me. When you see the Blockbuster of Switch they are targeting the family market much more than Sony and MS.

But Sony can't buy Take Two they aren't have business making enough money to do it. Only Microsoft or any other member du GAFAM can buy it maybe Tencent but if there is a bid war I don't think they can compete against a GAFAM company. For example when Bethesda was on the market it was too expensive for Sony, the biggest interest comes from MS and I heard Amazon and MS outbid Amazon.

I think if a platform holder try to buy Take Two the regulator will come to scrutinize the deal. It is the case for the 4 or 5 bigger publisher.