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

[Dr. Nick]

Oh look https://www.pushsquare.com/news/2022/12/ps-plus-logo-hints-at-more-upcoming-day-1-games



Amazing how much change MS can usher in and Sony will keep getting pulled forward kicking and screaming into the future

One problem I have seen with Microsoft regarding gaming is that they really don't have anything that the competition can't just copy and possibly do better. When I first heard about Gamepass, I thought Sony could copy it and do much better because they had so many more 1st, 2nd, and 3rd party exclusives that by following the same model, they could crush Gamepass. The thing is, Sony just didn't want to and really still doesn't.

Trustbusters should let Microsoft buy Activision Blizzard

Blocking the deal is as likely to harm consumers as it is to protect them

www.economist.com

Preventing Microsoft from buying Activision Blizzard is as likely to harm consumers by stopping a new product from taking shape as it is to protect them from a big company with excessive market power.

 

[chris1515]

Oh look https://www.pushsquare.com/news/2022/12/ps-plus-logo-hints-at-more-upcoming-day-1-games



Amazing how much change MS can usher in and Sony will keep getting pulled forward kicking and screaming into the future

This is just marketing before Gamepass some indie games were releasing day one on Ps plus like Rocket League and it changes the destiny of this game who vecame hugely popular because of this.

This doesn't mean single player AAA games day one.

 

[eastmen]

One problem I have seen with Microsoft regarding gaming is that they really don't have anything that the competition can't just copy and possibly do better. When I first heard about Gamepass, I thought Sony could copy it and do much better because they had so many more 1st, 2nd, and 3rd party exclusives that by following the same model, they could crush Gamepass. The thing is, Sony just didn't want to and really still doesn't.

That is the thing about all companies. Its just software not anything really special. It's why sony is freaking out because MS can just keep buying talent just as sony does but MS can do it faster and bigger and it scares them. Sony doesn't have anything actually special. Over the 5 generations of consoles they have seen big franchises come and go and know that at any time one of their franchises could dry up.

 

[eastmen]

This is just marketing before Gamepass some indie games were releasing day one on Ps plus like Rocket League and it changes the destiny of this game who vecame hugely popular because of this.

This doesn't mean single player AAA games day one.

Time will tell wont it

 

[wco81]

GamePass is innovation?

I thought it was just a copycat of the Netflix and Amazon Prime business models.

Good for the companies if they can get enough people to sign up and pay them recurring subscription revenues.

But it's not good for consumers.

 

[eastmen]

GamePass is innovation?

I thought it was just a copycat of the Netflix and Amazon Prime business models.

we can play that game all the way down the road. Netflix is just a copy of cable which is a copy of broadcast tv which is a copy of radio which is a copy of records which is a copy or sheet music....

 

[Dr. Nick]

GamePass is innovation?

I thought it was just a copycat of the Netflix and Amazon Prime business models.

Good for the companies if they can get enough people to sign up and pay them recurring subscription revenues.

But it's not good for consumers.

For gaming in general it is. How is Netflix and Amazon Prime bad for consumers? As far as I can tell the first bad thing about the business model showed up this year when HBO Max pulled IP that they owned from their service and wrote it off for tax purposes.

 

[BRiT]

Especially when it will always be an optional service and never the primary consumption model.

 

[wco81]

For gaming in general it is. How is Netflix and Amazon Prime bad for consumers? As far as I can tell the first bad thing about the business model showed up this year when HBO Max pulled IP that they owned from their service and wrote it off for tax purposes.

Some people don't like to add more recurring monthly bills.

All you can eat plans are great if you eat a lot.

Many people aren't going to game for hours every day or even every couple of days.

We know people get gym memberships and don't use them enough, which is great for the business, not great for consumers.

In gaming, buying physical media, then reselling when done to buy other games, is better value, except for some people who want to play the same games over and over or play everything that comes out.

I get value out of Amazon Prime because I order enough stuff around the year. I've seen some Prime Video but not enough. I got a free year of Apple TV + but I'm not watching it every day.

I never subscribed to a music service.

Only enough time in a day for entertainment, so how many subscriptions can people use enough?

I've subscribed to GameFly but was only in very short periods, found that I wasn't using it enough. So again, gaming subscription is not for everyone.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

GamePass is innovation?

I thought it was just a copycat of the Netflix and Amazon Prime business models.

Good for the companies if they can get enough people to sign up and pay them recurring subscription revenues.

But it's not good for consumers.

Wait being able to have access to thousands of movies to watch for 9 USD a month is worse for consumers than having to buy movie they want to watch for 9, 20, or 60 (what it used to be in the late 80's early 90's) USD per movie? Ummm, wow. Hell, if someone watches more than 2 or 3 movies a month that's cheaper than renting a movie at 3-5 USD each (about what it was before the Video rental market crashed).

Obviously if someone doesn't watch movies or TV shows then Netflix is bad. But if someone doesn't watch movies or TV shows then why would they subscribe to Netflix in the first place?

Regards,
SB

 

[Cynicalking]

Some people don't like to add more recurring monthly bills.

All you can eat plans are great if you eat a lot.

Many people aren't going to game for hours every day or even every couple of days.

We know people get gym memberships and don't use them enough, which is great for the business, not great for consumers.

In gaming, buying physical media, then reselling when done to buy other games, is better value, except for some people who want to play the same games over and over or play everything that comes out.

I get value out of Amazon Prime because I order enough stuff around the year. I've seen some Prime Video but not enough. I got a free year of Apple TV + but I'm not watching it every day.

I never subscribed to a music service.

Only enough time in a day for entertainment, so how many subscriptions can people use enough?

I've subscribed to GameFly but was only in very short periods, found that I wasn't using it enough. So again, gaming subscription is not for everyone.

That's great and all, but you do know that not everything revolves around you?

 

[wco81]

Wait being able to have access to thousands of movies to watch for 9 USD a month is worse for consumers than having to buy movie they want to watch for 9, 20, or 60 (what it used to be in the late 80's early 90's) USD per movie? Ummm, wow. Hell, if someone watches more than 2 or 3 movies a month that's cheaper than renting a movie at 3-5 USD each (about what it was before the Video rental market crashed).

Obviously if someone doesn't watch movies or TV shows then Netflix is bad. But if someone doesn't watch movies or TV shows then why would they subscribe to Netflix in the first place?

Regards,
SB

Netflix was one of the first companies to successfully develop a business around a subscription for media. They had to convince the studios to license them movies and later shows to develop this business, first with discs and then with digital video.

They did this for years before they started making their own shows and movies.

They had this successful model for years before GamerPass was a glint in Microsoft's eye. MS saw the valuation of Netflix stock, realized the paradigm was subscriptions and locking up as many subscribers as possible.

I'm not denying all you can eat video isn't a better value for video, though not everyone is into binging and you can argue that increasing video consumption is not necessarily a good thing for consumers overall.

I'm questioning whether the binging paradigm necessarily translates to games. People have a higher capacity to consume video or music than games, at least for some people who don't need to game as much and are used to trading in games that they've completed, in order to recover the value and apply towards other games.

 

[Dr. Nick]

Some people don't like to add more recurring monthly bills.

All you can eat plans are great if you eat a lot.

Many people aren't going to game for hours every day or even every couple of days.

We know people get gym memberships and don't use them enough, which is great for the business, not great for consumers.

In gaming, buying physical media, then reselling when done to buy other games, is better value, except for some people who want to play the same games over and over or play everything that comes out.

I get value out of Amazon Prime because I order enough stuff around the year. I've seen some Prime Video but not enough. I got a free year of Apple TV + but I'm not watching it every day.

I never subscribed to a music service.

Only enough time in a day for entertainment, so how many subscriptions can people use enough?

I've subscribed to GameFly but was only in very short periods, found that I wasn't using it enough. So again, gaming subscription is not for everyone.

I do understand your feelings about subscription services. I'm an Xbox owner that still sees very little reason to subscribe to Gamepass, I don't game enough to commit to it yet, and most of the games I want to play are not day one on the service. I do know that Gamepass has created a better ecosystem for the Xbox, and many of the games that Xbox gamers are getting now are more thanks to Gamepass than anything else. I still buy the games I want to play that are on service and those that are likely to be released on the service sometime in the future. You don't need a subscription to enjoy these games, so I still don't see how consumers are hurt.

p.s I will say a person with young children that play games is doing themselves a disservice by not subscribing to it, just like one should subscribe to Disneyplus if they have young ones, even if it means getting rid of another service to do so.

 

[see colon]

No they aren't competing with the sheer number of mature game on PS5 and Xbox. Many gamers know they don't want to buy a Switch or a Xbox/PS console. Some want to have all type of game and buy a PS/Xbox plus a Switch. Some gamer buy switch for children and play on PS/Xbox or PC.

A lot of people don't know this but there are uncensored porn games on Switch. I don't think they exist on Xbox or Playstation platforms.

Off topic but that was very interesting interview. Got me really excited for starfield.

Lex's interview with John Carmack is also very interesting. Worth a listening if you have the better part of a work day to make it through it.

So you cant be raising a question mark of why "not the other mergers" and have as an explanation that "it's Sony's fault".

I'm not questioning that it's Sony's fault. The commission says it moved to greater scrutinize the deal because of "competition concerns" with Sony being vocal about it's concerns, and being one of the principle competitors named in the case. Do you believe that the commission would be investigating the acquisition further if no competitors had concerns? Do you believe that the commission would lie about the competitors having concerns? Do you believe Sony would come out and make statements about specific concerns that they don't actually have? None of that makes sense.

This isn't some reaction because of anti-Sony sentiment. There is plenty of evidence that Sony is opposing the deal. The commission is acting on the concerns of the competitors, as it should be doing. Sony is the only competitor making public statements about it.

 

[stu11]

I don't trust sony. They installed root kits into my computer when I bought music cds. They have always had bad business habbits. In one generation they went from a $300 to a $500/$600 console to try and push a movie standard, during a generation they raised games $10 and systems $50 .

We can play this all day long if you really want. It's all just a game for you to pick your favorite. Forget a bit here , fudge something a little here and then boom justify your position on your favorite console.

Come on, surely you can do better than that. What about how Sony killed Sega and How the PS2 was a piece of junk. Its not like Microsoft is such a saint. They jumped the price of their console at launch by a hundred bucks for the last 2 generations, then came out with a console that you can't play the old discs on. But never mind from what I've read there is deal being done so Microsoft can complete their little purchase, Sony gets a 10 year deal with COD and Microsoft get to subsidize the losses they make on their console by selling COD to PS owners for $70 for the next 10 years. Everyone is going to be happy ...lol

 

[mr magoo]

Come on, surely you can do better than that. What about how Sony killed Sega and How the PS2 was a piece of junk. Its not like Microsoft is such a saint. They jumped the price of their console at launch by a hundred bucks for the last 2 generations, then came out with a console that you can't play the old discs on. But never mind from what I've read there is deal being done so Microsoft can complete their little purchase, Sony gets a 10 year deal with COD and Microsoft get to subsidize the losses they make on their console by selling COD to PS owners for $70 for the next 10 years. Everyone is going to be happy ...lol

So basically nothing will change?

 

[Nesh]

I'm not questioning that it's Sony's fault. The commission says it moved to greater scrutinize the deal because of "competition concerns" with Sony being vocal about it's concerns, and being one of the principle competitors named in the case. Do you believe that the commission would be investigating the acquisition further if no competitors had concerns? Do you believe that the commission would lie about the competitors having concerns? Do you believe Sony would come out and make statements about specific concerns that they don't actually have? None of that makes sense.

This isn't some reaction because of anti-Sony sentiment. There is plenty of evidence that Sony is opposing the deal. The commission is acting on the concerns of the competitors, as it should be doing. Sony is the only competitor making public statements about it.

Correlation doesnt mean causation. Sony mentioned its own concerns but the regulators expanded beyond Sony's operations which covers other companies and markets which means it isn't just about Sony nor Sony's specific concerns that put it into more scrutiny.
edit: if you check the pdf I posted, it is part of the process for the regulators to ask for competitors' and customers' concerns themselves as part of the process of large mergers

Which mergers get reviewed by the EU?
The Commission in principle only examines larger mergers with an EU dimension, meaning that the merging firms reach certain turnover thresholds. About 300 mergers are typically notified to the Commission each year

Notification

• The Commission must be notified of any merger with an EU dimension prior to its implementation. Companies may contact the Commission beforehand to see how to best prepare their notification. There are pre-prepared templates used to notify their mergers, based on the complexity of the case.  If the merging firms are not operating in the same or related markets, or if they have only very small market shares not reaching specified market share thresholds2 the merger will typically not give rise to significant competition problems: the merger review is therefore done by a simplified procedure, involving a routine check. 
• Above those market share thresholds, the Commission carries out a full investigation.

Phase I investigation

After notification, the Commission has 25 working days to analyse the deal during the phase I investigation. More than 90% of all cases are resolved in Phase I, generally without remedies. A phase I review may involve the following:

• Requests for information from the merging companies or third parties; 
• Questionnaires to competitors or customers seeking their views on the merger, as well as other contacts with market participants, aimed at clarifying the conditions for competition in a given market or the role of the merged companies in that market.

Apparently for the mergers you brought as examples earlier, either they didnt meet the criteria to go through that much scrutiny, or competition didnt express concerns or their concerns were not critical. This is why your argument about Sony's other buy outs (which can also count for MS's other buy outs) cant be comparable or relevant.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

And the worst part of all of this is? COD. As much as you say it's not about COD, it's about COD, because if this merger occurs with MS giving concessions only on COD, then it was about COD.

I know it's your thing to ignore all of the concerns being presented, but I'll do using it using numbers. In the EU's summary of concerns and explanation of why they are taking their assessment to stage 2, the 826 word summary mentions "Call of Duty" (3 words) once. The rest covers areas of the gaming industry, including stores (Windows/PC has many stores) and operating systems.

 

[iroboto]

I know it's your thing to ignore all of the concerns being presented, but I'll do using it using numbers. In the EU's summary of concerns and explanation of why they are taking their assessment to stage 2, the 826 word summary mentions "Call of Duty" (3 words) once. The rest covers areas of the gaming industry, including stores (Windows/PC has many stores) and operating systems.

I thought we were talking CMA?
When did I start attacking the EU? Other than my PlayStation boy tweeting?

 

[see colon]

if you check the pdf I posted, it is part of the process for the regulators to ask for competitors' and customers' concerns themselves as part of the process of large mergers

Apparently for the mergers you brought as examples earlier, either they didnt meet the criteria to go through that much scrutiny, or competition didnt express concerns or their concerns were not critical. This is why your argument about Sony's other buy outs (which can also count for MS's other buy outs) cant be comparable or relevant.

I don't know if you are disagreeing or agreeing with me, but this is exactly what I'm saying. Anyone who is going to claim that Sony's concerns aren't a factor in the commission choosing to further scrutinize the deal ignore the role that the commission is supposed to play. I'll quote myself so reinforce my view here.

This isn't some reaction because of anti-Sony sentiment. There is plenty of evidence that Sony is opposing the deal. The commission is acting on the concerns of the competitors, as it should be doing. Sony is the only competitor making public statements about it.