Microsoft acquired Activision Blizzard King for $69 Billion on 2023-10-13
- Thread starter Rangers
- Start date
Eh. You only want exclusivity when you are aiming to corner off the market. Xbox can’t generate that much money cornering off the market. They don’t have the library of Sony where that makes a lot of sense as a strategy. Right now, just having their goods everywhere onto as many platforms as possible is going to have a better impact for MS. The end state goal for them is cloud gaming, walled garden is the old model which they are moving away from.
I agree with you, and I think that was the stance Microsoft should have taken from the beginning, but I think Microsoft will honor the 10-year PlayStation deal if Sony accepts it or not. It would be one thing if the 10-year deal was simply leaked info that could be denied, but they gave their word in public and now they need to stick to it. The thing is, Microsoft has yet to say something like all ABK titles will be on Playstation or something like Crash, Spyro, and Tony Hawk will remain on Playstation. All we have heard about is the status of Call of Duty. So that should be all that Sony gets if Sony excepts the deal or not.
Microsoft going back on this might hurt them if they try to make any more purchases. They may not be bound on paper, but it would satisfy the regulators.
This would be a big win for CWA. And an interesting future as well. They need a union in video game development. Can’t keep asking people to sleep in the office to force a game out.
I'll have to disagree with you in regards to the contents of their library of games. After activision they will have what 35+ studios ? They have some really big IP and with activison they can bring some large IP over from the pc like wow.
Really if the main concern of the FTC is labor rights do they really think blocking this deal is the best way of going about it. These regulatory bodies should research how ABK was being run before the announcement of the deal. There was no freakin way ABK would have entertained this before the deal.
I think its really simple. If MS offers Sony a 10 year contract and now everyone knows thanks to the leaks and reports and sony says no then Ms doesn't look like a bad guy. Sony has to accept it for Ms to put games on the playstation. sony controls what gets on the platform. So it will be very easy for MS to go to regulators in the future hey we offered sony an unheard of 10 year contract to keep COD on the platform. They declined so why is there a hold up this time. We offered them to keep this acquisition title on their platform. It's up to them to say yes or no.
If it’s about labour rights and these deals happen because they allow for a union. Then, Unions will form and mergers will continue because it’s harder to drop the labour force like a rock after the merger. Sort of the issue with M&A. Lots of jobs are often slashed in the process, or failed ventures are dropped completely.
Or the Government comes in and says wtf needs sick days this deal is good enough and the president signs it.
I have to give props to Microsoft for holding out for over two years since substantial part of the industry already moved on to the $70 pricing tier. As you mentioned, it would be odd to see ABK games for $70 while the rest were $60.
I don't see any mention of Game Pass price increases, so the value proposition of GamePass increases even further.
I don't see any mention of Game Pass price increases, so the value proposition of GamePass increases even further.
It would have been awesome for Microsoft to announce that Call of Duty was going back to be $60 across all platforms IMO.
And yet in a previous post in another thread you highlight how people still like to collect physical media like Vinyl, now you are questioning me on my preference for physical over digital? . On this this and the subject below you flip/flop so much, try adopting a position and sticking to it.
Then I have to admit I'm confused by your attitude, you say that you mostly play games on PC yet you've been losing your shit over the possibility of the merger not going through and losing your shit over Sony owning the likes of Bungie and Insomniac, if you like their games so much buy them on PC, especially since Sony is going to be porting most their stuff to the PC, its a great time to be a PC gamer.
Either way it doesn't affect you personally, it also doesn't affect me either as I have neither a current Xbox or PlayStation and also play on PC.
At this point you're just cheer leading and fanboying for microsoft, I suspect you just have a deep seated hatred of Sony, either that or you have a big share holding in microsoft...lol
Silent_Buddha
Legend
Here's the amusing thing. The current head of the FTC is hugely pro-labor, but she's even more anti-large corporation, as she completely blew off the Microsoft-CWA labor agreement and basically said it wasn't important that labor would be getting a good deal (CWA claims) if the merger went through and that she still wants to try to stop the merger from happening.
But now that some members of her party are signaling that they would like to see the acquisition go through, it's going to be interesting to see whether she tries to turn this around and claim that due to the FTCs actions MS were "forced" to sign an agreement with the CWA as a concession for the FTC to allow the merger to take place despite her earlier saying that she wouldn't accept any concessions for this deal.
It's notable that a member of her party that is part of the FTC board is now "in favor" of the merger, their switch in stance might be due to there not being many if any major corporations actually putting forth a compelling case where this could be harmful to consumers thus significantly reducing their already slim chances of winning a case in court.
Yay politics?
Regards,
SB
Last edited:
WSJ piece from Mr Smith, a Vice Chair and President at Microsoft, about the acquisition:
www.wsj.com
Opinion | Microsoft’s Activision-Blizzard Acquisition Is Good for Gamers
Far from harming competition, it’ll allow us to compete against more powerful companies through innovation.
www.wsj.com
Well, she would be within her rights to say so. Unlike the CMA and EU, the FTC has not come out and said anything, just some "leaks" from Politico and the nypost. Microsoft accepting neutrality may very well be a direct result of the actions and mission of the FTC during her tenure. The FTC's hands aren't tied here. I don't know if you can say the same for the CMA and EU.But now that some members of her party are signaling that they would like to see the acquisition go through, it's going to be interesting to see whether she tries to turn this around and claim that due to the FTCs actions MS were "forced" to sign an agreement with the CWA as a concession for the FTC to allow the merger to take place despite her earlier saying that she wouldn't accept any concessions for this deal.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
Except for a few things. The FTC is now more of a political agency than a non-political agency as it was in the past.
In the past there would always be bi-partisan debate (as it should be in representing all people in the US versus only the people of the current party holding power) about how consumers are best served versus pushing a particular political agenda. Not only that, but because it's basically a one woman show now, decisions can be unpredictable and capricious.
If businesses can't rely on the FTC for consistency, it makes it difficult for businesses to operate in the US. Why does X business get to do A thing but Y business is sued by the FTC if they do A thing? Or, wait, the FTC said they would allow businesses to operate in S manner but now they are suing a company for operating in S manner?
Unfortunately, the FTC under Rina Khan is ruled with a political iron fist that operates based on her whims and desires and not a panel representing the broad interests of the people of the US.
And as she's stated previously, she's first and foremost against large corporations and would like to see mergers and acquisitions by large businesses stop and that she'll do whatever she can to stop them. As such the FTC under her rule doesn't really accept concessions when it comes to large corporations in order to avoid a lawsuit brought by the FTC.
Hence, her public dismissal of the CWA-Microsoft agreement as being not relevant to whether the FTC would or wouldn't sue to prevent the acquisition.
The significance of the Democrat member of the FTC board dissenting with her desire to prevent the merger from happening is that it shows that a member of her party may be unwilling to just blindly follow her lead regardless of how it impacts the FTC or consumers in the US.
It's like I've always said to people I know. The US government works best when there is a clear division of power between the branches of government and no one party holds all power. IE - Congress is most dangerous if both branches are held by one party whether it be Republicans or Democrats. It's even worse if one party holds both branches AND the presidency. It works best for the American public if there is a balance of power and both parties have to work with each other.
The Clinton presidency was good because Republicans held power in congress. The Reagan presidency was good because the Democrats held power in congress. One side balances the other and they worked with each other to get things done.
The FTC was good when there was a balance and debate was encouraged. The FTC under Rina? Perhaps it'll get better. BTW - it didn't just suddenly become this way, but it's been building towards this over the past 2-3 presidents. It's just especially bad now.
Regards,
SB
Similar threads
