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

[Silent_Buddha]

You guys are just driving me insane. MS has been into timed and full exclusives with Third Parties since the beginning of the generation as well.
Its not like Sony went full because they can and poor MS was having problems sealing deals because they have some kind of "money problem" and Sony made it more difficult because they are leaders.
Stalker 2 (Exclusive)
Warhammer 40k (Exclusive)
The Gunk (Exclusive)
Scorn (Exclusive)
Ark 2 (Exclusive)
Adios (Timed exclusive, not released on PS5)
The Artful Escape (time exclusive)
The Ascent (Timed exclusive)
The Big Con (Timed exclusive, not released on PS5)
CrossfireX (Exclusive)
Dead Static Drive (Exclusive)
The Medium (Timed Exclusive)
Echo Generation (Exclusive)
The Falconeer (Timed Exclusive)
Exo Mecha (Exclusive)
Exo One (Timed Exclusive)
Shredders (Timed Exclusive)
Tunic (Timed Exclusive)
Sable (Timed Exclusive)


These are just some that came at the top of my head, ignoring the exclusives that were announced from MS's purchased studios.

MS can very easily make deals. They have a lot more liquidity and ability than Sony.
Sony's current ratio sits at .58!! Sony's assets are valued at around 40billion
Microsoft's current ratio sits at 1.84!!! Microsoft's assets are valued at around 160billion!!
For reference Google's current ratio is 2.52. Its assets are valued at 166Billion!!


If there is one company which has more chances of going bankrupt in case its businesses go wrong its Sony. Sony is very unsafe and Playstation is one of the few markets where they have a healthy presence. Its probably the business that keeps them afloat.
While people complain that poor MS cant beat Sony's exclusive deals, not only MS has more power to do so, that power is what enabled them to strike even beyond Sony and actually purchase Zenimax and ABK! Sony cannot strike such deals. They are incapable. Unless they act totally irrationally.
Just as @Shifty Geezer said, Sony started responding after MS begun (not with third party agreements), but with full large purchases and acquisitions. It looks like a panic move than a market take over from Sony when they started buying more studios. Thats why Sony can't accept those ABK's acquisition to move on. If MS was buying smaller studios neither Sony (or regulators) would have bothered
And MS isnt going to stop there.

MS doesnt make as many third party deals because they are actually buying them instead. In 2018-2019 alone they bought 7 studios. Through Zenimax they bought 9 just in 2021. And now ABK. The two largest purchases in the videogame history. And thats ignoring the timed or console exclusive deals MS made or can make with third parties. Poor MS? Nope.

The context, at least if you are thinking of anything I've said...

ALL exclusives are bad. IMO, there is no such thing as a good exclusive for consumers.

Exclusives are only good for the corporation that has the exclusive.

As such if all these regulatory agencies really are in it to protect consumers they would make both Sony and Microsoft provide all titles that they publish on all competitor's platforms.

Anyone that is saying well this exclusive is good for this company but if this company makes this title exclusive that's bad. No, it's ALL bad.

Regards,
SB

 

[eastmen]

The context, at least if you are thinking of anything I've said...

ALL exclusives are bad. IMO, there is no such thing as a good exclusive for consumers.

Exclusives are only good for the corporation that has the exclusive.

As such if all these regulatory agencies really are in it to protect consumers they would make both Sony and Microsoft provide all titles that they publish on all competitor's platforms.

Anyone that is saying well this exclusive is good for this company but if this company makes this title exclusive that's bad. No, it's ALL bad.

Regards,
SB

What you would see is the end of competition. The largest market share will be the defacto since they have the most people locked in with digital purchases

 

[wco81]

Do we really believe that the US FTC is acting at the behest of Sony over Microsoft, doing the bidding of a Japanese company to block the interests of an American company?

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Do we really believe that the US FTC is acting at the behest of Sony over Microsoft, doing the bidding of a Japanese company to block the interests of an American company?

Nope. Not even remotely.

However, Sony provides the FTC a reason to try to stop the acquisition of a large company by another large company and that is something that is extremely important to Rina Khan the current head of the FTC. Its impact on consumers or competition is immaterial to her.

If Sony were acquiring ABK, then the FTC (Rina Khan) would be going after them as well.

Regards,
SB

 

[Silent_Buddha]

He should have pointed out Skyrim IMO. Also I don't think he spent much time on the cloud portion.

Finally getting a chance to read this. While not quite as bad as the New York Post, the NYT is starting to get almost as bad with its editorializing and extremely selective quoting of sources in order to lead the reader to believe the narrative that the writer wants the reader to believe.

Anyway, I never knew that the NSW even had nude hentai games on it much less that they have a LOT of nude Hentai games on it.

Why didn't something like that exist when I was a teenager? For purely research purposes, of course.

Regards,
SB

 

[Nesh]

The context, at least if you are thinking of anything I've said...

ALL exclusives are bad. IMO, there is no such thing as a good exclusive for consumers.

Exclusives are only good for the corporation that has the exclusive.

As such if all these regulatory agencies really are in it to protect consumers they would make both Sony and Microsoft provide all titles that they publish on all competitor's platforms.

Anyone that is saying well this exclusive is good for this company but if this company makes this title exclusive that's bad. No, it's ALL bad.

Regards,
SB

Yes and no. You are talking in absolutes. There are two types of exclusives. Exclusives that are paid to not exist somewhere else, and exclusives that wouldnt have existed if it wasnt for the platform holder having the incentive to create something unique.
Former reduces accessibility. The latter creates new options, incentivizes innovation and quality. So when MS creates a Forza and Sony creates a Grand Turismo its a fucking awesome 100% positive. A lot of Nintendo masterpieces wouldnt have existed if it wasnt for Nintendo owning a platform and I am 100% happy they do even though I dont own a Nintendo system. They push each other to compete with their own creations. They add variety and color into the market. When MS bribes to keep Stalker 2 exclusive, or Sony bribes to keep Street Fighter V exclusive, or Nintendo bribes Bayonetta 2/3 to be exclusive or when any of the three purchases significant multiplatform studios to prevent or to control the market it is destroying the accessibility and creativity of the ecosystem.
Its like comparing a river where they build dams and block the accessibility of the water flow to where it was originally going, with a river where they curve the ground and branch the water flow further.

 

[iroboto]

Microsoft Agrees to 10-Year Call of Duty Deal With Nintendo

Microsoft Corp. and Nintendo Co. agreed to a 10-year deal to bring Call of Duty to Nintendo gaming platforms, signaling a willingness to share one of the game industry’s most important titles at a time of growing consolidation in the industry.

www.bloomberg.com

Made some choice quotes because of firewall.

The company has extended a similar offer to Sony Group Corp., to bring the famous Activision franchise to PlayStation consoles for a decade, but that has so far been rebuffed by the Japanese company,

“This deal and especially its timing clearly looks like Microsoft trying to appease regulators,” said Tokyo-based analyst Serkan Toto. “I have a hard time imagining recent mainline Call of Duty titles running on current Nintendo hardware, but the next Switch will certainly be able to handle such a game.”

“Our intent is to become more relevant on more screens,” Spencer said. “We have a pretty good idea of how to build a win-win relationship with Nintendo and frankly Sony.”

“There’s been one game industry participant that’s really been raising all the objections, and that’s Sony, and they’ve been fairly public about the things that don’t meet their expectations,” Spencer said. “From where we sit, it’s clear they’re spending more time with the regulators than they are with us to try and get this deal done.”

Outside of Sony’s objection to the Activision acquisition, Microsoft has seen “a lot of support from the industry,” he added.

I guess we wait for results now, the voting should have closed today. Good debates leading up to today. Now we wait to see what the first set of 3 deal breakers go through.
Also, see you guys tonight for VGA - they are handing out a Steam Deck every minute... and of course Diablo 4!

 

[mr magoo]

Also, see you guys tonight for VGA - they are handing out a Steam Deck every minute... and of course Diablo 4!

666 x YES!

 

[SmooTh]

Via MLex

Microsoft's Call of Duty deal with Nintendo is misleading, Sony argues

Sony has criticized Microsoft's deal to make the game Call of Duty available on Nintendo — should its $69 billion acquisition of Activision Blizzard be approved by regulators — as smoke and mirrors, MLex has learned.

Activision Blizzard could supply Call of Duty to Nintendo today, but doesn't, because Nintendo's younger audience is not interested in the first-person shooter and a previous version of the game on its console was a commercial flop, the arch critic of the deal says, MLex understands.

Instead of being a logical business decision, the licensing agreement is a tactic designed to make Microsoft — whose acquisition has drawn concerns in the EU, UK and US — look cooperative with regulators, the argument goes.

Furthermore, Nintendo's Switch could not run Call of Duty easily and may never be able to, Sony argues, MLex understands. Developing a version of the game compatible with the Switch could take years, making a 10-year licensing deal meaningless.

It is easier for Nintendo to enter into such an agreement, Sony says, MLex has learned. Nintendo doesn't need to worry about equal treatment for its subscription service or cloud gaming service as those are not areas where it currently competes aggressively, the argument goes.

 

[PSman1700]

They cant be serious?

 

[eastmen]

To begin with, It’s not relevant that Bethesda titles are exclusive because they didn’t say that they wouldn’t be. They promised COD that it would stay on Sony. People didn’t trust them so they extended a 10 year contract.

No where was it promised that unannounced titles were coming to PS5 and then pulled to Xbox for exclusivity. And secondly, that doesn’t stop MS from putting these titles onto other platforms. We see this today with many MS first party titles finding their way to Steam and likely soon to all be day 1.

Starfield may yet find its way to Sony’s consoles, but MS isn’t forced to on terms they don’t want to.

You would be very wrong to think MS hasn’t been paying attention to the way streaming TV has gone. Eventually their exclusive content needs to find its way to other platforms as their user base is not sufficient enough to pay for it all. There is money on the table which is why we see Sony moving their first party titles to PC.

MS did that 7 years ago.

They didn't even say that. They said their intent was to keep COD on the playstation. the thing is that MS doesn't control what gets on sony's platform. So to MS offering a 3 and 10 year contract is enough to meet that intent. If sony wants to say no they can't change that.

Obviously the Console warriors out there will try and claim ms lied but at the end of the day MS doesn't control Sony.

Except that there is an existing agreement between Activision and Google to keep their games "exclusive-ish" to the Android app store. As in, their games would not be released on Android stores that aren't the play store. This was revealed in the Apple/Epic suit. There is no COD on Amazon's app store, but there are some King games. But not all of them. I don't know enough about King's release schedule, but it looks to me that the newer releases from King aren't there. Notably, the Crash Bandicoot game isn't on Amazon. So perhaps the newer games are prohibited from alternative app store releases, or maybe it's the Activision IP (like Crash and COD).

Maybe when the agreement ends they will release more stuff on Amazon App Store. But I would think that it's less of a priority for Microsoft, because the advantage of having the Android games available on Windows via the Amazon App Store can be easily circumvented by just releasing those games as apps on the Windows Store.

What promise and to whom? Microsoft purchased Bethesda in March 2021 and has released Deathloop and Ghostwire Tokyo since then. 2 PS5 exclusives. Other than that, I think the Doom Eternal Ancient Gods 2 DLC came out just after the deal closed.

We have no idea how long that contract is for. When the contract ends COD could be on all android stores

Via MLex

This is hilariously bad for Sony. They are looking more and more like idiots. They do understand that a lot of switch consoles are used by a whole family including parents who may want to play adult games when the kids are asleep or off doing other things. They do realize there are a bunch of kids who may have been playing kiddy games back in 2007 when they got a switch but now 5 years older could be into more mature games. Of course then there are adults who bought the switch because they have been playing nintendo games since the nes or super nes or n64 or game cube and so on.

Sony should also know that the switch is 5 years old going on 6 and its about time it gets replaced with more powerful hardware. If the deal goes through MS wont gain control of activision until 2023 and likely the first cod to be ported to a nintendo platform would be in 2024 or even 2025. So it's obvious cod will go to future nintendo consoles and not the switch

 

[see colon]

My first question is, promises made to who and where is it in writing?
The way things are worded is very important and as of now Bethesda content is everywhere.
Bethesda already added their games to Steam, so that already takes care of multiple storefronts. Maybe Epic and Gog are mad that they weren't included. They have been releasing content on Sony and Nintendo platforms since the merger. Bethesda content is still available on the storefronts they were on before the merger and then some. Nothing that has been announced for particular platforms has been removed.

There are Bethesda games on GOG and Epic. In fact, GOG had exclusives in the form of the earlier The Elder Scrolls games. But those were released post merger on Steam and I think Windows Store. Epic's library is the most erratic. The have rage 2, Ghostwire, Skyrim, Deathloop, Quake 1 and Doom 1-3. But Doom 2016 and Eternal are missing, and the earlier TES games weren't released there.

Yes and no. You are talking in absolutes. There are two types of exclusives. Exclusives that are paid to not exist somewhere else, and exclusives that wouldnt have existed if it wasnt for the platform holder having the incentive to create something unique.
Former reduces accessibility. The latter creates new options, incentivizes innovation and quality. So when MS creates a Forza and Sony creates a Grand Turismo its a fucking awesome 100% positive. A lot of Nintendo masterpieces wouldnt have existed if it wasnt for Nintendo owning a platform and I am 100% happy they do even though I dont own a Nintendo system. They push each other to compete with their own creations. They add variety and color into the market. When MS bribes to keep Stalker 2 exclusive, or Sony bribes to keep Street Fighter V exclusive, or Nintendo bribes Bayonetta 2/3 to be exclusive or when any of the three purchases significant multiplatform studios to prevent or to control the market it is destroying the accessibility and creativity of the ecosystem.

I've made this argument in the past as well. Take, for example, 2008's LittleBig Planet. I think if you released that game on Wii, and it has to complete with New Super Mario Bros, it gets ignored. The fact that LBP was exclusive, on a console without many side scrolling platform games, made that game a unique treat for Playstation owners. The fact that LBP exists as a franchise is 100% because it was an exclusive. Sony acquired Media Molecule in 2010 if people were interested.

Bayonetta 2 wouldn't exist if Nintendo didn't finance it. That's why it's an exclusive now. Same with Microsoft and S.T.A.L.K.E.R.2. GSC needed funding for that game, Microsoft stepped up and financed it. Street Fighter V probably would have happened regardless if it was exclusive or not.

We have no idea how long that contract is for. When the contract ends COD could be on all android stores

Yes, of course. That's why contracts are important. Although, perhaps they will get offered a 10 year deal as well.

 

[Dr. Nick]

I think Activision could release some of their Wii U and 360 games on Switch, and didn't someone mention Call of Duty Warzone Mobile? To be clear, there are no Call of Duty games on the Switch, and the flop he is talking about is from the Wii U. I predict, much like all of the ports from the Wii U, the Switch audience is likely to eat it up.

 

[Cyan]

a new promotion coming to Sony like a curve ball?

 

[Dr. Nick]

a new promotion coming to Sony like a curve ball?

I think people are reading too much into that one but great timing.

 

[iroboto]

Via MLex

Fairly interesting bridge burning happening here. Or if not, we are seeing the truth of how companies really feel about each other.

This shit is great.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Via MLex

Wow, just wow. I'm just speechless that not only was a PR person able to come up with but that anyone would fall for that reasoning.

Looks at the games released on NSW ... looks at statement. Looks at some of the games (mature) on NSW that Nintendo funds in order to bring them to NSW and also to make them exclusive to NSW ... looks at statement. That has got to be a joke.

Regards,
SB

 

[iroboto]

Wow, just wow. I'm just speechless that not only was a PR person able to come up with but that anyone would fall for that reasoning.

Looks at the games released on NSW ... looks at statement. Looks at some of the games (mature) on NSW that Nintendo funds ... looks at statement. That has got to be a joke.

Regards,
SB

Nintendo has by far the most shady store. Lol. Dude. Lol I never want me kids to wander in there. The amount of hentai titles there. I was wondering why there was such a large rise of “hentai” coming on the scene in terms of streamers and YouTubers. And I think it’s likely because they grew up with Nintendo and clicked on the “mature” button and voila.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Nintendo has by far the most shady store. Lol. Dude. Lol I never want me kids to wander in there. The amount of hentai titles there. I was wondering why there was such a large rise of “hentai” coming on the scene in terms of streamers and YouTubers. And I think it’s likely because they grew up with Nintendo and clicked on the “mature” button and voila.

Well, I'd be surprised if there weren't parental controls on the NSW that a parent could use to lock out mature content. But hell, with Sony, the NYT and MLEX telling people that the NSW is only for kids I guess parents might buy into that stereotype and not bother to look.

Sure, the NSW does rightly have a reputation of having games on it that are great for kids. But it also happens to be the console with by far THE most mature content on it out of all consoles ... and Nintendo encourages that. Those 2 things aren't mutually exclusive. The only platform that has more mature content is PC.

Regards,
SB

 

[Dr. Nick]

I backed out of responding to the fact after I posted the link to the lastest Hoeg video but
I think Microsoft lawyers were being good sports and did not broach the subject. The easy comeback to the CMA family-friendly stuff should have been, "Look a little bit closer, CMA. Nintendo has games that Microsoft and Sony won't allow on their platforms. They aren't as family-friendly as you think."