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

[iroboto]

3rd party games on Game Pass have nothing to do with Microsoft owned studios. Microsoft just published AOE4. It is not a first party game. If I’m mistaken and they have purchased Relic feel free to correct me. Don't Flight Sim games have a lot of MTX? 2 games in 9 years isn’t much reason for optimism regardless.

I think it does matter because if game pass is the future then we want to know what type of games they are putting on game pass. And if those games are AA levels of innovation that makes game pass an ideal system to fund titles that don’t homogenize. And this will reflect on their 1st party titles as well.

AOE4 is absolutely first party title, but they outsourced relic to make it.

flight simulator runs just fine as do all MS titles without MTX.

these titles were green lighted recently as opposed to 9 years ago.

Grounded and Sea of Thieves are also very different products they green lighted. As well as some failures

 

[mrcorbo]

The future of GamePass game development:

1. Design 100% of a game
2. Chop off 40% of the game to be the release version
3. Add frustrating mechanics and time wasting to the original concept
4. Sell solutions to problems made in #3 as microtransactions
5. Sell the remaining 40% of the game over the next 1-2 years in the form of season passes and DLC
6. Profit

Isn't that the present of all game development?

 

[techuse]

I think it does matter because if game pass is the future then we want to know what type of games they are putting on game pass. And if those games are AA levels of innovation that makes game pass an ideal system to fund titles that don’t homogenize. And this will reflect on their 1st party titles as well.

AOE4 is absolutely first party title, but they outsourced relic to make it.

flight simulator runs just fine as do all MS titles without MTX.

All non F2P games run fine without MTX, that’s not the point. My point is they have focused primarily on games that can be MTX platforms. That doesn’t mean the games are bad, but their history shouldn’t lead to optimism that now all these studios who have been supporting the COD machine are suddenly going to be producing original content under benevolent Microsoft.

 

[BRiT]

Don't Flight Sim games have a lot of MTX?

Not really. There are some commercially made addons for specialty aircrafts or improved airports, but you can entirely fly and enjoy the title with nothing more than the base purchase. If you do want the improvements you can buy them specifically. It's nothing at all like FIFA where you need to buy packs and packs of cards to get that 1 desired player.

 

[iroboto]

All non F2P games run fine without MTX, that’s not the point. My point is they have focused primarily on games that can be MTX platforms. That doesn’t means the games are bad, but their history shouldn’t lead to optimism that now all these studios who have been supporting the COD machine are suddenly going to be producing original content under benevolent Microsoft.

Perhaps not, but activision had basically all their studios on COD. But clearly Blizzard IPS and Sierra IPS are absolutely fair game for studios especially in the PC space. And there may no longer be a reason at all to run COD annually anymore due to game pass.

 

[techuse]

Perhaps not, but activision had basically all their studios on COD. But clearly Blizzard IPS and Sierra IPS are absolutely fair game for studios especially in the PC space. And there may no longer be a reason at all to run COD annually anymore due to game pass.

Ya we just have different opinions. I think after spending all that money Microsoft will be looking to get as much COD content as possible, going Xbox exclusive as soon as they can. I expect large studio reshuffles and several closures once the merger finalizes. I also think their is huge reason to run COD releases annually given how much money they make.

Not really. There are some commercially made addons for specialty aircrafts or improved airports, but you can entirely fly and enjoy the title with nothing more than the base purchase. If you do want the improvements you can buy them specifically. It's nothing at all like FIFA where you need to buy packs and packs of cards to get that 1 desired player.

I thought 3rd party content was in addition to official DLC and that Microsoft still gets a cut of anything sold for the game.

 

[BRiT]

I thought 3rd party content was in addition to official DLC and that Microsoft still gets a cut of anything sold for the game.

They do, nothing I said indicates otherwise. It's available from 3rd parties via the marketplace.

The not really was to counter your post that makes it seem like MTX is required.

 

[cheapchips]

This doesn't mean they cannot be bought

So you're saying there's a chance.

I think aside from particulars of Japanese companies the thread's covered, you can't assume any company agrees to be bought. I just felt that AB removes the price as a barrier. Literally no 3rd party is more expensive.

It continues the question, why haven't MS bought company x?

 

[BRiT]

Company X doesn't want to sell.

 

[BRiT]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1483499073093181442

Arkane developer sharing his experience of Microsoft acquisition.

 

[eastmen]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1483493531780005893

What did the employees think was going to happen ? Bobby owns a lot of activision there wasn't any scenario in which he didn't get a big pay day. On a long enough time scale people would forget about the current issues at activision and they would release games that do well and stock would rise again. If anyone else bought it , he would still get paid out big time.

Also microsoft will do everything in their power to stop a union. So good luck to them to keep organizing

 

[eastmen]

Company X doesn't want to sell.

Also Microsoft payed a 40%+ premium per share for Activision. So add 40-50% to all those companies values before you get a sale price.


I think if you saw a purchase of another company it would be something like sega/ sammy where microsoft could buy just the video game studios and ip or a konami where they would buy just the studios and not the gambling side.


I think sega would be a pretty amazing purchase for MS. Imagine all of sega's systems coming to game pass under the xbox's emulation teams ?

 

[iroboto]

Ya we just have different opinions. I think after spending all that money Microsoft will be looking to get as much COD content as possible, going Xbox exclusive as soon as they can. I expect large studio reshuffles and several closures once the merger finalizes. I also think their is huge reason to run COD releases annually given how much money they make.

Definitely not expecting that. Well, I personally don't put COD on the pedestal, and while I understand it's a great selling title, the amount invested to churn them out year over year, despite selling well, doesn't necessarily make it the most efficient title in terms of ROI.

I certainly believe there are a variety of IPs that will cost significantly less, and can have higher ROI values, and this type of setup fits game pass a lot better than releasing COD year after year. Having a lot of AA titles on tap coming out to bolster new releases on game pass is what will get people to subscribe than to cater game pass harder to the dude bro market which is limited in size. Imo DF was right to call it into perspective
There are 4 blizzard titles in this image here, 1 Candy Crush and 1 Call of Duty. Starcraft which has been officially killed off. OW2 and Diablo 4 that have been delayed forever. WoW which got rebooted. I think if this is a hint of where MS is looking to place it's priorities that means something. These Blizzard titles have a much wider audience appeal than COD. That's how they get more PC and Xbox Game Pass subscribers. COD? To me this is just icing on the top. If COD wasn't on game pass, players would just buy it anyway.

In console land, sure COD might mean everything. But in PC land, these are legendary franchises.

 

[eastmen]

Definitely not expecting that. Well, I personally don't put COD on the pedestal, and while I understand it's a great selling title, the amount invested to churn them out year over year, despite selling well, doesn't necessarily make it the most efficient title in terms of ROI.

I certainly believe there are a variety of IPs that will cost significantly less, and can have higher ROI values, and this type of setup fits game pass a lot better than releasing COD year after year. Having a lot of AA titles on tap coming out to bolster new releases on game pass is what will get people to subscribe than to cater game pass harder to the dude bro market which is limited in size. Imo DF was right to call it into perspective
There are 4 blizzard titles in this image here, 1 Candy Crush and 1 Call of Duty. Starcraft which has been officially killed off. OW2 and Diablo 4 that have been delayed forever. WoW which got rebooted. I think if this is a hint of where MS is looking to place it's priorities that means something. These Blizzard titles have a much wider audience appeal than COD. That's how they get more PC and Xbox Game Pass subscribers. COD? To me this is just icing on the top. If COD wasn't on game pass, players would just buy it anyway.

In console land, sure COD might mean everything. But in PC land, these are legendary franchises.

In the investors call microsoft talked about them being more interested in what is in the pipeline. So I think looking at what released recently or announced recently is the wrong way to look at it .

Also think of the sea change when COD is only developed for xbox and pc. There will be either more people to work on the single platform or extra people that can be moved to another game.

 

[PSman1700]

Depends what their numbers tell them regarding this. The cut they would make selling a copy on sony's plastic vs the money they would make from subscribers + PC + people buying xbox consoles specifically for COD. Call of Duty could be a bigger system seller than any of sonys or microsofts ip's ever were

some console owners have playstation. switch + xbox is more than playstation in the console crowd. This could be a way to enhance their userbase. Like i said, Call of Duty is absolutely a system seller in the truest sense. More than Halo or any sony ip. They'll probably release it on playstation for a few years due to marketing deals already in place. But its entirely plausible to stop after that. It could go either way. Everything from Bethesda is likely over forever on playstation. Minecraft instead they kept multiplatform. But that was also long ago when they didnt have the dirrection they have now.

Same drill with Bethesda. Microsoft does not need Sony. This is about the streaming wars. When has it ever been advantageous for Netflix to put Stranger Things on Peacock or HBO Max? We got numbers for Gamepass today. That's it. That's the platform. Exclusivity of catalog and content is all that matters. Run most of these through the back compatibility stuff and we will likely see every COD since the 360 on there as well as other things they've made.

Agreeing with these posts/motivations.... i mean if CoD etc wont be on PS anymore, the PS userbase might actually shrink/shift to MS platforms.

Microsoft's goal is almost certainly to push Sony out of the market entirely. Removing Sony's access to the biggest games is a near guaranteed way to do that.

Seems likely.

The sheer numbers - a $70b acquisition of a company who, at most, took $2.4 revenue (not profit) in a quarter selling to multiple platforms - so these are valid questions.

Well, its not about return, but market segment, Sony already lost 20bn in stocks due this aquirement.

 

[see colon]

We know SONY has COD timed-exclusive DLC, so it’s probably that SONY has locked COD for several years (Day 1 retail release and maybe on SONY subscription).

In the near term, that's certainly a factor. But I think people misinterpret what happened with Bethesda and what happened with Minecraft. Microsoft saw what Minecraft was, a cross platform game with a strong brand outside of core gaming circles. Grandmothers know what it is. Well, maybe not what it is, but they are aware of it's existence and importance to their grand kids. COD is the same way. It has a history on all platforms (except Switch) and is more of a staple in videogames with it's yearly release schedule than an Elder Scrolls title is. Also, every Elder Scrolls title on home consoles was at one time an Xbox exclusive except Skyrim and ESO, so there is a bit more Xbox only history there.

 

[eastmen]

In the near term, that's certainly a factor. But I think people misinterpret what happened with Bethesda and what happened with Minecraft. Microsoft saw what Minecraft was, a cross platform game with a strong brand outside of core gaming circles. Grandmothers know what it is. Well, maybe not what it is, but they are aware of it's existence and importance to their grand kids. COD is the same way. It has a history on all platforms (except Switch) and is more of a staple in videogames with it's yearly release schedule than an Elder Scrolls title is. Also, every Elder Scrolls title on home consoles was at one time an Xbox exclusive except Skyrim and ESO, so there is a bit more Xbox only history there.

Microsoft bought Minecraft at the end of 2014 which means the purchase wasn't finalized until 2015. The game was already on all systems in 2015 aside from the unreleased switch. There is a ps4 version because that released in 2014 the same month microsoft announced they were purchasing minecraft.

The real question is what service these titles will still get. There was a big up roar about bedrock for ps4. But what about the next gen version. If it hits only for xbox then we know MS is starting a change in minecraft

 

[Deleted member 11852]

What did the employees think was going to happen ? Bobby owns a lot of activision there wasn't any scenario in which he didn't get a big pay day.

There is what you legally have to pay somebody to f*** off, which may depend on the circumstances of their exit - which will only be determined with time, and there is voluntarily paying more than they are entitled.

I have not read any specifics about Mr Kotick's inevitable exit so people may just be fearing the worst, because it's what we've come to expect from bad CEOs leaving companies.

Well, its not about return, but market segment, Sony already lost 20bn in stocks due this aquirement.

Sony haven't lost any money at all, the valuation of their shares changed - which is what share prices do every day. What Sony had in the bank yesterday morning, they have today. And it absolutely is about the return. Unless you're a charity, you spend investors money (it's not Microsoft's money) to make investors more money in the short of long-term. This is why companies produce financials reports so that investors have transparency how money is being spent, how much it costs to run certain business units and what they bring in.

 

[see colon]

Microsoft bought Minecraft at the end of 2014 which means the purchase wasn't finalized until 2015. The game was already on all systems in 2015 aside from the unreleased switch. There is a ps4 version because that released in 2014 the same month microsoft announced they were purchasing minecraft.

The real question is what service these titles will still get. There was a big up roar about bedrock for ps4. But what about the next gen version. If it hits only for xbox then we know MS is starting a change in minecraft

Minecraft was released on New3DS in 2017 and Minecraft Dungeons was released on most platforms (PS4 and Switch included) in 2020, not to mention Story Mode's episodic releases from late 2015-2017. Some of that content was likely in the pipe but if Microsoft wanted to lock the IP to one platform it wouldn't have released Dungeons on everything if that was the case.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Company X doesn't want to sell.

Right. Some can be acquired to a degree through shares although I know there are some restrictions about this (along with hostile takeovers) but I know next to nothing how they work.

The other big one, why don't Microsoft buy X, is because are buying companies that they perceive to be of value now or in the future. Microsoft bought Mojang for Minecraft for $2.5Bn and that looked a bit bonkers but the speculation (noting there is no visibility of Microsoft's gaming business financials) is that they've very probably made that back, and more, given how popular Minecraft merchandise is.

Zenimax was clearly a steal for $7.5bn because nobody is going to argue Zenimax didn't hold some of the more influencial, popular and valuable IP in the industry. Even $7.5bn you can see a medium-term return if they brings more people to Xbox and/or GamePass - maybe a bit longer if they exclude PlayStation and Switch from prime franchises - the risk is losing more revenue than you make they make drawing people in and having them spend in your ecosystem

Not everything will make sense to Microsoft. Things will make sense to Microsoft that don't make any sense to other people. The Activision - Blizzard is definitely one for me, it just looks like a really weird use of $70Bn. Satya Nadella could have built an awesome dick-shaped rocket for that.