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

[Jay]

"should MS buy ABK"

I'm going to premise my response on the most extreme situation that we know isn't the case of COD being on only xbox. That includes no longer releasing on PC.

Does any players in industry have any issues with it (excluding Sony) - NO
Will it be a positive for employees - YES
Will it affect developers as a whole - NO (unless you consider unionisation possibly becoming more widespread as a result)
Will it have a negative affect on other studios or ability of other studios to be created - NO (could argue makes it more viable)
Would it forclose Sony - NO
From Sony's disclosures they are only concerned about COD. Their concerns seems to be inline with what they do. Withhold top title in given genere SF in fighting, FF in jrpg, and locking enough content to make other platform versions seem lacking. Is that a problem - NO (think it would be nice for consumers to be told length/type of exclusivity though)
Is it morally ok - YES
Is it ethically ok - YES.
Does it make a difference of amount of games going exclusive - NO
Is it legally ok (based on current laws around the world) - Yes seems to be

Based on all that, then to answer your question YES they should buy them, and should be allowed IMO, and will likely be allowed.

I know some people don't believe in exclusivity at all and all games should be on all platforms, but that's a personal opinion and not the current way the industry or players in the industry operate.

 

[Nesh]

I'm going to premise my response on the most extreme situation that we know isn't the case of COD being on only xbox. That includes no longer releasing on PC.

Does any players in industry have any issues with it (excluding Sony) - NO
Will it be a positive for employees - YES
Will it affect developers as a whole - NO (unless you consider unionisation possibly becoming more widespread as a result)
Will it have a negative affect on other studios or ability of other studios to be created - NO (could argue makes it more viable)
Would it forclose Sony - NO
From Sony's disclosures they are only concerned about COD. Their concerns seems to be inline with what they do. Withhold top title in given genere SF in fighting, FF in jrpg, and locking enough content to make other platform versions seem lacking. Is that a problem - NO (think it would be nice for consumers to be told length/type of exclusivity though)
Is it morally ok - YES
Is it ethically ok - YES.
Does it make a difference of amount of games going exclusive - NO
Is it legally ok (based on current laws around the world) - Yes seems to be

Based on all that, then to answer your question YES they should buy them, and should be allowed IMO, and will likely be allowed.

I know some people don't believe in exclusivity at all and all games should be on all platforms, but that's a personal opinion and not the current way the industry or players in the industry operate.

Some of your questions are valid, some you dont really know the answer, some you are assuming the answer, some of your questions are irrelevant, some others are stated improperly.
You basically created the list of questions that serve the answer that you want.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Does any players in industry have any issues with it (excluding Sony) - NO

What about engine/middleware that licence on a royalty basis? Fewer end users is less income.

Will it be a positive for employees - YES

Setting aside the awful culture in Activision's core studios, are Microsoft's standard employee pay, along with terms and conditions more favourable to employees than those at Activision-Blizzard?

 

[Jay]

Some of your questions are valid, some you dont really know the answer, some you are assuming the answer, some of your questions are irrelevant, some others are stated improperly.
You basically created the list of questions that serve the answer that you want.

I stated my views on why I believe the answer to your question is yes.
I've also not seen you put forward something I personally would consider too relevant to the purchase. Although a couple decent personal views.

 

[Jay]

What about engine/middleware that licence on a royalty basis? Fewer end users is less income.

I've not seen any of them raise concerns.
The shift to unreal by a big chunk of the industry is happening regardless of this purchase.
Middleware - if ABK not using it is enough to put them under they need to reevaluate what they are doing.
How many games does ABK put over say 5 years? Although MS doesn't seem to push any particular tech to the teams.

Setting aside the awful culture in Activision's core studios, are Microsoft's standard employee pay, along with terms and conditions more favourable to employees than those at Activision-Blizzard?

You can't really set that aside. But I understand what you mean.
From the couple reports it sounds like employees are looking forward to it. So can only go by that.
There's also enough studios and competition to be able to change jobs.
If wanted to separate it into culture and pay that's fine.
Culture would be - YES better
Pay - UNKNOWN but enough studios to allow change in job and competition.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

I've not seen any of them raise concerns.

Because all these middleware companies routinely cc you their email detailing concerns they may have with the industry? Sorry, I don't mean to be an arse but it's evident that companies are raising concerns that are not public. Remember that the UK CMA report stated: "Most competitors raised concerns regarding (i) Microsoft making ABK games exclusive to its own platform; and/or (ii) degrading the quality of ABK games on other platforms; and/or potential self-preferencing behaviour by Microsoft."

Only Sony have gone public, all other parties have conveyed concerns privately but the CMA is clear in their use of language that its not just Sony, e.g. "one party one said..", "several competitors expressed views..", "most competitors had concerns..". It needs to be accepted that more than Sony have concerns. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Middleware - if ABK not using it is enough to put them under they need to reevaluate what they are doing.

That's a different argument. Your earlier post said no impact to industry other than Sony but companies in the software supply chain whose profits are boosted the more copies are sold, which means reaching the widest possible audience as possible.

From the couple reports it sounds like employees are looking forward to it. So can only go by that. There's also enough studios and competition to be able to change jobs.

I haven't seen any comments at all from Activision-Blizzard employees (only management) which I presume was because it could undermine the ongoing legal actions. Blizzard was once a stellar place to work in terms of benefits.

Pay - UNKNOWN but enough studios to allow change in job and competition.

So it may not be a definitive positive for some? I imagine one people are doing jobs that will no longer be needed after the acquisition, Microsoft doesn't internally need multiple publishing arms.

 

[Nesh]

I stated my views on why I believe the answer to your question is yes.
I've also not seen you put forward something I personally would consider too relevant to the purchase. Although a couple decent personal views.

Er, these have been raised multiple times within the course of this thread. I dont want to waste time repeating what has been repeated and ignored multiple times.

 

[see colon]

Thats the wrong question. The correct question is, should Sony buy ABK if they can? The answer is NO.
The second point that makes this question meaningless is the fact that the argument for MS buying ABK is actually due to MS's list of failures that @Metal_Spirit brought, which are presented falsely as Sony stealing or controlling the market.

What? None of this is relevant because we know Sony isn't buying Activision and we know Sony is the market leader. The regulators shouldn't even be thinking about hypothetical situations like Sony buying Activision or any of Microsoft's shortcomings in market execution, they should only be looking at the proposed merger's effect on the market from a consumer choice perspective.

Does this proposed merger have an anticompetitive effect on the market. That's it. And I understand talking to competitors to get a perspective on the market, but the mandate of any commission overseeing any transactions like this should not be to maintain the status quo, it should be to maintain a competitive market. Protecting a market leader from the rest of the market is in itself an anticompetitive move.

Sorry, I don't mean to be an arse but it's evident that companies are raising concerns that are not public. Remember that the UK CMA report stated: "Most competitors raised concerns regarding (i) Microsoft making ABK games exclusive to its own platform; and/or (ii) degrading the quality of ABK games on other platforms; and/or potential self-preferencing behaviour by Microsoft."

Only Sony have gone public, all other parties have conveyed concerns privately but the CMA is clear in their use of language that its not just Sony, e.g. "one party one said..", "several competitors expressed views..", "most competitors had concerns..". It needs to be accepted that more than Sony have concerns. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

That statement, though, has enough "and/or"s to make it broad enough to include enough competitors to quantify as "most", though. For example, if a competitor says something like "COD usually gets better performance and early DLC on Playstation. That's probably going to end." Or, "Series S will probably be the target platform for COD going forward" Those statements would imply that the performance or graphics quality would be degraded because Series S would be holding back other platforms, or that if early DLC ends on Playstation (as in all platforms get it at the same time now) that would be degrading the game's quality on Playstation.

The full text of the decision to move to phase 2 also says this:

The Merged Entity’s games would include some of the biggest and highest selling
franchises across various genres, such as shooters (eg CoD, Halo, Gears of War,
Doom, Overwatch), role playing games (eg World of Warcraft, Elder Scrolls, Fallout,
Diablo), racing and flying games (eg Forza), action and adventure games (eg
Minecraft), and others.112 According to one of the Parties’ competitors, the only
category where Microsoft would not have a leading position would be in sports
games, where Electronic Arts (EA), a game producer and publisher, has the
strongest position.113

To suggest that Sony doesn't own the "action/adventure" genre with it's first party titles is ridiculous. Almost as ridiculous as putting Minecraft, an open world survival game, in that category to begin with.

 

[mr magoo]

What about engine/middleware that licence on a royalty basis? Fewer end users is less income.


Setting aside the awful culture in Activision's core studios, are Microsoft's standard employee pay, along with terms and conditions more favourable to employees than those at Activision-Blizzard?

According to all the news ABK employees are looking forward to this acquisition and see it as general very positive change so Jays point is valid.

 

[Silenti]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1610632060368211970

I can make no claims to how good a source this is. Slowly getting picked up it seems.

Story seems to be from a specialist news site on antitrust law. It is a pay site and I cannot search it for the article. Here is a link to the site: https://mlexmarketinsight.com/

It was apparently posted to Resetera.

 

[Dr. Nick]

Setting aside the awful culture in Activision's core studios, are Microsoft's standard employee pay, along with terms and conditions more favourable to employees than those at Activision-Blizzard?

I know this is off topic but I bet these companies wish they were proper Microsoft employees. I doubt things are as good as they were in the 90s or early 00s but I bet things are still really really good.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1610632060368211970

I can make no claims to how good a source this is. Slowly getting picked up it seems.

Story seems to be from a specialist news site on antitrust law. It is a pay site and I cannot search it for the article. Here is a link to the site: https://mlexmarketinsight.com/

It was apparently posted to Resetera.

Assuming that's true that indicates that MS are extremely confident that whatever the FTC administrative judge rules, they know that a Federal court is highly unlikely to rule against the merger, thus since the FTC is unwilling to work with them, they are basically just going to ignore the FTC since the FTC, for all intents and purposes, are acting in bad faith to pursue an agenda that is not based on any laws regarding acquisitions and mergers within the US.

Thus, the only remaining impediment to the acquisition would be the UK and EU as it appears that all other countries around the world are likely to approve the acquisition as they see it as beneficial to consumers.

Regards,
SB

 

[Deleted member 11852]

That statement, though, has enough "and/or"s to make it broad enough to include enough competitors to quantify as "most", though.

The statement is intended to convey that most of Microsoft's competitors consulted have at least one of the listed concerns. I presume it is written like this so as to not indicated how many competitors have particular concerns because some are fairly narrow in scope and could only be companies X and Y which would indirectly identify them.

To suggest that Sony doesn't own the "action/adventure" genre with it's first party titles is ridiculous. Almost as ridiculous as putting Minecraft, an open world survival game, in that category to begin with.

How do Sony "own the action/adventure" genre? This just seems bizarre to me. What about Assassin's Creed, Mass Effect, Elden Ring, The Division, Shadow of War/Mordor, GTA, Dragon Age, Red Dead, Tomb Raider, Guardians of the Galaxy, Jedi Fallen Order, Watch Dogs, the Arkham games, Ghost Recon, The Witcher, Zelda, Sekiro, Control, Monster Hunter, Just Cause..? I could go on and on..

According to all the news ABK employees are looking forward to this acquisition and see it as general very positive change so Jays point is valid.

I must has missed these new reports. I am happy to stand corrected, can you point me at a couple?

 

[iroboto]

So it may not be a definitive positive for some? I imagine one people are doing jobs that will no longer be needed after the acquisition, Microsoft doesn't internally need multiple publishing arms.

They still keep Bethseda separate and will likely be the case for Activision Blizzard at least for the near future.
There may still be some advantages to keeping the publishing arms separated. A bit like flanking brands for cars or or service providers; a bit like a multiplatform arm, versus a pure inhouse arm.

It also enables easier separation should it come to it.
Just putting ideas out there, but as of today, I don't likely see them integrating them into Xbox Game Studios that quickly.

 

[Dr. Nick]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1610632060368211970

I can make no claims to how good a source this is. Slowly getting picked up it seems.

Story seems to be from a specialist news site on antitrust law. It is a pay site and I cannot search it for the article. Here is a link to the site: https://mlexmarketinsight.com/

It was apparently posted to Resetera.

That information was in post

• #2,859

 

[Deleted member 11852]

They still keep Bethseda separate and will likely be the case for Activision Blizzard at least for the near future.

You'll never see another Zenimax or Bethesda Softworks published game again, everything will be published by Microsoft Game Studios, just like Sony publish all PlayStation titles under their publishing house Sony Interactive Entertainment. It makes zero sense to have all these disparate teams all trying to cut their own marketing small marketing deals with media, co-ordinating individual title launch timetables and disc pressing. This is something that centralisation will improve and bring efficiencies.

The studios will retain their identities.

 

[Nesh]

I learn new things everyday. To potentially not be able to play ABK and Zenimax games under the sole discretion of Microsoft's platform wars, is good for me and millions of other players if we don't own XBOX or play on PC and own a Playstation instead.

 

[BRiT]

I learn new things everyday. To potentially not be able to play ABK and Zenimax games under the sole discretion of Microsoft's platform wars, is good for me and millions of other players if we don't own XBOX or play on PC and own a Playstation instead.

Or a TV or Phone or Tablet...

 

[iroboto]

You'll never see another Zenimax or Bethesda Softworks published game again

yea you're probably right on this front. Interested to see the official inaugural change over happen when Starfield or Redfall is released. The division may stay separate, but I agree the publishing arm is all done through XGS to save money.

 

[iroboto]

I learn new things everyday. To potentially not be able to play ABK and Zenimax games under the sole discretion of Microsoft's platform wars, is good for me and millions of other players if we don't own XBOX or play on PC and own a Playstation instead.

it certainly sucks. But this is the business of games and the business of games is changing as our technology does and we should expect things like this to happen as the industry changes to adopt to changes in the marketplace.

But honestly, what you're feeling right now, is what xbox fans have felt for an entire generation. Shit just skips your platform or things are locked out for over a year, because it's a smaller platform, because they locked out, or because they have no interest in releasing it there.

Yea they're pissed every bit as you, but xbox guys are used to it, and those that got upset left to Sony. You're just experiencing right now is what it feels like to choose a box that isn't the overwhelming leader in the market that is entitled to all the games because it's the largest body. And you're upset because Sony is missing these titles, and by all means, you made a good decision based on the fact that that these titles should not skip your platform because Sony is the leader by far here. And in your mind, a bully has come by with big pockets and has ruined it for you, Sony is powerless in your mind to stop this.

All very, understandable feelings.

But they aren't powerless, at least that is what MS will be trying to prove, and Sony will be trying to prove the opposite.