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

[see colon]

Ratchet & Clank (like Jak and Daxter) is a Sony owned IP, Sony made sure that they owned the IPs that they developed with 2nd party teams after they lost the rights to Crash Bandicoot and Spyro because those 2 IPs were owned by Universal Interactive (which then became Vivendi Universal, which then was sold to Activision and will likely end up in MS's hands)

Bright side for Xbox fans is they will finally have a Naughty Dog and an Insomniac developed IP to call their own ..lol

I think I might have been unclear about what I was saying. What I was saying is if Insomniac were to have owned it's popular IP from the past, they would have been a much more attractive acquisition from an earlier date. Vivendi/Universal would have purchased them to get the Spyro IP, I believe. Sony would have purchased them to get either Spyro or Ratchet back then as well. In the end Sony picked them up because they are a talented studio, not because of any IP they owned.

Also, what did you mean about Xbox fans having Naughty Dog and Insomniac IP?

 

[stu11]

I think I might have been unclear about what I was saying. What I was saying is if Insomniac were to have owned it's popular IP from the past, they would have been a much more attractive acquisition from an earlier date. Vivendi/Universal would have purchased them to get the Spyro IP, I believe. Sony would have purchased them to get either Spyro or Ratchet back then as well. In the end Sony picked them up because they are a talented studio, not because of any IP they owned.

Also, what did you mean about Xbox fans having Naughty Dog and Insomniac IP?

Oh I see what you mean. My comment about Xbox fans having access to both a Naughty Dog and Insomniac developed IP was in reference to if/when Microsoft's purchase of Activision goes through then since Activision owns both Crash Bandicoot and Spyro, these were both formerly developed by Naughty Dog and Insomniac respectively. Of course Xbox already had one Insomniac game with Sunset Overdrive.

 

[Cyan]

according the European Game Developers Federation, the Activision deal might be a essential factor to compete with Tencent.

Microsoft ActivisionBlizzard acquisition (2022)

EGDF observations on Microsoft ActivisionBlizzard acquisition Microsoft is a significant player in the games market, and thus Microsoft’s proposed acquisition of ActivisionBlizzard for nearly…

www.egdf.eu

 

[Deleted member 11852]

according the European Game Developers Federation, the Activision deal might be a essential factor to compete with Tencent.

The acquisition gives Microsoft the means to challenge Apple in emerging cloud gaming / game subscription service markets.

Huh? Apple don't have a cloud gaming service, and their subscription service (Apple Arcade) works only on it's own mobile platforms and provides only mobile games. Acquiring Activision-Blizzard is not going to proved Microsoft with something equivalent to Apple Arcade, they arguably already have something better.

Am I missing something?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Wouldn't blocking Tencent getting bigger be more appropriate? Otherwise the argument will be for 3 or 4 players to keep expanding to compete with the current biggest fish until these few companies own absolutely everything.

 

[BRiT]

Huh? Apple don't have a cloud gaming service, and their subscription service (Apple Arcade) works only on it's own mobile platforms and provides only mobile games. Acquiring Activision-Blizzard is not going to proved Microsoft with something equivalent to Apple Arcade, they arguably already have something better.

Am I missing something?

Perhaps they figure that Microsoft with King's mobile game offerings, along with with rest of the IP well to draw from, might be enough of a spark to start a viable Microsoft Mobile marketplace?

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Perhaps they figure that Microsoft with King's mobile game offerings, along with with rest of the IP well to draw from, might be enough of a spark to start a viable Microsoft Mobile marketplace?

Aren't King's games all free to play? I thought that was their model; games are free to play and they sell extra content. They would need to remove their games from the iOS and Android marketplaces, then implement a subscription-only service that doesn't break any iOS/Android App Store rules and convince people to pay their subscription to access the games through Microsoft's service.

I'm not getting it.

 

[BRiT]

Aren't King's games all free to play? I thought that was their model; games are free to play and they sell extra content. They would need to remove their games from the iOS and Android marketplaces, then implement a subscription-only service that doesn't break any iOS/Android App Store rules and convince people to pay their subscription to access the games through Microsoft's service.

I'm not getting it.

Same with Fortnite. Same with Apex. Same with COD Mobile. Nearly all mobile titles are Free to Play.

So what is the draw to Apple Arcade subscription?

Maybe a new marketplace that is easily available to install would be a draw for consumers. Maybe this marketplace could offer better terms to other developers. Maybe they would only take 12% or 18% instead of 30%. Maybe a new marketplace would only be viable if regulators forced certain new rules on Apple and Google.

I don't know what would be required to actually be successful third party offering on iOS and Android. I don't think it's possible to break into those markets without heavy regulatory provisions, to change the existing rules. Even with that, I don't see it being any more successful than when the EU forced the Windows OS Browser Choice.

The consumers have already been conditioned into the status quo. The vast majority won't change.

 

[iroboto]

Inside the War on Apple and Google App Stores

Apple's and Google's app stores are facing harsh criticism by businesses saying the tech giants are iron-fisted monopolies.

variety.com

“Apple and Google,” Sine asserted, “are using their monopoly power to dictate how apps operate, how much they will be forced to pay and, in many cases, if they will even survive.”

After years of simmering spats, the industry’s big two app stores are now the targets of attacks on multiple fronts. Getting Apple and Google to change the way they operate their digital storefronts — which together raked in a whopping $111 billion in fees last year, per research firm Sensor Tower — is among the most urgent issues in regulatory and legal circles amid a broad and growing backlash against Big Tech.

Epic Games, maker of the blockbuster battle game “Fortnite,” last year sued both Apple and Google, alleging they operate illegal monopolies that force app makers to use the companies’ in-app payment systems and extract exorbitant fees. A judge’s ruling in the Epic Games v. Apple trial is expected this fall.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Same with Fortnite. Same with Apex. Same with COD Mobile. Nearly all mobile titles are Free to Play.

Right, so would why Microsoft want King games to put in a subscription service? You want F2P games to be as widely available as possible.

So what is the draw to Apple Arcade subscription?

I only used it when I had a free trial. For the most part, Apple fund/licence pretty good games for Apple Arcade, many (maybe most) of which are not available outside of the service. I personally don't pay many mobile games but for the rare few I do, I was more than happy to buy those games.. e.g. Angry Birds, Plants vs Zombies, Rome Total War (iPad).

 

[Deleted member 11852]

“Apple and Google,” Sine asserted, “are using their monopoly power to dictate how apps operate, how much they will be forced to pay and, in many cases, if they will even survive.”

Microsoft, Nintendo and Sony do exactly the same in their respective walled-garden console ecosystems. You will recall that Microsoft supported Epic to try and force Apple and Google to drop drop their 30% retail cut in their mobiles stores then when asked about doing it on Xbox, they refused. Microsoft did explore a 12% cut in 2021, but ultimately decided to stick to the industry standard 30%.

Corporations, man.. Greedy m*****f*****s.

 

[iroboto]

Microsoft, Nintendo and Sony do exactly the same in their respective walled-garden console ecosystems.

This came up in the Epic trial. Console ecosystems have to recover the cost of hardware that is sold at a loss, and the constant R&D and hardware development for the following generation. And truthfully, they do a hell of a lot more than Google and Apple do for their content. If they see a title taking off, it starts getting pushed into appropriate marketing channels.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

This came up in the Epic trial. Console ecosystems have to recover the cost of hardware that is sold at a loss, and the constant R&D and hardware development for the following generation.

This is Microsoft's position, which Phil Spencer confirmed was still case case last November. I don't believe Nintendo sell hardware at a loss, and PS3 aside, PlayStation hardware usually hit profitability on hardware quickly with PS4 hardware being profitable in six months, and PS5 in eight months.

 

[iroboto]

This is Microsoft's position, which Phil Spencer confirmed was still case case last November. I don't believe Nintendo sell hardware at a loss, and PS3 aside, PlayStation hardware usually hit profitability on hardware quickly with PS4 hardware being profitable in six months, and PS5 in eight months.

All three technically still have to continually do R&D and create hardware, maintain servers, as well as have massive marketing pushes for the content on their respective platforms. I don't recall Android or Apple regularly releasing marketing campaigns (except for their own hardware) like they do with E3 and the like. And the stores are just gaming only, whereas the other 2 respective stores hold all types of various applications. And the console market is significantly smaller than the mobile phone market.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

All three technically still have to continually do R&D and create hardware, maintain servers, as well as have massive marketing pushes for the content on their respective platforms.

Come on man, be real. Nobody is making custom servers, creating a new board to fit into a blade configuration is something a lot of companies do. Microsoft have never used custom hardware in an Xbox, it's been 80x86 or PowerPC CPU cores coupled with Nvidia or AMD GPUs forever. Sony have not done custom graphics hardware since PS2, although arguably Cell was probably quite an investment but then that effort and cost was shared with Toshiba and IBM. Nintendo's hardware isn't so much R&D than it is archaeology.

Don't overstate this, Nintendo, Microsoft and Sony are not developing their own technology outside of UI/controllers, they are licensing the use of technology that itself has been designed to be adaptable for specific customers: ARM, MIPS, 80x86, PowerPC CPU architectures, and AMD and Nvidia graphics technologies.

I don't recall Android or Apple regularly releasing marketing campaigns (except for their own hardware) like they do with E3 and the like.

Apple hold their own events, and you'll find Samsung at events like CES as well as running their own product releases. Both companies are big enough to warrant running their own events - as do Microsoft and Sony.

 

[iroboto]

Come on man, be real. Nobody is making custom servers, creating a new board to fit into a blade configuration is something a lot of companies do. Microsoft have never used custom hardware in an Xbox, it's been 80x86 or PowerPC CPU cores coupled with Nvidia or AMD GPUs forever. Sony have not done custom graphics hardware since PS2, although arguably Cell was probably quite an investment but then that effort and cost was shared with Toshiba and IBM. Nintendo's hardware isn't so much R&D than it is archaeology.

Don't overstate this, Nintendo, Microsoft and Sony are not developing their own technology outside of UI/controllers, they are licensing the use of technology that itself has been designed to be adaptable for specific customers: ARM, MIPS, 80x86, PowerPC CPU architectures, and AMD and Nvidia graphics technologies.



Apple hold their own events, and you'll find Samsung at events like CES as well as running their own product releases. Both companies are big enough to warrant running their own events - as do Microsoft and Sony.

It's on the developers to voice their issues, we haven't seen a mass exodus of developers complaining about Nintendo, Sony and MS cuts. I'm not sure what else to say on this matter. As you said, someone has to complain for regulatory to step in. Clearly mobile app developers are pissed off with the current setup, so they are complaining and regulators are stepping in.

Xcloud is entirely custom blades and servers.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

It's on the developers to voice their issues, we haven't seen a mass exodus of developers complaining about Nintendo, Sony and MS cuts.

Developers obviously do not want to speak out against Nintendo, Microsoft or Nintendo. This is what Epic discovered when trying to get others on board in its case against Apple. Why are you determined to defend these companies taking 30%? You know it can take tens/hundreds/thousands of people years to produce a game and games can cost tens to hundreds of millions of dollars, so in what way does making that multi-year effort available to a paying customer warrant taking 30% of the sale price? It's extortionate.

Xcloud is entirely custom blades and servers.

Why would Microsoft be making custom servers in which to insert their custom blades? Why not make xCloud blades that work in any of the variety of these existing server configurations? Do you have a source for this because it doesn't sound right. Or sensible. But does explain why Microsoft struggle with profitability.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

The %age cut to developers is OT for this thread. If you want to discuss it further, please start a new conversation.

 

[troyan]

Come on man, be real. Nobody is making custom servers, creating a new board to fit into a blade configuration is something a lot of companies do. Microsoft have never used custom hardware in an Xbox, it's been 80x86 or PowerPC CPU cores coupled with Nvidia or AMD GPUs forever. Sony have not done custom graphics hardware since PS2, although arguably Cell was probably quite an investment but then that effort and cost was shared with Toshiba and IBM. Nintendo's hardware isn't so much R&D than it is archaeology.

Don't overstate this, Nintendo, Microsoft and Sony are not developing their own technology outside of UI/controllers, they are licensing the use of technology that itself has been designed to be adaptable for specific customers: ARM, MIPS, 80x86, PowerPC CPU architectures, and AMD and Nvidia graphics technologies.

Xenos GPU was a custom GPU for Microsoft. It was way ahead of the time. In fact until the last generation every vendor has worked with companies to make custom chip for their consoles.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Xenos GPU was a custom GPU for Microsoft. It was way ahead of the time. In fact until the last generation every vendor has worked with companies to make custom chip for their consoles.

Sure, and the dual-bus architecture RSX was custom for Sony's PS3. Xenos in 360 introduced unified shader model before the technology hit PC graphics cards. Any change made makes something custom, but it's the degree of difference between the commodity design/architecture that really determine the R&D cost. Radeon were taking this approach much earlier than Nvidia.