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

[eastmen]

This has always baffled me. Phil Spencer, and other's of Microsoft, insinuate that marketing deals aren't viable for Xbox which sounds like a money thing. Sony most cannot afford to acquire Zenimax, or Activision-Blizzard. I struggle to reconcile these two situations.

Microsoft have had exclusive marketing deals for Call of Duty previously, and they had launch exclusivity for the two GTA IV DLC packs; one was fourteen months and the other six, so it released first on Xbox and later on PC and PS3.

Sony has 120m PS4's shipped while MS has less than 60m xbox ones. PS5 is also selling faster than xbox series. So for Sony they can present their market share and the estimated amount of units the developer/publisher would sell on playstation and on xbox and perhaps switch if the company is thinking about porting it to that also. They can then use that to negotiate good exclusivity deals or in the case of something like hogwarts a marketing deal + exclusive content.

In the case of something like Final Fantasy, MS has almost no market share in Japan which is one of the titles largest markets.

MS would have to do this over and over again with every game they want to get exclusivity or additional content for it. During the 360 era Ms was pretty close to Sony and lead them in units for a while so it was a lot easier to get exclusivity. last generation was different however.

So when you look at something like Zenimax a lot of those games were most thought of as PC and Xbox games but sony started getting exclusivity rights through deals. So MS had two options. One out offer sony on all those games or simply buy out zenimax. Over the long term its a lot cheaper to have bought Zenimax since now their profits become MS's profits. So when Starfield sells 60m copies over the next decade or so like Skyrim or becomes a game that people keep subscribing to gamepass to play over the next decade MS keeps all of that and now they don't have to deal with Starfield becoming multiplatform in the future . Also remember as the series becomes more popular the company making it is going to want more for exclusivity rights. To back to to the xbox 360 era you had games like Mass effect. MS helped fund the original and have exclusivity but lost it for the sequels. With Gears of war , MS funded that project and they were exclusives and then Epic wanted to start making it multiplatform and so they decided to purchase the IP to stop that.

It would also make Sony the most masterful negotiators known to mankind, which seems unlikely. Noting that the Amazing Spider-Man movies weren't as commercially successful as the Toby Maguire movies, to get the opportunity to relaunch the character from the mega-juggernaut that was the Avengers films, with Disney picking up the cheque, should have been a no brainer. And they got a videogame licence too.

Civil War, and subequent Avengers moved, did not need Spider-Man. Having him was cool, but the films would have been great without Spider-Man.

The deal marvel made with Sony was super lopsided because the company at the time was days away from going bankrupt.

Unpacking Spider-Man's Complicated History With Disney and Sony | the disney food blog

We're breaking down the Spider-Man deal between Sony and Disney! Take a look!

www.disneyfoodblog.com

Here is a pretty good run down of where the rights stand.

Things might be changing as its rumored that Universal will be removing the Marvel section of its parks in Florida after Epic universe and then zelda is done being built

 

[Nesh]

You are one hell of a story twister and story teller. Gears of War was never intented for PS3 release and you know it. Your whole argument is full of making things up but I ll focus on Gears of War. The PS3 built existed only for the purposes of testing Unreal Engine 3 on PS3 and was never intended to ever appear on PS3 ever. The IP was fully owned by MS in 2014 while Gears of War 3 was released in 2011.

Long-lost Gears of War 3 PS3 build released

It's 2021, and Gears of War 3 has been released for PlayStation 3. Really. Sort of. Last year, a long-lost prototype of…

www.eurogamer.net

"Gears of War lead game designer Cliff Bleszinski believes the reason why Epic Games sold the rights to the Gears of War franchise to Microsoft was that Epic simply didn't know "what to do with the future of the franchise" after the core development team left the company."

 

[Shifty Geezer]

MS turned it down for likely the same reasons Sony didn't purchase bethesda or Activision. Because the terms weren't favorable to them

Sure. The only reason I don't own a Buggati is 'the terms aren't favourable for me'. It's my choice, totally.

 

[chris1515]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1671016319595028480

https://comcom.govt.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0031/319576/Microsoft-Corporation2C-Activision-Blizzard-Inc-Statement-of-Issues-20-June-2023.pdf

 

[mr magoo]

Sony has $10 billion left to spend on acquisitions through 2023

Sony's latest financials confirm it has roughly $10 billion left of its total $18 billion budget to spend on strategic buyouts.

www.tweaktown.com

Well Sony isn’t poor either. If they wanted Bugatti they would get one.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

How when this Buggati cost's $70 billion?

 

[Nesh]

Sony has $10 billion left to spend on acquisitions through 2023

Sony's latest financials confirm it has roughly $10 billion left of its total $18 billion budget to spend on strategic buyouts.

www.tweaktown.com

Well Sony isn’t poor either. If they wanted Bugatti they would get one.

Microsoft Current Ratio 2010-2024 | MSFT

Current and historical current ratio for Microsoft (MSFT) from 2010 to 2024. Current ratio can be defined as a liquidity ratio that measures a company's ability to pay short-term obligations. Microsoft current ratio for the three months ending March 31, 2024 was <strong>1.24</strong>.

www.macrotrends.net

Sony Current Ratio 2010-2024 | SONY

Current and historical current ratio for Sony (SONY) from 2010 to 2024. Current ratio can be defined as a liquidity ratio that measures a company's ability to pay short-term obligations. Sony current ratio for the three months ending June 30, 2024 was <strong>0.63</strong>.

www.macrotrends.net

 

[mr magoo]

How when this Buggati cost's $70 billion?

But zenimax didn’t.

 

[mr magoo]

Microsoft Current Ratio 2010-2024 | MSFT

Current and historical current ratio for Microsoft (MSFT) from 2010 to 2024. Current ratio can be defined as a liquidity ratio that measures a company's ability to pay short-term obligations. Microsoft current ratio for the three months ending March 31, 2024 was <strong>1.24</strong>.

www.macrotrends.net

Sony Current Ratio 2010-2024 | SONY

Current and historical current ratio for Sony (SONY) from 2010 to 2024. Current ratio can be defined as a liquidity ratio that measures a company's ability to pay short-term obligations. Sony current ratio for the three months ending June 30, 2024 was <strong>0.63</strong>.

www.macrotrends.net

Right. I am not disputing that MS can spend more than Sony. But Sony has impressive amount of first party studios and are market leaders. They don’t need to spend that amount of money to be successful, they already are. As market leader they get deals that nobody else will. The same way as influencers get stuff for free, stuff that I have to pay hundreds of dollars for.
Plus they are still spending on more acquisitions. So if you will want to catch up or stay competitive how do you do that without spending money ?

 

[Nesh]

Right. I am not disputing that MS can spend more than Sony. But Sony has impressive amount of first party studios and are market leaders. They don’t need to spend that amount of money to be successful, they already are. As market leader they get deals that nobody else will. The same way as influencers get stuff for free, stuff that I have to pay hundreds of dollars for.
Plus they are still spending on more acquisitions. So if you will want to catch up or stay competitive how do you do that without spending money ?

Invest in other studios not buy out the big multiplatform ones.

 

[eastmen]

Sure. The only reason I don't own a Buggati is 'the terms aren't favourable for me'. It's my choice, totally.

If you wanted a Buggati you can go out and get loans . I can't buy one in cash but I have multiple properties that I can get first/second mortgages on and buy the car. I would never do that however because a cars value drops like a stone while the properties I own either pay for themselves or I live in them.

 

[eastmen]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1671016319595028480

https://comcom.govt.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0031/319576/Microsoft-Corporation2C-Activision-Blizzard-Inc-Statement-of-Issues-20-June-2023.pdf

Doesn't really do much as its not part of the contract for closing the deal. Also if MS is succesful in the FTC case and the CMA case neither of those two countries are big enough to do much

 

[mr magoo]

Invest in other studios not buy out the big multiplatform ones.

Hmm I think you are right. This would be easier to execute anyway. And if what Phil Spencer’s is saying is true, that they don’t want to be a better Sony rather create separate niche I think it would fit their plans nicely.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

If you wanted a Buggati you can go out and get loans .

Only if you are valued that highly, and want to take on the risk which is completely different to buying from ready cash.

And are you now equating Sony getting a loan to buy ABK where MS doesn't have to, as the same as MS turning down Marvel without any risk nor costs except spare-change to them? Choosing whether or not to buy a £2 ice-cream from cash in your wallet is no different to choosing a £500,000 mortgage on a house or £100 million loan to buy a company, right?

I guess the only thing stopping me from buying ABK is a lack of motivation to get $70 billion in loans. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[eastmen]

Only if you are valued that highly, and want to take on the risk which is completely different to buying from ready cash.

And are you now equating Sony getting a loan to buy ABK where MS doesn't have to, as the same as MS turning down Marvel without any risk nor costs except spare-change to them? Choosing whether or not to buy a £2 ice-cream from cash in your wallet is no different to choosing a £500,000 mortgage on a house or £100 million loan to buy a company, right?

I guess the only thing stopping me from buying ABK is a lack of motivation to get $70 billion in loans. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Sony has the option of selling stock to create funding. A person can't create stock. Disney did this to buy fox.

Sony was able to buy bungie for what 3billion and change. I don't see what would have stopped them from buying Bethesda. They wouldn't have needed other fund raising. Even now they have earmarked 10B for acquisitions.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Sony has the option of selling stock to create funding. A person can't create stock. Disney did this to buy fox.

1) That's "moving goalposts" from telling me I can get a Buggati if I just get a loan. I can't. There are plenty of situations where something we'd like to have is just too expensive. Sony can't buy MS! MS can't buy Apple. It's not a choice.

2) That ignores the point about the difference between Sony selling stock to buy ABK and MS considering whatever minimal sum Disney were asking for exclusive Marvel IP. Unless you consdier the two situations identical, that MS turning down Marvel because it was too much of their spare change to buy-in is identical to Sony having to sell stock or secure investment to buy ABK and so choosing not ot pursue that acquisition (not to mention the ensuing bidding war where they could always be out-bid), your parallel is still broken. MS not getting Marvel has nothing to do with Sony, nor would Sony need regulating over that situation even if the market as a whole is to have more robust regulation in place to prevent exclusives.

 

[eastmen]

1) That's "moving goalposts" from telling me I can get a Buggati if I just get a loan. I can't. There are plenty of situations where something we'd like to have is just too expensive. Sony can't buy MS! MS can't buy Apple. It's not a choice.

2) That ignores the point about the difference between Sony selling stock to buy ABK and MS considering whatever minimal sum Disney were asking for exclusive Marvel IP. Unless you consdier the two situations identical, that MS turning down Marvel because it was too much of their spare change to buy-in is identical to Sony having to sell stock or secure investment to buy ABK and so choosing not ot pursue that acquisition (not to mention the ensuing bidding war where they could always be out-bid), your parallel is still broken. MS not getting Marvel has nothing to do with Sony, nor would Sony need regulating over that situation even if the market as a whole is to have more robust regulation in place to prevent exclusives.

It's not. Go back and read my earlier post about the subject where I specifically bring up the option and reference Disney. Sony can't buy MS as they can't raise enough to purchase MS since its a 2.6trillion dollar company. But Sony's market cap is larger than bethesda was and larger than activision so they certianly could create stock for the deal. They could do a mix of loans / stock sell off / existing cash

2) No situation is identical. However if Sony felt the purchase was worth while they could have as I said use any of the options available to them. Sony purchasing ABK wouldn't have been impossible based on evaluations at the time and cash on hand for sony.

3) I used Spiderman as an example of why going down the road of what a company should or shouldn't be able to do with IP is silly. Go back and read my post. THe poster I responded to said that MS shouldn't be able to make previously multiplatform ip exclusive. I used Spiderman as an example.

But regardless of that the spiderman issue shows that not every opportunity is a good fit. Sony choose to make a deal with Disney but apparently MS passed on it. Which means that MS was offered the deal before sony or before sony said yes. The deal presented to MS may not have been great and because they said no Disney may have offered a better deal with sony. The rumors before MS bought Bethesda was that Sony was in talks to buy bethesda at least a year prior to the announcement. It is likely that the amount bethesda wanted was more than sony wanted to pay and so bethesda moved on and found a buyer willing to buy it. Just like when MS passed on spiderman , disney found someone willing to license the ip

 

[Sonic]

If you wanted a Buggati you can go out and get loans . I can't buy one in cash but I have multiple properties that I can get first/second mortgages on and buy the car. I would never do that however because a cars value drops like a stone while the properties I own either pay for themselves or I live in them.

You have little understanding of the exotic car market and their values. If you need to mortgage multiple properties to afford a Bugatti you can't afford a Bugatti.

 

[eastmen]

You have little understanding of the exotic car market and their values. If you need to mortgage multiple properties to afford a Bugatti you can't afford a Bugatti.

I don't really know as I wouldn't waste that much money on a car . I assumed they were the cost of a porshe or something but they seem to be more. I'd have to get a mortgage on two of my houses for one of those things. It be better off to buy two more houses lol

Like I said in my response to someone else , purchasing a car is not similar to purchasing a company. A car doesn't make you money and looses value as soon as you take delivery of it. Buying a company like Zenimax or ABK would create more wealth for the company purchasing it.

 

[Johnny Awesome]

MS passed on Spider-Man and Sony passed on Starfield. It's that simple.