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

[Sonic]

There are other costs associated with owning an exotic such as a Bugatti than the price of the dart itself. I can't afford a Bugatti for sure even though I could probably raise the money. I'm not looking willing to leverage myself for such a car even if that car maintains its value.

If Sony had the chance to purchase Bethesda for $7 billion and turned it down then that's just boneheaded by them. What a nice complement of devs that would have had for Sony and the rest of its devs. Good for MS to be able snatch Bethesda up instead.

I'm neutral upon the Activision Blizzard purchase. I see the value that it would bring to MS and be a huge boon for their big weakness which to me is a lack of steady compelling content. My biggest fear is how many dev teams MS will close down within a few years of the purchase, if any.

As an owner of a Series X and PS5 this wouldn't have an impact upon me. Besides, Bethesda games are always best experienced on a PC.

There was a time, I believe 1997, where Sony could have bought the movie rights to a ton of Marvel characters for $25 million but opted to go with just Spiderman instead. Talk about a boneheaded move.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

If Sony had the chance to purchase Bethesda for $7 billion and turned it down then that's just boneheaded by them. What a nice complement of devs that would have had for Sony and the rest of its devs. Good for MS to be able snatch Bethesda up instead.

We obviously will never know the details but we do know that Bethesda shopped around for a buyer.

Sony likely were either willing to offer less than Microsoft was willing to offer or weren't interested in Bethesda, period. So basically, Sony didn't feel that Bethesda would have been worth 7+ billion USD (if it went into a bidding war between them and MS).

Just like Bungie shopped around for a buyer, but MS weren't interested in them either at the price Sony were willing to spend or weren't interested period. The upcoming ABK deal, obviously altered Microsoft's valuation of Bungie. If the ABK deal weren't on the horizon, I could certainly see MS being interested enough to outbid Sony to acquire Bungie.

All of these deals are conducted out of the public eye, but they are often far more nuanced than people speculate. Did X deal get turned down because a party wasn't interested? Because they were interested but the price was too high? They were interested but another more interesting opportunity presented itself? Etc.

Microsoft likely overpaid for ABK. Why would they do that? To avoid a lengthy drawn out bid war in order to get the deal done as quickly as possible. Plonking down a large almost unreasonable sum of money would serve to scare off other interested parties leaving ABK with only one suitor and thus cut down the process by multiple months. They knew that they would have to face regulatory approval and expected that to take the better part of a year, but they didn't want to have additional months of negotiations and bidding on top of that. IE - try to get the deal closed and approved in roughly 1 year instead of it taking roughly 1.5-2 years.

Regards,
SB

 

[Deleted member 11852]

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.

Right, marketing exclusivity is about offsetting potential losses from what would otherwise be equal marketing, and even lost sales due to time-limited release. How can Microsoft afford to spend around a hundred billion dollars acquiring Zenimax along with trying to acquire Activision-Blizzard, but cannot afford to offset potentials losses on PlayStation?

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

Exactly, exclusivity is about earning the lost sales on platforms the publisher cannot sell on due to exclusivity. Very games games generate more than a few hundred million in profits, but Microsoft are willing to spent around $100bn. It doesn't add up.

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.

Why would Microsoft have to do this with every game? Sony don't and Nintendo don't.

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

What does this have to do with the situation most recently with Spider-Man in video games?

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.

What Zenimax games with Sony have exclusivity rights on? Perhaps there were some not on my radar, but I can't think of any and it stumped Google.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

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.

The conversation was 'removal of IP' related to MS (or anyone else) buying a studio/publisher and as a result, IP from the publisher that used to be multiplatform becoming exclusive, and 'removed' from other platforms as some people feel happens and others don't understand for new titles.

You cited Spider-Man as

... sony should have been blocked from purchasing Insomniac and making spiderman exclusive to PlayStation.

Sony did not buy a studio or IP or license and remove that IP from the other platforms. If MS put in a bid for SM and Sony outbid them, then we'd have an argument for Sony removing IP. However, MS turned down the opportunity. Unless one makes no distinction between being 'outbid' and 'declining' as you appear to be doing, the example doesn't fit the argument. In the discussion about IP being removed by studio acquisitions, the situation with SM doesn't contribute as evidence either way:

No console company removed the IP from the other platforms.
It wasn't offered as a multiplatform title by the IP owner.
Neither console company took control of the IP to make it exclusive, but the independent IP holder chose to have an exclusive title.
Sony buying Insomniac had nothing to do with SM being exclusive - it happened after the fact.

In this theoretical world of regulating acquisitions to ensure multiplatform IP doesn't become platform exclusive, why should Sony have been stopped from buying Insomniac over SM? That would have made no difference to Disney's exclusive AAA title decision. Why isn't Disney the target of regulation to prevent them signing exclusivity deals with their IP instead of Sony?

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.

From the first-hand evidence of the guy who made the deal. MS and Sony were approached at the same time.

The deal presented to MS may not have been great and because they said no Disney may have offered a better deal with sony.

Speculation that goes contrary to the first-hand account.

The rumors before MS bought Bethesda was that Sony was in talks to buy bethesda at least a year prior to the announcement.

Random rumour. https://www.pushsquare.com/news/202...da_parent_company_zenimax_and_all_its_studios

A Reddit poster, who goes by the name Zenimaxinsider of all things, claims that Sony is in talks to buy The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim publisher ZeniMax Media.

The "insider" suggests that the deal will be completed by the start of February 2020, but upcoming RPG Starfield has been cancelled in the process. Canned three months ago, Bethesda is said to be now all hands on deck with The Elder Scrolls VI and remakes of unspecified Fallout titles which are on their way next year. The poster claims they "can give more details soon." They won't, however, because this is completely nonsensical.

We know Starfield wasn't cancelled. The rumour-starter didn't follow up with details. They were clearly wrong. You're presenting this rumour from a random redditor in support of what view, precisely?

 

[eastmen]

Right, marketing exclusivity is about offsetting potential losses from what would otherwise be equal marketing, and even lost sales due to time-limited release. How can Microsoft afford to spend around a hundred billion dollars acquiring Zenimax along with trying to acquire Activision-Blizzard, but cannot afford to offset potentials losses on PlayStation?

Like I explain later, for MS they would have to keep purchasing exclusivity and each time out biding sony all the while if the game is worth being exclusive its popularity will go up meaning you are paying more with each new release. Buying Zenimax was a single purchase payment for all their current game and future games outside of the one liscensed by sony.

Exactly, exclusivity is about earning the lost sales on platforms the publisher cannot sell on due to exclusivity. Very games games generate more than a few hundred million in profits, but Microsoft are willing to spent around $100bn. It doesn't add up.

I explain above

Why would Microsoft have to do this with every game? Sony don't and Nintendo don't.

Do you think Sony only paid for exclusivity for FF7 remake and not FF16 and the second part of ff7 ?

What does this have to do with the situation most recently with Spider-Man in video games?

I was just posting about how complicated the rights to spiderman are in general and an article that breaks them down.

What Zenimax games with Sony have exclusivity rights on? Perhaps there were some not on my radar, but I can't think of any and it stumped Google.

Sony had the marketing rights to Death Loop

 

[eastmen]

The conversation was 'removal of IP' related to MS (or anyone else) buying a studio/publisher and as a result, IP from the publisher that used to be multiplatform becoming exclusive, and 'removed' from other platforms as some people feel happens and others don't understand for new titles.

And so Spiderman is no longer an IP I take it and its was of course given to Sony for free from Disney. That is what I have learned the last two days from this thread.

You cited Spider-Man as



Sony did not buy a studio or IP or license and remove that IP from the other platforms. If MS put in a bid for SM and Sony outbid them, then we'd have an argument for Sony removing IP. However, MS turned down the opportunity. Unless one makes no distinction between being 'outbid' and 'declining' as you appear to be doing, the example doesn't fit the argument. In the discussion about IP being removed by studio acquisitions, the situation with SM doesn't contribute as evidence either way:

No console company removed the IP from the other platforms.
It wasn't offered as a multiplatform title by the IP owner.
Neither console company took control of the IP to make it exclusive, but the independent IP holder chose to have an exclusive title.
Sony buying Insomniac had nothing to do with SM being exclusive - it happened after the fact.

In this theoretical world of regulating acquisitions to ensure multiplatform IP doesn't become platform exclusive, why should Sony have been stopped from buying Insomniac over SM? That would have made no difference to Disney's exclusive AAA title decision. Why isn't Disney the target of regulation to prevent them signing exclusivity deals with their IP instead of Sony?

True or False Shifty .

Did the Spiderman IP exist on consoles all the way back to the atari ?

If the answer is yes then Sony removed the ip from other platforms.

From the first-hand evidence of the guy who made the deal. MS and Sony were approached at the same time.

Speculation that goes contrary to the first-hand account.

Random rumour. https://www.pushsquare.com/news/202...da_parent_company_zenimax_and_all_its_studios


We know Starfield wasn't cancelled. The rumour-starter didn't follow up with details. They were clearly wrong. You're presenting this rumour from a random redditor in support of what view, precisely?

I have simply stated that Sony had a chance to purchase ABK and Zenimax which they did as both were up for sale. Sony didn't purchase them and thus it's Sonys fault for not having Zenimax ip on their platform anymore. The same as it's MS's fault for passing on the chance for Spiderman the IP that apparently isn't an IP and was given to sony for free

 

[Shortbread]

More drama...

https://twitter.com/x/status/1671253218238812160

As Microsoft pushes back against the Federal Trade Commission’s attempt to block its proposed Activision bid, a parallel legal battle is adding an intriguing twist.

Driving the news: In an appeal to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court, lawyers representing a group of gamers suing to block the deal over antitrust concerns point to a purported internal Microsoft email they describe as “uncontroverted evidence that Microsoft had the intention to put its main competition, the Sony PlayStation, out of the market.”

• The contents of the message are redacted, but the plaintiffs say it was sent by Microsoft’s head of Xbox game studios (Matt Booty) to Microsoft’s chief financial officer for Xbox (Tim Stuart).
• The passage appears to be from Exhibit K, a sealed document that the gamers’ lawyers and Microsoft’s attorneys have been arguing over.
• In legal documents, Microsoft characterized the email as an “internal exchange” that should remain sealed; a Microsoft rep declined to comment further.
• Microsoft's lawyers have said the document has had no bearing on the court’s decisions.

Be smart: This suit is a side drama to the FTC’s antitrust case against Microsoft, which is speeding toward more hearings this week.

• Judge Jacqueline Corley, the same justice overseeing the initial gamer suit, recently agreed to put a short-term hold on the merger — but Microsoft fears that any delay could jeopardize the deal.

What's next: Microsoft and the FTC both shared their witness lists today for their case's hearings this month.

• The list includes Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella, PlayStation chief Jim Ryan, Bethesda head of publishing Pete Hines, Activision CEO Bobby Kotick and numerous Xbox executives, including Booty and Stuart.

 

[Shortbread]

Holy shit, this just made the news broadcast!

 

[BRiT]

More drama...

Let's think about this for just one second. If it was true about the "supposedly says" part, then all of the regulators would have it and have it provided as their evidence against the deal. That isn't the situation.

I highly doubt the "supposedly says" claim.

 

[Remij]

Let's think about this for just one second. If it was true about the "supposedly says" part, then all of the regulators would have it and have it provided as their evidence against the deal. That isn't isn't situation.

Let's think about it even further... This document is from the "gamers lawsuit" which was already dismissed by the judge.........who just happens to be the same judge that is presiding over the FTC case

 

[Shortbread]

Let's think about this for just one second. If it was true about the "supposedly says" part, then all of the regulators would have it and have it provided as their evidence against the deal. That isn't the situation.

I highly doubt the "supposedly says" claim.

Or, Microsoft never turned over said email.

What I find telling is this...

• In legal documents, Microsoft characterized the email as an “internal exchange” that should remain sealed; a Microsoft rep declined to comment further.

 

[BRiT]

Or, Microsoft never turned over said email.

So then how did this "gamers lawsuit" get it? Surely you're not saying they are better than the regulators of over 40 countries.

 

[Shortbread]

Let's think about it even further... This document is from the "gamers lawsuit" which was already dismissed by the judge.........who just happens to be the same judge that is presiding over the FTC case

I personally don't think this is going to move the needle in any direction, but it still hilarious to see a well known executive stating such a thing.

 

[BRiT]

I personally don't think this is going to move the needle in any direction, but it still hilarious to see a well known executive stating such a thing.

No one knows what it says. All we have are the highly biased allegations from console warriors that spun this narrative that is now being reported and interpreted as facts.

 

[Shortbread]

So then how did this "gamers lawsuit" get it? Surely you're not saying they are better than the regulators of over 40 countries.

I don't know, maybe that "email" led to the lawsuit in the first place. I'm just enjoying the meltdowns, shills, and excuses going on across social media.

 

[Shortbread]

No one knows what it says. All we have are the highly biased allegations from console warriors that spun this narrative that is now being reported and interpreted as facts.

It's console warriors on both sides, highly entrenched in what is essentially a console [warriors] proxy war.

 

[Remij]

I personally don't think this is going to move the needle in any direction, but it still hilarious to see a well known executive stating such a thing.

"Allegedly"

The only interpretation we have is from "the gamers" lawyers

 

[Shortbread]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1671247628544122882

I can't wait until this over, so that the adults can return on both sides.

 

[eastmen]

I personally don't think this is going to move the needle in any direction, but it still hilarious to see a well known executive stating such a thing.

About as hilarious as the redacted bit that people claim is Jim Ryan saying that MS's purchase of ABK doesn't matter.

Untill either is unsealed it doesn't really matter much

 

[Shortbread]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1671258906516144128