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

[eastmen]

Anyone following this one? I have to wait for a final article here, but ATVI was basically reducing MS revenue share to even get COD on Xbox or they would skip their platform entirely. Basically held them hostage over PS dominance

Yes I posted about it above. I think it pretty much shows what many have pointed out about the third place player being so far away from the other two in terms of market share. It is much more costly for MS to attract games to the lower install base. Remember this is just to have the title on their platform. So for exclusivity it would be even more expensive vs what sony would have to pay.

Unlike Sony loosing COD if MS lost COD it would likely be the end of Xbox.

 

[Shortbread]

Anyone following this one? I have to wait for a final article here, but ATVI was basically reducing MS revenue share to even get COD on Xbox or they would skip their platform entirely. Basically held them hostage over PS dominance

Was COD selling that poorly on XB1 (with a base of 50ish million units sold)?

How about COD unit sales on Series consoles?

 

[eastmen]

Was COD selling that poorly on XB1 (with a base of 50ish million units sold)?

How about COD unit sales on Series consoles?

I'd wager it was likely that Sony was offering a certain amount of money to make COD exclusive and ABK went back to MS for them to keep it on the market.

We wouldn't know unless the full details of the contracts and negations happen

 

[Shortbread]

if MS lost COD it would likely be the end of Xbox.

So, the only 'good thing' Xbox has going for it, is COD? This sounds hyperbolic, IMHO. Just like Sony, Microsoft can survive as well, by making good games.

 

[eastmen]

So, the only 'good thing' Xbox has going for it is COD? This sounds hyperbolic, IMHO. Just like Sony, Microsoft can survive as well, by making good games.

Sony has the dominate market postion. MS doesn't. A decline of hardware sales will more negatively affect MS vs Sony. IF MS has 16% of the market as they claim dropping down to 10% would hurt a lot more than a company going from say 40% to 34% .

 

[Shifty Geezer]

But it does because again its an IP that has existed on other platforms including xbox previously.

But you blamed Sony for making it exclusive. They didn't; Disney did. And you intonated the regulation being asked to prevent IP becoming exclusive should have been levied on Sony for 1) buying Insomniac and 2) making the game exclusive, but 1) Insomniac was bought after making SM so regulation to stop Sony buying Insomniac on account of SM would make no sense, and 2) Sony didn't make the game exclusive, Disney did. So even in a hypothetical world where console companies are prevented from buying studios with history of multiplat IPs, there'd be no need ot regulate Sony buying Insomniac on account of SM because it wasn't the studio acquisition that made the game exclusive, and 2) the regulations would have to extend to non-console IP holders to prevent Disney pursuing an exclusive deal which is different to the argument being made about console companies buying IP and making it platform exclusive.

Your reasons for citing that example don't tally with the argument for regulating these companies. Again, you said,

sony should have been blocked from purchasing Insomniac

Why, when that acquisition was not the cause of the IP becoming PS exclusive?

FF is also another IP that has existed on other platforms all the way back to to the nes , its origin system. Add to that we know that Sony used its Sony Music branch to work out the deal to get FF exclusive on Playstation. So sony has been playing the game from the beginning.

I'm not discussing the reasons for regulation and how guilty Sony is. I'm only saying the SM example shouldn't be used as you used it. It is not an example illustrating that "if multiplat IP is to prevented by regulation from becoming platform exclusive, buying Insomniac should have been blocked because SM ended up a PS exclusive."

You would have to ask them. I'd of course wonder why an xbox or pc fan would post a negative review for a game that wont be out for another 2+ months.

Big assumption. There are plenty of people burnt on Bethesda releases. FO '76 was shite at launch. Given the content of the removed post, it strikes me as far more likely from someone who's bought Bethesda games to be choked on early bugs and gotten sick of it, making a protest review about Bethesda's expected launch quality, than a random PS fan. Hell, it could even be a disgruntles ex-employee for all we know. Ultimately, there's absolutely zero information on motives. One has to make a lot of assumptions to make it about Sony fans and use it as evidence of such.

 

[Shortbread]

Sony has the dominate market postion. MS doesn't. A decline of hardware sales will more negatively affect MS vs Sony. IF MS has 16% of the market as they claim dropping down to 10% would hurt a lot more than a company going from say 40% to 34% .

So, to end this dominate market position, is to own Activision/COD, and put Sony on defense?

What happens if Sony is in the same position that Microsoft is in now, however, without the finances that Microsoft has on digging themselves out? Bye, bye Sony?

 

[BRiT]

So, to end this dominate market position, is to own Activision/COD, and put Sony on defense?

What happens if Sony is in the same position that Microsoft is in now, however, without the finances that Microsoft has on digging themselves out? Bye, bye Sony?

Let's find out in 10 years???

 

[eastmen]

But you blamed Sony for making it exclusive. They didn't; Disney did. And you intonated the regulation being asked to prevent IP becoming exclusive should have been levied on Sony for 1) buying Insomniac and 2) making the game exclusive, but 1) Insomniac was bought after making SM so regulation to stop Sony buying Insomniac on account of SM would make no sense, and 2) Sony didn't make the game exclusive, Disney did. So even in a hypothetical world where console companies are prevented from buying studios with history of multiplat IPs, there'd be no need ot regulate Sony buying Insomniac on account of SM because it wasn't the studio acquisition that made the game exclusive, and 2) the regulations would have to extend to non-console IP holders to prevent Disney pursuing an exclusive deal which is different to the argument being made about console companies buying IP and making it platform exclusive.

So Disney created and released the spiderman games on playstation and then bought insomniac to continue releasing more ?

Your reasons for citing that example don't tally with the argument for regulating these companies. Again, you said,


Why, when that acquisition was not the cause of the IP becoming PS exclusive?


I'm not discussing the reasons for regulation and how guilty Sony is. I'm only saying the SM example shouldn't be used as you used it. It is not an example illustrating that "if multiplat IP is to prevented by regulation from becoming platform exclusive, buying Insomniac should have been blocked because SM ended up a PS exclusive."


Big assumption. There are plenty of people burnt on Bethesda releases. FO '76 was shite at launch. Given the content of the removed post, it strikes me as far more likely from someone who's bought Bethesda games to be choked on early bugs and gotten sick of it, making a protest review about Bethesda's expected launch quality, than a random PS fan. Hell, it could even be a disgruntles ex-employee for all we know. Ultimately, there's absolutely zero information on motives. One has to make a lot of assumptions to make it about Sony fans and use it as evidence of such.

You continue to try and move goal posts.

If IP that was released on a platform must always be released on said paltform then it would have to go for all IP . Spiderman is an IP that was released on many platforms across the entirety of home consoels and so it should continue to be released on all platforms it has in the past. That is what it comes down to.

You are trying to move goal posts to make it okay for what sony is doing.

 

[Shortbread]

Let's find out in 10 years???

Why? Why can't Microsoft take the same risky bet on seeing where Xbox is in 10yrs, without having Activision under their belt?

 

[eastmen]

So, to end this dominate market position, is to own Activision/COD, and put Sony on defense?

What happens if Sony is in the same position that Microsoft is in now, however, without the finances that Microsoft has on digging themselves out? Bye, bye Sony?

You are the only one saying that.

MS buying ABK wouldn't be putting Sony on the defense because it is the market leader.


Sony continues to buy studios and make 3rd party deals for exclusivity to keep the playstation platform as the market leader. In every generation except one sony has been market leader. In one generation sony were in second place. MS has always been in third place in the market. MS launching first at $200-$300 cheaper hardware and having COD exclucsive and then exclusive COD content still didn't move the needle for Sony to move into 3rd place. All it did was make them more competitive and many would say made the industry much better with sony producing its most diverse portfolio of games yet during that generation as well as innovated hardware from nintendo.

At the end of the day the closer the 3 console makers are the better the experience for the user. MS continuing to loose market share would have them exit the business and having only two consoles is worse for us the users.

 

[eastmen]

Why? Why can't Microsoft take the same risky bet on seeing were Xbox is in 10yrs, without having Activision under their belt?

Why should they ? They are in a position where they can buy the company vs having to go without the titles.

 

[iroboto]

Was COD selling that poorly on XB1 (with a base of 50ish million units sold)?

How about COD unit sales on Series consoles?

Let me find the post. It came up on the FTC trial, I suspect it will become news somewhat soon. Let’s just hold on.

Activision Wanted Higher Revenue Share To Put Call of Duty On Xbox

In order to keep putting Call of Duty on Xbox, Activision wanted a higher revenue share from Microsoft per Sarah Bond.

insider-gaming.com

Bond said that Activision CEO Bobby Kotick stated that if Microsoft didn’t “move beyond standard revenue share” the company had no intent to put the series on the new Xbox console (Xbox Series X|S).

“It was clear that Call of Duty would be on PS5 and that would not have been good if it was not also on Xbox if it was launching at the same time,” Bond said during her testimony.

She added: “Time was limited. We had players whose expectations we wanted to meet, so we ultimately made a decision that it was the best thing for the business.”

This is a bit harsher than I expected. Let’s not even discuss about buying exclusivity; They have to already pay for availability

 

[eastmen]

Let me find the post. It came up on the FTC trial, I suspect it will become news somewhat soon. Let’s just hold on.

Activision Wanted Higher Revenue Share To Put Call of Duty On Xbox

In order to keep putting Call of Duty on Xbox, Activision wanted a higher revenue share from Microsoft per Sarah Bond.

insider-gaming.com

This is a bit harsher than I expected. Let’s not even discuss about buying exclusivity; They have to already pay for availability

@iroboto @Shortbread do you remember another company that dared to dream while being in third place that lost access to one of the largest 3rd party companies games ? Do you remember their follow up console and can you name it ?


Now has similar happened to a previous first place console maker ?

 

[Shortbread]

You are the only one saying that.

Yes, because I posed the question.

MS buying ABK wouldn't be putting Sony on the defense because it is the market leader.

So, Sony arguing that Microsoft owning Activision/COD will have a negative impact on their business, is nonsense? But, Microsoft not getting Activision/COD means lights out for Xbox? I'm calling bullshit on both Sony's and Microsoft's dependency on Activision. As Phil Spencer has stated, 'Xbox will exist' if Activision Blizzard deal falls through.

Sony continues to buy studios and make 3rd party deals for exclusivity to keep the PlayStation platform as the market leader.

Nobody is stopping Microsoft from purchasing small to midrange studios. Hell, regulators allowed the ZeniMax/Bethesda deal to go through. Now that certain regulators (CMA, FTC, etc.) are challenging the Activision acquisition, then it's problem suddenly.

In every generation except one sony has been market leader. In one generation sony were in second place. MS has always been in third place in the market.

So, Sony is number one when it's just them and Microsoft, but for Microsoft to be in third place, it must include Nintendo?

So, if we're including Nintendo, then the PS4 was in second place during the prior generation, and PS5 more than likely this generation (2nd place). So, the market leader is actually Nintendo! Or, are we not counting Nintendo depending on the goalpost that we're trying to secure?

MS launching first at $200-$300 cheaper hardware and having COD exclucsive and then exclusive COD content still didn't move the needle for Sony to move into 3rd place.

Are we talking the XB360/PS3 era here, if so, then PS3 and XB360 were virtually tied in lifetime sales, putting them behind Wii sales (look, Nintendo market leader again!).

All it did was make them more competitive and many would say made the industry much better with sony producing its most diverse portfolio of games yet during that generation as well as innovated hardware from nintendo.

So, it good for Sony and Nintendo to stay on defense because it's good for the industry, because it drives innovation and great games? So, Microsoft's only option on being innovative and creating great games, is to purchase major publishers? Got'cha!

MS continuing to loose market share would have them exit the business and having only two consoles is worse for us the users.

If Microsoft can't compete with the current development teams they have, this sounds like a management problem, a serious disconnected one at that.

Why should they ? They are in a position where they can buy the company vs having to go without the titles.

Who fault is that? Microsoft has been in the console gaming industry for more than 20yrs now. Sulking that it's Sony fault that no one is purchasing their systems at the rate of their competitor(s) is quite telling of a management issue, and not a need for more studios/publishers on being competitive.

 

[eastmen]

Yes, because I posed the question.

And you have my answer

So, Sony arguing that Microsoft owning Activision/COD will have a negative impact on their business, is nonsense? But, Microsoft not getting Activision/COD means lights out for Xbox? I'm calling bullshit on both. As Phil Spencer has stated, 'Xbox will exist' if Activision Blizzard deal falls through.

But sony has already said that it wouldn't that has come out in the ftc trial today

Nobody is stopping Microsoft from purchasing small to midrange studios. Hell, regulators allowed the ZeniMax/Bethesda deal to go through. Not that certain regulators (CMA, FTC, etc.) are challenging the Activision acquisition, then it's problem.

And they shouldn't because it wouldn't actually harm Sony as per Sony's own comments on the situation.

So, Sony is number one when it's just them and Microsoft, but for Microsoft to be in third place, it must include Nintendo?

I included Nintendo for each generation that Sony was in the market.

So, if we're including Nintendo, then the PS4 was in second place during the prior generation, and PS5 more than likely this generation (2nd place). So, the market leader is actually Nintendo! Or, are we not counting Nintendo depending on the goalpost that we're trying to secure?

Sony has been in first place for every generation except the ps3 generation. Sony outsold the N64/Gamecube and Wii u which nintendo had to abandon and release a new console for.

Are we talking the XB360/PS3 era here, if so, then PS3 and XB360 were virtually tied in lifetime sales, putting them behind Wii sales (look, Nintendo market leader again!).



So, it good for Sony and Nintendo to stay on defense because it's good for the industry, because it drives innovation and great games? So, Microsoft's only option on being innovative and creating great games, is to purchase major publishers? Got'cha!


If Microsoft can't compete with the current development teams they have, this sounds like a management problem, a serious disconnected one at that.


Who fault is that? Microsoft has been in the console gaming industry for more than 20yrs now. Sulking that it's Sony fault that no one is purchasing their systems at the rate of their competitor(s) is quite telling of a management issue, not they need more studios/publishers on being competive.

I think you should go ahead and re read what you have brought up.

Sony continues to buy companys , I believe 12-15 in the last 4/5 years correct? Why can't they compete without purchasing companies ?

Why does sony need to purchase exclucsivity rights from 3rd party companies ? Why can't they compete with thier own games ?


MS is doing exactly what Sony is doing. You can say the scope is different sure but that doesn't really matter because MS is in last place and always has been and in order to move up from last place they need to make bigger moves than the other companies.


That's the way it works.

 

[Sonic]

@iroboto @Shortbread do you remember another company that dared to dream while being in third place that lost access to one of the largest 3rd party companies games ? Do you remember their follow up console and can you name it ?


Now has similar happened to a previous first place console maker ?

SEGA legitimately lost EA's support all on their own. Maybe I shouldn't assume you're speaking of Dreamcast but it sure seems like it.

 

[Shortbread]

And you have my answer

But sony has already said that it wouldn't that has come out in the ftc trial today


And they shouldn't because it wouldn't actually harm Sony as per Sony's own comments on the situation.


I included Nintendo for each generation that Sony was in the market.




Sony has been in first place for every generation except the ps3 generation. Sony outsold the N64/Gamecube and Wii u which nintendo had to abandon and release a new console for.



I think you should go ahead and re read what you have brought up.

Sony continues to buy companys , I believe 12-15 in the last 4/5 years correct? Why can't they compete without purchasing companies ?

Why does sony need to purchase exclucsivity rights from 3rd party companies ? Why can't they compete with thier own games ?


MS is doing exactly what Sony is doing. You can say the scope is different sure but that doesn't really matter because MS is in last place and always has been and in order to move up from last place they need to make bigger moves than the other companies.


That's the way it works.

eastmen I said my piece, and we're not going to change each other minds on this subject. Seeing your prior responses to others in thread, I see that you're very passionate on your position, which is fine. Me, I don't have a dog in the fight, even though purchasing a second major publisher is somewhat worrisome in a industry that is already shrinking and moving more towards a game subscription/cloud based model, full of microtransactions, that I'm not too keen on.

Let me find the post. It came up on the FTC trial, I suspect it will become news somewhat soon. Let’s just hold on.

Activision Wanted Higher Revenue Share To Put Call of Duty On Xbox

In order to keep putting Call of Duty on Xbox, Activision wanted a higher revenue share from Microsoft per Sarah Bond.

insider-gaming.com

This is a bit harsher than I expected. Let’s not even discuss about buying exclusivity; They have to already pay for availability

So, because Microsoft mismanaged XBO launch (TV-TV-TV!) and later it's development houses, Bobby Kotick saw an opening/opportunity on squeezing out more money (from the revenue share) with threats of not putting COD on Series consoles? Yup, sounds like something a greedy CEO like Kotick would do.

 

[stu11]

Microsoft starting of their FTC defense with the "poor, poor me, we've been in last place for 20 + years" bullshit victim defense.

Other documents shared by IGN describe Microsoft’s previous consoles with similar negative language. The company claimed that the original Xbox console was outsold by both Sony and Nintendo by a “significant margin”, and claimed that it hasn’t stopped “losing” the “console wars” since.

The only problem is that the OG Xbox beat the Gamecube by over 2 million units over their respective lifetimes, so thats a lie.

Microsoft’s first system, the Xbox, sold about 24 million units, while the GameCube lagged behind with 21.74 million.

So Xbox beat Nintendo at their first attempt and was running neck and neck with the "market leader" Sony for most of the Xbox360 generation until MS threw it away with their bonkers decision to focus on Kinect and turning the Xbox One into a Cable receiver. Sounds like management failure more than anything. I guess they want a free pass for their past failures. Typical.

Would have added this to my previous post but my 10 minute editing limit ran out...

Sounds like Bethesda signed the deal with Disney to release the Indiana Jones games on multiple formats and then "changed" the deal after the MS takeover to make it exclusive to Xbox/PC.

Hines was asked by FTC lawyers to confirm if, before Bethesda was acquired by Microsoft, Disney had a signed agreement with its parent Zenimax to “make an Indiana Jones game for multiple consoles”, to which he replied, “yes”.
The publishing boss was then asked to confirm if, after Microsoft’s acquisition, Disney brought up the issue of which consoles the Indiana Jones game would be released for. Hines again replied, “yes”.
He then confirmed that Bethesda had later amended the Disney agreement, and that Indiana Jones will now be an Xbox and PC exclusive, and a day-one release on Xbox Game Pass.

But apparently MS doesn't remove games from competing systems.

 

[iroboto]

So, because Microsoft mismanaged XBO launch (TV-TV-TV!) and later it's development houses, Bobby Kotick saw an opening/opportunity on squeezing out more money (from the revenue share) with threats of not putting COD on Series consoles? Yup, sounds like something a greedy CEO like Kotick would do

Not sure.

I guess it just puts the light here on some of the assumptions that Xbox can just buy exclusivity. The situation maybe more dire than expected. If they strong armed Xbox into this, it’s a fairly big deal to even threaten that they would skip the console entirely.

Provides some insight into what the leadership power that Sony holds this generation can grant. Not only are they ahead and have a marketing deal to ensure they sell more on PS, Xbox is further penalized.