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

[eastmen]

My post was supposed to be a response to yours. Somehow I missed quoting you. It was a hectic day. Apologies.

Reading some of the the arguments got me thinking of the SC Meta case when reading about this one. The moment when, I believe it was the government attorney, in reply to a question, stopped himself mid-sentence. "I think that view is simp...." deep pause. The justices chuckle and tell him to go ahead and say it. Call my view simple. It can be nerve wracking in court. Nervous laughter and corrections from the presiding judge(s) are pretty common. As to the judges questions here, I would love to hear some of the recordings to get a bit of context. Just fun stuff.

And I completely agree with you, if that wasn't clear. The judge didn't seem to be buying much of anything from the FTC and was a bit skeptical about some of the testimony from one of MS's economic experts. Did you catch what that one guy was paid? Think it was the Harvard economics professor. Something like $2000/ hour. Makes some of what I have to ponder just seem like chicken feed.

Yes , what was it that the judge said. If sony signed the contract we wouldn't be here then ? Is that what she had said ?

I can never know what someone else is thinking but if I had to go off her comments it would likely be that she wont grant the injunction.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

As per the judge's question, what's stopping Sony, or anyone else with sufficient resources, from developing competing content that rivals what they may lose?

We never had Twitch and GaaS and whatnot before. Can you point to a mammoth IP that got displaced that wasn't an old-school stand-alone title that grew too long in the tooth? I can't think of any. No-one has displaced FF or Halo or COD. Indeed, many have tried to challenge COD but very few got close. Minecraft hasn't been replaced with Portal Knights or Cube World or Dragon Quest Builders. Fortnite...ha ha ha! You think someone can create a Fortnite replacement??

If PS lost COD, they'd need a game that all the Streamers are going to play instead. Those streamers want to target the largest engaged audience, which will be the multiplatform COD by default. It's not a realistic prospect, and I think the idea "you can just create an alternative" doesn't understand modern gaming landscape of entrenched, immutable behemoths. It's not like typical commodity items - a new car or TV or air fryer. Games are a culture, more akin to religion in terms of user engagement than a possession.

Put another way, if rivals were possible, we'd see them happening anyway. We'd see all the COD eating into the COD market right now. The absence of a key title on your platform doesn't create an opportunity but a hole; one you might fill but in a way unlikely to emulate the missed title.

 

[see colon]

Can you point to a mammoth IP that got displaced that wasn't an old-school stand-alone title that grew too long in the tooth?

Often games are replaced not with a game that's a direct analogy to them. Sometimes whole genres just fade away. I would say that boxing games, like Fight Night, or Knockout Kings before, have basically faded away from relevance. EA isn't making boxing games anymore. I know there's a newer one made by an indie developer, but it's failed to make a large impact as well.

Golf games have also faded from relevance. While they still make them, none of them are as impactful as Tiger Woods. And while I haven't played one of those in years, I can't imagine that EA hadn't worked "surprise mechanics" into them.
The Cabela's hunting games were an annual franchise in Activision's lineup. I suppose they were displaced by modern hunting games. But maybe those are old school now.

COD itself displaced Medal of Honor. The original* WWII FPS. And can we say COD displaced Halo as the defacto console FPS.

 

[arandomguy]

I think the practical problem with the idea of just creating new IP is that while enthusiasts like to push the idea of a "good" game equaling success the reality is from a pure sales and public success stand point in terms of the success levels we are discussing (eg. COD) that there's basically no rhyme or reason for which games end up that successful. Even more so in terms of replacing an existing IP, and even more completely displacing it.

For example take one of the latest mega hits in Fortnite, how many people even predicted it would be successful? I think the original enthusiasts reaction to it was along the lines of why Epic wasn't developing it's Unreal IP.

As such the idea of producing something to replace CoD's place in the culture (for lack of a better term) is a conceptually easy idea but in practice would basically be a complete lottery. This is also similar to why the idea of Microsoft just investing in developing new IP vs. acquisitions is also much easier said than done.

 

[Johnny Awesome]

So true. Who needs the Beatles? We'll just replace them with another 4some! People have been trying that for 50 years.

Established IPs are hard to replace. They have real value.

MS has actually done pretty well to establish Halo, Forza, Gears, and Fable even.

They know how hard it is. That's why they want to buy IP so much

 

[see colon]

So true. Who needs the Beatles? We'll just replace them with another 4some! People have been trying that for 50 years.

Boy bands successfully replicated The Beatles retail success in the 1990s-2000s, and now KPop has taken that model to a level of success. Obviously The Beatles had a cultural impact, but I'd argue that NKOTB displaced them for the age demographic exactly in the same way that a modern game displaces an aging IP. And NKOTB gets displaced by NSync or whoever after that. So on and so forth.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Hmmm, something just struck me as odd. During the FTC trial Sony testified under oath that they would withhold development units from MS if MS acquired ABK, which means Sony would deliberately choose to have COD be exclusive to MS next gen consoles for X number of years. Development time means that might be as many as 3 COD titles as there are 3 studios working on COD in order for them to have a yearly release, IIRC.

Looking back, MS testified under oath that ES6 is likely to release with the "next gen" consoles. So does that mean Sony would also prefer ES6 to be exclusive to MS next gen consoles in order to prevent MS from getting any details on their next gen console? Phil Spencer will no longer go on the record as saying that ES6 will be console exclusive to Xbox (like he did a year or two ago) and has testified under oath saying that Microsoft currently aren't sure if it will or won't be exclusive.

I wonder if MS will still give "next gen" dev kits to Bungie and whatever studio is handling Sony's MLB game? Or if MS will also deliberately make those studio's games exclusive to next gen PlayStation in order to prevent Sony getting their hands on early dev. kits?

"Next gen" might be a messy launch.

Regards,
SB

 

[fehu]

If I get it, MS and Sony have always prioritized some studios over others during the launch timeframe, both to reduce info leaks and because devkit in that phase are rare and fast changing.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Often games are replaced not with a game that's a direct analogy to them. Sometimes whole genres just fade away.

That's the organic death of a franchise though. We're talking about the franchise being alive and well, but removed from a platform. That gives gamers the choice of either sticking with the preferred console without the preferred game and finding something else to play, or changing console. Creating 'something else to play' isn't straight forward and never has been. Think of all the attempts Sony has made, such as MAG, Warhawk, Killzone, Uncharted Multiplayer...none has managed massive players and gone on to become a perpetual GaaS. Isn't that why they bought Bungie?!

 

[iroboto]

That's the organic death of a franchise though. We're talking about the franchise being alive and well, but removed from a platform. That gives gamers the choice of either sticking with the preferred console without the preferred game and finding something else to play, or changing console. Creating 'something else to play' isn't straight forward and never has been. Think of all the attempts Sony has made, such as MAG, Warhawk, Killzone, Uncharted Multiplayer...none has managed massive players and gone on to become a perpetual GaaS. Isn't that why they bought Bungie?!

The closest example I can think of, SF leaving Xbox and then filling it with Killer Instinct.

The KI remake is probably one of the best FG games released in a while, it just never grew large enough to get a massive crowd, a situation where had it released on many platforms maybe there would be a sequel today.

 

[Nesh]

The closest example I can think of, SF leaving Xbox and then filling it with Killer Instinct.

The KI remake is probably one of the best FG games released in a while, it just never grew large enough to get a massive crowd, a situation where had it released on many platforms maybe there would be a sequel today.

Killer Instinct was coming to XBOX before SF was announced for PC and PS4 only.

It is indeed though an amazing fighting game. Very unique and super polished. Its a shame it died off.

I hated the XBOXOne dpad though. It wasnt helping it. Still it deserved more love.

 

[see colon]

That's the organic death of a franchise though. We're talking about the franchise being alive and well, but removed from a platform.

I think the modern Tomb Raider trilogy was held back by the second game being Xbox exclusive for a year. When 2013's Tomb Raider was released it felt like a big deal. Rise of the Tomb Raider was hamstrung by it's contractual obligation to launch on a console with a tiny install base, and an impressive last gen version that was still obviously last gen. When Shadow of the Tomb raider released at the same time on PC, PS4 and Xbox One, it was critically acclaimed but mostly ignored by consumers. Shadow is the worst selling game of that trilogy.

 

[Cyan]

South Africa has approved the deal.

Merger Alert: Anchorage Merger Sub. Inc And Activision Blizzard Inc

The Competition Tribunal (“Tribunal”) has unconditionally approved the proposed merger, which is a global transaction, whereby Anchorage Merger Sub Inc. (“Anchorage”), a wholly owned subsidiary of Microsoft Corporation (“Microsoft”) intends to acquire Activision Blizzard, Inc. (“Activision”).

www.comptrib.co.za

 

[eastmen]

So true. Who needs the Beatles? We'll just replace them with another 4some! People have been trying that for 50 years.

Established IPs are hard to replace. They have real value.

MS has actually done pretty well to establish Halo, Forza, Gears, and Fable even.

They know how hard it is. That's why they want to buy IP so much

There have been plenty of extremely successful music bands tho

Hell Jackson has outsold the beatles in total album sales and elvis is right behind the beatles. I am sure more contemporary artists like Taylor swift would have sold a lot more if streaming didn't take place.

So I am not sure what you mean by replacing the beatles. Music changed , even the beatles albums from their first to the last are nothing alike


As for Sony , a lot of people here feel that MS should build their own studios and make sucessful IP instead of buying up other devs or publishers. However Look at sony. They had moderate to highly successful FPS games like Resistance , Killzone , Mag and SOCOM. If Sony just continued to foster those studios or created new ones to keep them going when the original studios were bored of those games they would have several high profile shooters to compete with COD

However Sony bought a marketing deal with perks for COD and simply stopped making the other games. Those devs are now making 3rd person action games that make up the majority of sony's offerings.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

...a lot of people here feel that MS should build their own studios and make sucessful IP instead of buying up other devs or publishers.

Not to create competitors to entrenched market leaders. No-one' ever suggested MS should make a Fortnite-beater or anything! They are suggesting MS creates Sony-like content, Uncharted, Horizon, et al., or other original content, satisfying a niche for titles not well represented by third parties on XB.

They had moderate to highly successful FPS games like Resistance , Killzone , Mag and SOCOM.

R3 crashed and burned. No reason to believe it'd have long legs, especially to challenge COD.
KZ was okay but not massively popular. Guerilla moved on to Horizon which performed far better. On paper it was definitely the better investment
MAG wasn't huge and I think the formula didn't work; no indicator there of a COD challenger.

The only obvious challenger would be SOCOM, but there's no reason to think it would be competitive against COD. It only makes sense in a market where COD doesn't exist and there's a space for a realistic MP shooter. Consider SOCOM sold all of 2-3 M for its best iterations. Rainbow Six sells 10M as a going concern for Ubi, and that's still pale potatoes to COD.

 

[Nesh]

delete

 

[Nesh]

I think the judge's questioning around Sony's ability, were they to lose access to certain IPs, to replace them with either internally-developed IPs or by promoting alternative 3rd-party IPs to take their place was rather insightful. Isn't part of what makes titles such as CoD such sales juggernauts their presence on multiple platforms? Doesn't reducing that addressable market open up opportunities for others to step in and fill that void?

We've all seen once-dominant IP (along the production entities behind them) across all kinds of media platforms decline to irrelevance over time and seen new content and content producers come from nothing to lead their market. As per the judge's question, what's stopping Sony, or anyone else with sufficient resources, from developing competing content that rivals what they may lose? And if I were a professional in the industry I'd be salivating at the possibilities this would create to build new things.

For the same reason that Sony never managed to produce a Halo, or a Super Mario killer.

Some successes cant be replicated on demand

 

[see colon]

R3 crashed and burned. No reason to believe it'd have long legs, especially to challenge COD.
KZ was okay but not massively popular. Guerilla moved on to Horizon which performed far better. On paper it was definitely the better investment
MAG wasn't huge and I think the formula didn't work; no indicator there of a COD challenger.

If I've learned anything from reading this thread, it's to point out that Sony's mismanagement of their FPS games isn't Activision's fault, and to insist that instead of trying to buy their way into exclusive COD content, they should have organically made their own. Oh wait, that's not how any of this works.

All jokes aside, I do think Sony could have had success with any of those titles, but they did the Sony thing and aimed too high with them. One of the things we learned from this trial is how much Sony spends to make a game, and we can draw conclusions from those numbers and the way they acted about Days Gone's sales, cancelling the sequel and it being an earlier game ported to PC to try to raise revenue from the IP. It actually does make me a little worried for them, because nothing lasts forever. And the string of hits they've put together is great, but I do wonder if Microsoft's strategy of mitigating risk through predictable income via subscription services might be a more sustainable avenue. Microsoft is making some smaller games, and some bigger games, so not every one has to sell 8+ million copies to be a success story. Sony reportedly sold 8 million copies of Days Gone and thought it was a waste of time.

 

[sjoh]

…

 

[arandomguy]

Not to create competitors to entrenched market leaders. No-one' ever suggested MS should make a Fortnite-beater or anything! They are suggesting MS creates Sony-like content, Uncharted, Horizon, et al., or other original content, satisfying a niche for titles not well represented by third parties on XB.

Even outside of the mega hits such as Fortnite, titles (especially IP series) like Uncharted are also much easier said than done. For every Uncharted, Horizon and etc. there's also other much less successful Sony titles. Outside of Naughty Dog with Uncharted and Last of Us you could argue no other studio has even been able to replicate success more than once.

It's easy to just same make a good game and that a good game will be a business success. If there is a formula to it then it certainly is nowhere near a science at this point.