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

[Deleted member 11852]

It’s not a positive spin. It’s me providing discussion that does not run parallel to this narrative that has been created here. It’s bullshit you call me MS PR for even providing a bit of push back just because I’ve been holding my keyboard for the last 4 pages.

Your discussion points all ignore pertinent facts that come up, and were documented in the trial and in this thread. You're either not paying attention or you're wilfully ignoring the inconvenient information. Also, please read my post again more carefully. I didn't call you Microsoft PR, I couldn't understand how somebody not acting in that capacity was trying to present the positive spin. particular, as aI said above, to do so you have to ignore a whole bunch of facts.

I'm not hashing over the rest of what you've written given I've not mentioned mortality, betrayal or any other nonsense. You can choose to overlook the lie Microsoft were caught in. It's obvious you are not interested in the truth so it'll be easier all round if I just stick you on ignore, so.. done.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Also, please read my post again more carefully. I didn't call you Microsoft PR, I couldn't understand how somebody not acting in that capacity was trying to present the positive spin.

That may be literally what you wrote, but:

Unless you work for Microsoft PR, I cannot understand why you are trying to put a positive spin on this.

...is the passive-aggressive vernacular for an insinuation. Additionally, you termed it 'putting a positive spin' where it's just a counter-argument, as though the motives behind the counterpoint are pursuing a deceit. Putting it another way, how can anyone discuss a contrary opinion without it moving from considered idea to 'positive spin' where 'spin' is dishonest and manipulative? Your position basically makes all debate against your POV indefensible as though you expect everyone to just agree.

In short, you can phrase yourself less tersely and engage with folk a little more openly for different viewpoints. If everyone's on the same page, there's not really much need for a discussion forum.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

In short, you can phrase yourself less tersely and engage with folk a little more openly for different viewpoints. If everyone's on the same page, there's not really much need for a discussion forum.

Fair enough. To clarity, my first sentence was not intended to be an accusation of somebody working for Microsoft, was I was getting at was I cannot understand why somebody who is not invested in the public-facing image of a particular company would so wilfully ignore clearly presented facts (not contested by Microsoft's own CEO) to get there. Too much evidence, provided by Microsoft itself, needs to be overlooked to land in a place where this looks anything less than terrible.

I don't have the energy or time to debate with folks that concerted to preset a dishonest counter narrative.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

It’s not a positive spin. It’s me providing discussion that does not run parallel to this narrative that has been created here. It’s bullshit you call me MS PR for even providing a bit of push back just because I’ve been holding my keyboard for the last 4 pages.

You were given insight into the inner workings of a business. It has nothing to do with morality. People are pissed about a betrayal that hasn’t occurred yet. The businesses best practice is to just keep their mouths shut publicly because it provides flexibility into what they want to do if they need to do it. And the court would have access to those documents in a closed viewing and it would be a simple case then and yet no other regulator found that to be true even the CMA!

The current mode: they had internal plans to not make every title exclusive
Future mode: they have plans to make all their IPs exclusive.

At least we know this to be truth.

When discussing the future mode, that they will not commit to it, so the present mode still stands.

A lie is when everything is already exclusive and they you it’s not. They have both intent and position to betray their words, but they haven’t yet.

to me it’s clear they won’t unless it makes sense to, even if it’s what they want to do. The second half is still being figured out, I have major doubts all decisions about their plans if cloud fails.

In the same set of emails they talked about closing up Xbox and switching it for mobile, none of you jumping on that. You’re just cherry picking what you want to believe they will commit to and won’t. Business decisions are always in a state of flux. Dont be so naive. I’ve just had my commissions plans changed on me every quarter for the last 3 quarters. Ain’t no one wants to sign up for that nor is it intended; yet that is what happens when SVB goes down and banks close up shop and suddenly the funding models change.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1673836118129688578

Not only that but in 2019, Phil Spencer didn't believe that cloud gaming could become an actual market.

Microsoft CFO Amy Hood warned employees not to 'build a gold toilet'

Microsoft was in fact working on a gold toilet, the CEO of gaming at Microsoft said in an email as the company was preparing to test cloud streaming.

www.cnbc.com

Spencer wrote in reply that mobile gamers don’t necessarily want to play a hardcore game such as Halo on their phones while using an Xbox controller over Bluetooth.

“This is building the gold seat (for our existing TAM),” Spencer wrote. “It doesn’t help us grow.”

But they still went with it, likely because Microsoft and the Board of Directors wanted it despite Phil not seeing a future in it.

And along with that...

Microsoft moved forward with xCloud beta testing in late 2019. But over five days of court hearings in June, Microsoft executives testified that xCloud, now known as Xbox Cloud Gaming, has failed to become a viable alternative to PCs or Microsoft’s Xbox consoles, where games can run locally. Earlier this year Google shut down Stadia, its take on game streaming.

So, after 4 years, Microsoft's Cloud Gaming initiative still hasn't done anything to establish itself. Honestly, at this point even though there's e-mails and quotes stating that Cloud Gaming is a core pillar for Microsoft, I would not be surprised if MS also abandons it in a few years.

I'm assuming the CMA had access to that information as the EU likely did (them stating that Cloud Gaming likely had no future if it couldn't grow and that this deal might be the best way for cloud gaming to actually become a market), yet they just blithely ignored it?

In other words, sure, someone can say something or state something or write something in e-mail, but this is a business. And if you want to be a successful business, what you said 2-3-4+ years ago may have absolutely zero relevance to what you're actually going to do the next year.

So, when Phil said they were taking ES6 exclusive a few years back, he was absolutely telling the truth.

And when Phil Spencer recently testified that Microsoft are currently unsure of whether they will make ES6 exclusive or not, he's also absolutely telling the truth.

If you cant adapt as a business, you die. Microsoft are seeing that taking large successful existing multiplatform IP exclusive doesn't bring in ancillary forms of revenue from that which can come even close to replacing the revenue from those titles remaining multiplatform.

Knowing that it's still up in the air as to whether going full exclusive with Bethesda would be a good idea or not, of course, Phil Spencer is going to replay that "we can't say that" about taking all of Bethesda exclusive. If you do, you lock yourself to that strategy publicly and then you can't change course without potential loss of reputation with consumers. Something that Xbox has had a hard time regaining after the XBO launch debacle.

I'm going to speculate here that the one and only thing that might convince MS to keep ES6 exclusive would be if cloud gaming takes off and that provides a new avenue of monetization for ES6 that could come close to replacing the massive revenue loss from making it exclusive.

I can't think of anything else that would pacify investors and the Board of Directors at this point WRT making ES6 exclusive. I wouldn't be at all surprised if there was huge pressure being put on MS to make Starfield multiplatform ASAP.

It's all about the money. For the important people influencing the direction that MS goes, increasing Xbox user base isn't tenable if it also comes with a massive loss of potential revenue. And right now, MS (Xbox) has failed to show that making a title exclusive will appreciably increase the Xbox console user base to such a degree that it offsets having the title be multiplatform in the first place.

Regards,
SB

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Not only that but in 2019, Phil Spencer didn't believe that cloud gaming could become an actual market.

So what we know about about Phil Spencer, is he is not very good at seeing where technology is going, he's not that invested in some of his company's own product strategies and he will seemingly change his mind at the drop of a hat.

There is being agile and adaptable in your strategy, and there's this. To be fair, we know next to know about Jim Ryan, other than he's kind of boring.

 

[iroboto]

Your discussion points all ignore pertinent facts that come up, and were documented in the trial and in this thread.

I disagree. I'll use a common analogy that we all use here to prove it.

Schrodinger's Cat would be a good example.
In this example Phil Spencer is standing beside the box holding Schrodinger's Cat. You don't know if the cat is alive or dead, and Phil makes a statement that he knows if the cat is alive or dead, but he won't announce it publicly because he's doesn't actually know internally what's going to do with the cat.

You intercept a communication that is not public that say's he fully intends to kill all the cats in all the boxes.
Yet when you open the box, the cat is alive, and you look to Phil and you say, you said you'd kill them all. And Phil says I haven't yet. He still gets to choose when he wants to do it.

But the difference I'm trying to point out, is that the option still exists, you've declared that it no longer does. By intercepting this communication, you think you've solved Schrodinger's cat. But an internal text message is not the same as opening every single box. Even internally, when Tim says, well should we just announce it's all exclusive, Phil refuses to even say that, he says 'We can't say that'.

Which means, as long as he has the option to release multiplatform titles he will keep it open. And like any form of competition, the battleground is always changing, and in 2021 he may have called it to make it all exclusive, but by 2024, he may have turn around on it if the priorities MS change.

He wants the option for flexibility, for whatever it may be, either regulatory, profit, marketing, good will, he wants the option open, not closed.

And that is my point, you've intercepted private communications, and thus forming an opinion about all of MS management and strategies and then judge it as being mismanagement and not a good look. I'm just saying, every company will explore, discuss, and and flip flop on decisions all the time, this is normal behaviour.

You only know what the final decisions, when it's announced.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

So what we know about about Phil Spencer, is he is not very good at seeing where technology is going, he's not that invested in some of his company's own product strategies and he will seemingly change his mind at the drop of a hat.

There is being agile and adaptable in your strategy, and there's this. To be fair, we know next to know about Jim Ryan, other than he's kind of boring.

Except right now cloud gaming is exactly proving his reservations about it. It's been 4 years, 1 or 2 of those where they didn't have a real meaningful competitor ... and cloud gaming still can't be called a market because there is still no money in it and still virtually no consumer interest in it.

The whole parable with the "golden toilet" is about making something (a product or service) before there is a market for it, before the technology is ready for it, before there is the ability to provide it in a form that consumers would find desirable, etc. Cloud gaming is a golden toilet right now. Perhaps something changes in the future where it isn't, but at the time it was very much a golden toilet and still is.

So how is that him being wrong about seeing where the technology is at or where it's going? There are absolutely limits to what cloud gaming can potentially provide. It's always going to be a worse experience than a game being driven by a locally resident piece of hardware.

Regards,
SB

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Except right now cloud gaming is exactly proving his reservations about it.

The technology isn't ready. Cloud gaming will be massive, but until both network latency and network bandwidth are non-issues, the experience is going to be limited. Everybody who has invested in cloud gaming thus far has done so betting poorly that the kind of developments that have made encoding video so much better could be adapted to an interactive experience and this has not panned out.,

So everything will wait for that technical breakthrough that may not come, or wait for the slower pace of network technology inevitably bettering better and better.

 

[wco81]

What has Spencer done since he's been in charge?

Did he make the call on Kinect2?

Obviously this Activision deal would have to be approved by Nadella and probably the board.

But while Xbox is doing okay, it trails in market share, especially relative to previous generations?

So why did MS give him this $70 billion deal? Sunk cost fallacy?

 

[cheapchips]

So why did MS give him this $70 billion deal? Sunk cost fallacy?

Money in the bank was losing MS money. ABK provides a better annual return on investment than even a Super Saver bank account, which is what I'm sure MS keep their cash in. The potential impact on the wider Xbox business is extra stuff.

 

[wco81]

That's shareholder money.

If they can't find a way to invest it, return it to shareholders.

MS paid a special dividend in the past.

 

[iroboto]

That's shareholder money.

If they can't find a way to invest it, return it to shareholders.

MS paid a special dividend in the past.

Though, Acquiring a company they think is worth more than 70B is an investment. The value of the shares would go up unless the value of ABK goes down. As long as ABK is netting similar returns here and in the future it’s going to be providing back more profit to shareholders than giving it out.

 

[see colon]

That's shareholder money.

If they can't find a way to invest it, return it to shareholders.

MS paid a special dividend in the past.

Though, Acquiring a company they think is worth more than 70B is an investment. The value of the shares would go up unless the value of ABK goes down. As long as ABK is netting similar returns here and in the future it’s going to be providing back more profit to shareholders than giving it out.

Telling the future is hard, but ABK's profits have historically been $4-6B. At that pace it will take about 15 years to profit what Microsoft has paid for ABK. But, ABK still has a value. So if they choose to keep them for 5 years, they could sell them for 50B and still have made a profit.

Paying a special dividend doesn't have a potential for profit. Making an investment does. And buying a thing (as opposed to spending it on a dead end research project) is a fairly safe investment.

 

[iroboto]

Your discussion points all ignore pertinent facts that come up, and were documented in the trial and in this thread. You're either not paying attention or you're wilfully ignoring the inconvenient information. Also, please read my post again more carefully

I just want to be clear guys; for those that don’t have me on ignore.

I did read his comment clearly; he linked the IGN article where in his post he said it was a direct email from Xbox CEO to MS CFO. It was not: It was a text message from Matt Booty to MSCFO. It’s listed there in his own linked article.

he mistakenly made it about Phil and Tim and then told me I’m on spin world for willfully ignoring facts in which Phil testified this on stand. He didn’t. Phil said he didn’t recall saying that during the zenimax monthly meeting.

Just to be clear about it for those that missed that small but important part of my post.

His OP

Phil Spencer to Tim Stuart, in which Phil Spencer stating Microsoft's intention to make all first party games from the studios acquired - and not just new IP - to be Xbox exclusive. This is well-quoted "Wow!" email from the Xbox's CFO.

Dsoup went on to say that Phil internally has made this decision, evidence above, but is publicly saying the opposite to the media and is lying about it on the stand.

The debate of this is here:

Phil Spencer says future Bethesda games will be exclusive to "platforms where Game Pass exists"

It's the question everyone's been eager to have answered since news broke that Microsoft was acquiring Bethesda and par…

www.eurogamer.net

So hopefully this provides the context of my post. They have held this promise so far. And they have not made all existing franchises exclusive.

 

[fehu]

You intercept a communication that is not public that say's he fully intends to kill all the cats in all the boxes.
Yet when you open the box, the cat is alive, and you look to Phil and you say, you said you'd kill them all. And Phil says I haven't yet.

It's the best creepypasta that I've read today

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I'm going to recap Iroboto's point for clarity because it was a little lost on as were all the details.

The "Wow!" text was between two members of Xbox talking about what Phil said in a meeting. Matt Booty is head of Xbox Studios. Tim Stuart is Xbox CFO. There was a monthly meeting between Xbox and Zenimax attended by Booty but not Stuart. Booty messaged Stuart to say Spencer said at that meeting that all future games were to be exclusive, not just new IP.

I guess DSoup's position is that Phil did say this unless Booty was mistaken. Iroboto is saying that saying you'll do a thing doesn't mean you'll do it - words are cheap.

I guess my contribution here is I feel it's still 'off'! If you testify in court that you aren't going to harass your neighbours, and then you're caught texting you are going to TP and egg them, even if you never get around to it there's something wrong with expressing the sentiment. But we don't know the exact wording. Saying, "I'd love to TP and egg them," is not the same as saying, "I'm going to TP and egg them." Without Phil's exact words, we've only got listening in on a 2nd-party conversation.

Although after all that, I'm looking at the release schedule and I'm seeing nothing cross-platform. For those saying PC counts, we've heard repeatedly how "Xbox" isn't just the console. I'll be surprised if PS5 gets any (substantial) Zenimax games in the next five years, at which point we can revisit this.

 

[iroboto]

I guess DSoup's position is that Phil did say this unless Booty was mistaken. Iroboto is saying that saying you'll do a thing doesn't mean you'll do it - words are cheap.

Yea, Well, Dsoup’s position is that the receipts show that Phil wrote that email to Tim Stuart himself, in which he crafted his position about that. I wanted to point out that because he crafted his position from incorrect information, his viewpoint is flawed.

But also from my viewpoint, Matt may not have gotten it right fully. Which is why it’s different from a third party or directly from the horses mouth. When Tim asks Phil to confirm he says, we can’t say that: I assume referencing his public statements in March.

But he likely also did say it because he was frustrated as shit from the blowback of not having released any exclusives (he stated this Nov 5):

Phil Spencer Admits It's Been Too Long Since Xbox Had a Major First Party Exclusive - IGN

Xbox boss Phil Spencer has admitted it's been too long since a major first party exclusive game landed on the Xbox Series X and S, but Starfield, Redfall, and Forza Motorsport 8 will make 2023 a big year.

www.ign.com

At this point in time, Halo Infinite failed to light the world on fire. They really had nothing in the pipeline. He may have said these things out of frustration, but that doesn’t mean he will actually carry through with it after settling down and having further discussions or things improve for MS (after Starfield for instance)

 

[iroboto]

Although after all that, I'm looking at the release schedule and I'm seeing nothing cross-platform. For those saying PC counts, we've heard repeatedly how "Xbox" isn't just the console. I'll be surprised if PS5 gets any (substantial) Zenimax games in the next five years, at which point we can revisit this.

And to be clear:
It’s whether Phil will reneg on this (March 2021):

Obviously I can't sit here and say every Bethesda game is [an Xbox] exclusive, because we know that's not true," he explained. "There's contractual obligations that we're going to see through. We have games that exist on other platforms and we're going to go and support those games on the platforms they're on. There's communities of players - we love those communities and will continue to invest in them - and even in the future there might be...either contractual things or legacy on different platforms that we'll go do."

 

[Shifty Geezer]

And to be clear:
It’s whether Phil will reneg on this (March 2021):

That comment is satisfied by the release of Deathloop and Ghostwire:Tokyo. I'm looking more at his comments to the EU during the Zenimax hearing, Jan 2021, where 'Microsoft stated", although I don't know who that MS was:

Future decisions on whether to distribute ZeniMax games for other consoles will be made on a case-by-case basis, taking into account player demand and sentiment, Microsoft’s strategic and financial goals, and the willingness of third-party gaming hardware providers to run Microsoft games and services.

This is the real sticking point. MS said to the regulators that other consoles would get future games on a case-by-case basis, implying a proportion of future games would release, expected to relate to that IP's demand and sentiment. It's after this we hear Phil said something along the lines of all future Zenimax games would be XB exclusive, no case-by-case basis applied, but we don't know exactly the words or context.

If in 20 years' time zero Bethesda games come to PS, would that still be appropriate for what was said at the EU hearing? Is "none of those games seemed appropriate to port on a case-by-case basis" going to be a legitimate justification for the lack of content that was implied? And the relevance here is what can MS infer they'll do in the ABK hearing and then change their mind on? We don't have a crystal ball and can only guess by a very short precedent with Zenimax. If either Indiana Jones or ES came to PS5, there'd be no problems, but if neither do, too late to test against the ABK hearings, it's a bit sus!

 

[Nesh]

Phill Spenser and MS in general is a great example of using wooden language