Microsoft acquired Activision Blizzard King for $69 Billion on 2023-10-13
- Thread starter Rangers
- Start date
Well lets see, I think it's 13 and one is technically a publisher and then Audiokinectic is a game dev tool
- Insomniac
- House Marque
- Nixxes
- Firesprite
- Fabrik
- Blue point
- Valkyrie
- Lasengle
- Haven
- Bungie
- Savage
- Fire walk
They also bought Stakes in Epic Games and currently have a 5.4% , EVO in which they have a 50% , Discord that has a minority stake in it , Devolver Digital a 5.03 stake , Scopely minority stake , Accelbyte minority stake and From Software a 14.09 % stake
So sony has now bought two publishers and a stake in two more.
edit also funimation that Sony also bought might have also published some anime games. I am not a 100% sure on that however
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
That's a different argument. Microsoft have been telling absolutely everybody, courts, regulators, investors, that they need to close by 18 July. That's tomorrow.
You state the deal isn't what Sony wanted but they had nothing to lose here. If it's a deal that didn't want then they can ignore it. More likely is Microsoft offering Sony a deal they couldn't refuse. A deal which if not advantageous, is at least equitable. And that is likely why nobody is answering questions about what the deal contains. I wonder what Microsoft had to concede to be allowed the party who announces the deal, because announcing it is key their comms right now.
But maybe they do lose under the new conditions, and the reason they signed was an attempt of minimizing the costs.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
I'm sure whatever deal that cut with Microsoft was not the same as what they have with Activison-Blizzaard, because Microsoft really can't afford to keep the content they produce off their own platform, that's obviously nut and Jim Ryan looked foolish asking for that. The starting point was what Microsoft was originally willing to offer relative to what was agreed yesterday. With just two days left, they obviously offered something so compelling that Sony agreed to it on a Sunday, which is not a normal working day in Tokyo. Weekends are considered sacred family time.
If it was the same deal as before, Sony would have agreed to it today, a normal working day. Something good would needed to have been on the table to get Sony management to work on a weekend. This is a Japanese culture thing. Anybody who has worked with the Japanese on anything knows nothing happens at weekends.
Are you serious?
Now there has to be a qualifier of aggression? I thought we were just talking about franchises that once appeared on Xbox that will no longer appear on Xbox as a result of Sony's acquisitions.
And in terms of Final Fantasy, what about Final Fantasy VII Remake? What about XVI?
Also, remember when Sony got an exclusive MLB license and stopped all multiplatform licensed baseball games from appearing on non-Sony platforms. Sure, Microsoft could have made their own Baseball game (there was an exception for hardware manufacturers), but the multiplatform titles made by EA and Acclaim were absent for years. It wasn't until MLB insisted Sony make The Show multiplatform to get the exclusive license that multiplatform licensed MLB games returned.
Surely if you need to start accumulating examples across multiple generations to find examples and the list continues to appear extremely thin, thats not a sign of becoming very aggressive.
It sounds mildly opportunistic, contextual and circumstantial. The XBOX saw huge amounts of franchises on it that used to be PS ex-exclusive than the weak list of games it supposedly lost.
I still don't understand why we have to have an aggression qualifier. I was simply citing examples of franchises that were removed from Xbox because of Sony's actions, which was the essence of the question posed. Yes, there are examples across multiple generations. It's been happening for a long time. It's part of the business. Adding a qualifier that the actions must be aggressive only moves the goal posts from a simple, binary "did it happen" to one that can be disregarded because of a non-quantifiable requirement.
The initial post to which I replied to, made a strong point of Sony becoming highly aggressive last gen to destroy XBOX. That alone puts the need for a qualifier and a measurement of its effects on XBOX.
Citing a few circumstantial examples across generations, is barely anything that can support that claim.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
For anybody doubting Microsoft's absolute desperation, watch the CAT tribunal hearing which is currently taking place (presently in a ten minute adjournment).
For background, the CMA, Microsoft and Activision-Blizzard, asked the Lord Justice Smith (the judge) to adjourn the appeal two weeks ago which he dismissed as being without merit. For this afternoon's trial, all parties (CMA, Microsoft and Activision-Blizzard) they have bet everything on whatever deal Microsoft made with Sony over the weekend, which they cannot disclose in court. Early in the proceedings Microsoft asked the judge to cease streaming which he rejected, so we were able to witness the near begging for him to adjourn the appeal they insisted on.
The CMA are minded to re-view but cannot do it quickly, and not without sight of material changes in circumstance. Because the CMA cannot commit to a change in decision, the judge is not convinced.
Thus far, Microsoft, nor the CMA, can provide a legal basses for him to adjourn the case but it's been fascinating watching Microsoft's lawyers trying to convinced the judge why he should "just trust the reasonable people involved" - literal quite. Comedy gold!
If Microsoft bet everything on Sony signing that contract, it's mostly definitely in Sony's favour. The jury - or at least the judge - is out on whether that bet will pay off for them.
For background, the CMA, Microsoft and Activision-Blizzard, asked the Lord Justice Smith (the judge) to adjourn the appeal two weeks ago which he dismissed as being without merit. For this afternoon's trial, all parties (CMA, Microsoft and Activision-Blizzard) they have bet everything on whatever deal Microsoft made with Sony over the weekend, which they cannot disclose in court. Early in the proceedings Microsoft asked the judge to cease streaming which he rejected, so we were able to witness the near begging for him to adjourn the appeal they insisted on.
The CMA are minded to re-view but cannot do it quickly, and not without sight of material changes in circumstance. Because the CMA cannot commit to a change in decision, the judge is not convinced.
Thus far, Microsoft, nor the CMA, can provide a legal basses for him to adjourn the case but it's been fascinating watching Microsoft's lawyers trying to convinced the judge why he should "just trust the reasonable people involved" - literal quite. Comedy gold!
If Microsoft bet everything on Sony signing that contract, it's mostly definitely in Sony's favour. The jury - or at least the judge - is out on whether that bet will pay off for them.
Last edited by a moderator:
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
And for what it's worth. I called this while back.
I too have been stuck in the eternal hell of a judicial review where all parties wanted it to end, however once a process subject to review has been called into question, it's in the public interest to complete that review so that there is public confidence in the process itself. This is why the judge is insisting on something solid on which to base any decision to adjourn. If he does, he will undoubtably insist it's a dismiss without prejudice so if this whole thing goes south, Microsoft will have nothing process left to invoke.
I too have been stuck in the eternal hell of a judicial review where all parties wanted it to end, however once a process subject to review has been called into question, it's in the public interest to complete that review so that there is public confidence in the process itself. This is why the judge is insisting on something solid on which to base any decision to adjourn. If he does, he will undoubtably insist it's a dismiss without prejudice so if this whole thing goes south, Microsoft will have nothing process left to invoke.
There is speculation that Ms will spin off Gamepass or just xcloud in the UK. Above us Smooth linked to nz receiving a clearence request. MS is going to close no matter what by tomorrow. I think they just rather the CMA say yes before closing as it saves a headache for all involved.
Also seems that Justice smith mentioned the deal and added it to the record.
He also wants to know why the CMA tried to postpone without refrencing the negotiations
Yea looks like MS will sell xcloud in the UK to someone else
https://twitter.com/FOSSpatents/status/1680953953767288832
This whole things sounds like the CMA wants its cake and to eat it too. They want to let this go through because they goofed but they don't want to have to admit they did.
Looks like there was a previous case that didn't require an admission of error on the CMA's part to quash the decision
Foss for better or worse goes on to explain that the Guiness merger was about divesting part of a whisky business and without that as part of the deal it was considered a new deal. So Ms selling their cloud based business in the uk would make this a new deal and there would no longer be that reason to block the deal
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
I don't see this closing tomorrow. The only real consequence is Microsoft having to pay Activision-Blizzard shareholders for the delay.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
Latest from the CAT hearing, they have a short final hearing adjournment and the judge has said that he will be giving a conditional journment on Microsoft's appeal, which will he explain the rationale of at 6pm. From he brief statement, the appeal adjournment will be predicated on the CMA providing a witness statement setting out a timetable for a new decisions based on updated events.
What this means is the CMA now need to re-evaluate the situation, which as their own lawyer conceded this afternoon, would need to involve a consultation with other third parties. So this is still hanging, probably for a few more weeks.
What this means is the CMA now need to re-evaluate the situation, which as their own lawyer conceded this afternoon, would need to involve a consultation with other third parties. So this is still hanging, probably for a few more weeks.
I don't think this was the case. The thing is Sony's game was so much better than the others and outcompeted them. It seems to be really difficult to be number 2 in the sports genre (see NBA Live and PES).
cheapchips
Veteran
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
No, they can't. Not until the CMA approve the acquisition. Both companies have too many holdings in the UK.
You're right, I remembered that wrong. 2K had the exclusive MLB license, with a cut out for hardware manufacturers. So only 2k, and first party MLB games. Once 2K stopped making baseball games, MLB used the license agreement to get the rights to publish The Show on non-Sony platforms.
Similar threads
