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

[Jay]

I'm more intrested in things like, would they charge $70 for PS version and $60 for XS (doubt it)
Where as Sony will charge $70 for both systems.
DLC - Currently Xbox doesn't do timed exclusive content, Sony does.
So will Sony still do year or more timed exclusive content for destiny?
Will xbox change and do some timed exclusive content, and will that then be perceived as anti consumer?

 

[SmooTh]

Don't think MS will do timed-exclusive for CoD etc. but will work with GP perks and other stuff.

I just don't see Phil doing such things.

 

[iroboto]

I'm more intrested in things like, would they charge $70 for PS version and $60 for XS (doubt it)
Where as Sony will charge $70 for both systems.
DLC - Currently Xbox doesn't do timed exclusive content, Sony does.
So will Sony still do year or more timed exclusive content for destiny?
Will xbox change and do some timed exclusive content, and will that then be perceived as anti consumer?

pretty sure COD on GP is better value than COD at 79.99.
If this isn't enough to sway someone to coming to xbox, some timing exclusivity is not likely to work either.


That is already pretty sufficient.

DLC is probably going to stay as it is.

 

[snc]

https://blogs.microsoft.com/on-the-issues/2022/02/09/open-app-store-principles-activision-blizzard/

good news for playstation only players and still win for gamepass users, maybe in future will change also they approach with bethesda games, seeing that Im less scare of big aquisitions

 

[ChuckeRearmed]

Deja-Vu...

I know right? Keep in mind that they never mentioned "future releases" or anything similar.

The fun thing is that the same people claiming that MS cannot say directly their future plans until the deal is finalized, will claim that now MS 100% committed to release future games on Playstation...We went through the same thing last year. This year is gonna be a long one too

pretty sure COD on GP is better value than COD at 79.99. If this isn't enough to sway someone to coming to xbox, some timing exclusivity is not likely to work either. That is already pretty sufficient. DLC is probably going to stay as it is.

Except you forgot one elephant in the room. To most of the people Game Pass requires additional 300$ investment upfront to purchase a console. They won't justify saving 70$ over paying 300$ (at least) upfront. With the advent of digital libraries people don't switch that much anymore.

 

[eastmen]

Pretty much what some of us have been saying ever since the acquisition took place. It just doesn't make any financial sense for MS to lockdown COD to Xbox and PC.

It also makes sense in terms of allaying any potential concerns from various government regulatory bodies.

Good to see them come right out and say it, however.

Regards,
SB

I don't think that says what you think it says.

They say they will

"To be clear, Microsoft will continue to make Call of Duty and other popular Activision Blizzard titles available on PlayStation through the term of any existing agreement with Activision"

and then
"nd we have committed to Sony that we will also make them available on PlayStation beyond the existing agreement and into the future so that Sony fans can continue to enjoy the games they love?
They are still talking about the existing games not future ones

 

[Silent_Buddha]

I know right? Keep in mind that they never mentioned "future releases" or anything similar.

I don't think that says what you think it says.

They are very clear about it. Read the blog post that was linked above (Adapting ahead of regulation: a principled approach to app stores - Microsoft On the Issues ). Straight from Microsoft.

Just as Windows has evolved to an open and broadly used platform, we see the future of gaming following a similar path. Today 2.8 billion consumers worldwide, including more than 190 million Americans, play games, and we expect the global number will reach 4.5 billion by 2030 as new generations turn to gaming for entertainment, community, and a sense of achievement. Our vision is to enable gamers to play any game on any device anywhere, including by streaming from the cloud. App stores on the most relevant and popular everyday devices like mobile phones; PCs, including Windows PCs; and, in time, the cloud, are important to realizing this vision.

Just like I said before. MS are a software company first and foremost. MS Gaming is the only MS division that doesn't release all or at least a significant portion of their product across multiple platforms. Note: that key point there. "...to play any game on any device anywhere, including by streaming from the cloud." Not by streaming from the cloud, but including streaming from the cloud. That's in addition to being able to play the game natively on any device.

Note also that it mentions any game. An indication that MS wants to transition to a model where their games are released across multiple platforms much like they are doing with their productivity software.

If that didn't drive the point home...

We want to enable world-class content to reach every gamer more easily across every platform.

Again, every platform.

And the full context of what was posted in a screenshot above.

First, some commentators have asked whether we will continue to make popular content like Activision’s Call of Duty available on competing platforms like Sony’s PlayStation. The obvious concern is that Microsoft could make this title available exclusively on the Xbox console, undermining opportunities for Sony PlayStation users.

To be clear, Microsoft will continue to make Call of Duty and other popular Activision Blizzard titles available on PlayStation through the term of any existing agreement with Activision. And we have committed to Sony that we will also make them available on PlayStation beyond the existing agreement and into the future so that Sony fans can continue to enjoy the games they love. We are also interested in taking similar steps to support Nintendo’s successful platform. We believe this is the right thing for the industry, for gamers and for our business.

In the first paragraph, MS reiterates what people are concerned with, "The obvious concern is that Microsoft could make this title available exclusively on the Xbox console, undermining opportunities for Sony PlayStation users."

The second paragraph is MS stating in no uncertain terms that Call of Duty (not any specific game, but the IP itself) and popular Blizzard titles (again not any specific titles, but titles in general) will be made available on PlayStation beyond any existing agreements that are in place.

Some mental gymnastics could twist that into COD becoming exclusive, but considering that there are no existing contracts for popular Blizzard titles, how would one go about interpreting that to mean that MS will only keep Blizzard titles with existing contracts (which don't exist) available on PlayStation consoles before making them exclusive?

Seriously, the entire blog post is about Microsoft wanting to eventually transition MS gaming into a creation and distribution model more similar to their other product groups. And that starts with the Activision-Blizzard acquisition.

Regards,
SB

 

[Malo]

They were rather emphatic about future Bethesda titles being exclusive to Xbox, I don't really see them suddenly doing a 180 on their goals for exclusivity.

 

[SmooTh]

That MS wants the games on any platform isn't new also that the "any platform" comes with "where Gamepass exist"

Overall it sounds the same what we could read after the Bethesda acquisition only with an other wording.

 

[iroboto]

They are very clear about it. Read the blog post that was linked above (Adapting ahead of regulation: a principled approach to app stores - Microsoft On the Issues ). Straight from Microsoft.



Just like I said before. MS are a software company first and foremost. MS Gaming is the only MS division that doesn't release all or at least a significant portion of their product across multiple platforms. Note: that key point there. "...to play any game on any device anywhere, including by streaming from the cloud." Not by streaming from the cloud, but including streaming from the cloud. That's in addition to being able to play the game natively on any device.

Note also that it mentions any game. An indication that MS wants to transition to a model where their games are released across multiple platforms much like they are doing with their productivity software.

If that didn't drive the point home...



Again, every platform.

And the full context of what was posted in a screenshot above.



In the first paragraph, MS reiterates what people are concerned with, "The obvious concern is that Microsoft could make this title available exclusively on the Xbox console, undermining opportunities for Sony PlayStation users."

The second paragraph is MS stating in no uncertain terms that Call of Duty (not any specific game, but the IP itself) and popular Blizzard titles (again not any specific titles, but titles in general) will be made available on PlayStation beyond any existing agreements that are in place.

Some mental gymnastics could twist that into COD becoming exclusive, but considering that there are no existing contracts for popular Blizzard titles, how would one go about interpreting that to mean that MS will only keep Blizzard titles with existing contracts (which don't exist) available on PlayStation consoles before making them exclusive?

Seriously, the entire blog post is about Microsoft wanting to eventually transition MS gaming into a creation and distribution model more similar to their other product groups. And that starts with the Activision-Blizzard acquisition.

Regards,
SB

Verbiage around "available" vs "release" are being used instead because the future of call of duty releases are not yet known. Thus why "available" is better wording here.
MS may be contractually obligated to release the next 3 call of duties on Sony - just as Sony extended it's DLC exclusivity clauses all through a very delayed Destiny 2. But MS are not required to release any new call of duties after that point period. At least not at the cadence of a COD per year of which an existing contract may have them bound to.

MS is more than willing to extend it's content to other platforms as per the writing here, but they still ultimately have control over the IP and what and when things are released which is why the words available instead of releases is used. Sony and Nintendo cannot strong arm MS into releasing an annual COD to fit their needs.

A smart play for MS is to simply not release call of duty each year. Which is a rotation that can make sense given their depth of titles in the FPS category.

 

[ChuckeRearmed]

In the first paragraph, MS reiterates what people are concerned with, "The obvious concern is that Microsoft could make this title available exclusively on the Xbox console, undermining opportunities for Sony PlayStation users."

The same paragraph states

First, some commentators have asked whether we will continue to make popular content like Activision’s Call of Duty available on competing platforms like Sony’s PlayStation. The obvious concern is that Microsoft could make this title available exclusively on the Xbox console, undermining opportunities for Sony PlayStation users.

It is about availability. So they are saying that they are not going to pull out the content from Playstation and we know that MW2 and Warzone 2 (and another one COD I guess?) are coming to Playstation.

The second paragraph is MS stating in no uncertain terms that Call of Duty (not any specific game, but the IP itself) and popular Blizzard titles (again not any specific titles, but titles in general) will be made available on PlayStation beyond any existing agreements that are in place.

And again it states

To be clear, Microsoft will continue to make Call of Duty and other popular Activision Blizzard titles available on PlayStation through the term of any existing agreement with Activision. And we have committed to Sony that we will also make them available on PlayStation beyond the existing agreement and into the future so that Sony fans can continue to enjoy the games they love.

They will follow the contracts and they state that they won't remove the same games (that followed the contracts) from the platform.


I mean if Bethesda's deal did not teach people anything, I don't know what to say. I mean seriously? We went through the same thing last year. Then when COD MW3 is announced it will have big text XBOX EXCLUSIVE.

We will hear about "platforms where Game Pass exists" and "legacy" again soon.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Verbiage around "available" vs "release" are being used instead because the future of call of duty releases are not yet known. Thus why "available" is better wording here.
MS may be contractually obligated to release the next 3 call of duties on Sony - just as Sony extended it's DLC exclusivity clauses all through a very delayed Destiny 2. But MS are not required to release any new call of duties after that point period. At least not at the cadence of a COD per year of which an existing contract may have them bound to.

MS is more than willing to extend it's content to other platforms as per the writing here, but they still ultimately have control over the IP and what and when things are released which is why the words available instead of releases is used. Sony and Nintendo cannot strong arm MS into releasing an annual COD to fit their needs.

A smart play for MS is to simply not release call of duty each year. Which is a rotation that can make sense given their depth of titles in the FPS category.

I could potentially see staggered timed releases, but I don't think that would happen. I'm fairly confident that they'll be releasing, at the very least, COD and key Blizzard titles simultaneously across Xbox, PC and PlayStation.

I'm also fairly confident that we're going to see Phil Spencer doing what he has wanted to do for a while now, release more MS titles on Nintendo platforms.

Phil Spencer talked about that in the past, but then went quiet. That likely occurred due to concerns from the Board of Directors and key shareholders. However, the purchase of Activision-Blizzard put MS in a position where the acquisition is so large that there is very real concerns that various government regulatory bodies could seek to block the acquisition.

Going by Phil's previously stated stance about how gaming should be available to everyone, I almost want to think this was all a part of some Machiavellian scheme to force Microsoft to start releasing more titles across more platforms.

Basically it's like, "Oh, hey Board of Directors we have this opportunity to buy Activision-Blizzard which could eventually make us a ton of money." Then after that acquisition was approved, "Oh, hey Board of Directors, we're probably going to have to keep making Activision-Blizzard titles available on other platforms in order to ensure regulatory approval, oh darn."

Regards,
SB

 

[Silenti]

They are very clear about it. Read the blog post that was linked above (Adapting ahead of regulation: a principled approach to app stores - Microsoft On the Issues ). Straight from Microsoft.



Just like I said before. MS are a software company first and foremost. MS Gaming is the only MS division that doesn't release all or at least a significant portion of their product across multiple platforms. Note: that key point there. "...to play any game on any device anywhere, including by streaming from the cloud." Not by streaming from the cloud, but including streaming from the cloud. That's in addition to being able to play the game natively on any device.

Note also that it mentions any game. An indication that MS wants to transition to a model where their games are released across multiple platforms much like they are doing with their productivity software.

If that didn't drive the point home...



Again, every platform.

And the full context of what was posted in a screenshot above.



In the first paragraph, MS reiterates what people are concerned with, "The obvious concern is that Microsoft could make this title available exclusively on the Xbox console, undermining opportunities for Sony PlayStation users."

The second paragraph is MS stating in no uncertain terms that Call of Duty (not any specific game, but the IP itself) and popular Blizzard titles (again not any specific titles, but titles in general) will be made available on PlayStation beyond any existing agreements that are in place.

Some mental gymnastics could twist that into COD becoming exclusive, but considering that there are no existing contracts for popular Blizzard titles, how would one go about interpreting that to mean that MS will only keep Blizzard titles with existing contracts (which don't exist) available on PlayStation consoles before making them exclusive?

Seriously, the entire blog post is about Microsoft wanting to eventually transition MS gaming into a creation and distribution model more similar to their other product groups. And that starts with the Activision-Blizzard acquisition.

Regards,
SB

I know I am cynical, and that many will disagree with me, but I disagree almost entirely with your assessment.

"To be clear, Microsoft will continue to make Call of Duty and other popular Activision Blizzard titles available on PlayStation through the term of any existing agreement with Activision."

This was already made clear before and MS has no intention of not honoring existing commitments.

"And we have committed to Sony that we will also make them available on PlayStation beyond the existing agreement and into the future so that Sony fans can continue to enjoy the games they love."

It very specifically does NOT say which future COD titles or Blizzard titles. It does not say "all" popular titles. One this is PR, not legally binding. Two, it is deliberately vague about any specific titles beyond those they will be contractually obligated to allow. And third:

"Our vision is to enable gamers to play any game on any device anywhere, including by streaming from the cloud. "

Microsoft is talking about their "vision", their "desire" to have the games available on any platform. It does not mean MS have in any way committed to future titles being platforms that do not allow GamePass. Beyond existing contractual obligations. It says nothing about the terms MS would find acceptable. Nothing. They can do exactly what they have already done and say "We offered to put it on Sony and Nintendo's console but they won't allow GamePass."

 

[Silent_Buddha]

I mean if Bethesda's deal did not teach people anything, I don't know what to say. I mean seriously? We went through the same thing last year. Then when COD MW3 is announced it will have big text XBOX EXCLUSIVE.

We will hear about "platforms where Game Pass exists" and "legacy" again soon.

If part of regulatory approval relies upon the continued release of Activision-Blizzard titles on other platforms (like PlayStation) then that will never happen. And that's again beyond Microsoft's desire to have any game be available on any platform.

Bethesda was a much smaller acquisition and didn't face nearly as much regulatory scrutiny.

Regards,
SB

 

[ChuckeRearmed]

This year is gonna be long ahahaha. And it won't end until 2024 at least (when finally all COD contracts expire). Though we can expect Overwatch 2, Diablo 4 (maybe, but depends on release date) and WOW (maybe not considering FF14) on Playstation.

If part of regulatory approval relies upon the continued release of Activision-Blizzard titles on other platforms (like PlayStation) then that will never happen. And that's again beyond Microsoft's desire to have any game be available on any platform.

But that's the thing - regulatory approval did not require them to do that as regulators did not even start looking at the case yet (we don't know for sure though). The whole article is about "being ahead of regulators" or whatever was the name. Anyway, history repeats itself.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Also, there's some indications that Starfield may not remain Xbox exclusive.

Phil Spencer has very recently stated that

Speaking with Axios reporter Stephen Totilo in comments published via Twitter, Spencer said his vision for Starfield was for it to be the "most-played Todd Howard game ever," in reference to Bethesda's game designer and director.

And I'm pretty sure that Phil Spencer and the people at MS knows that would not be even remotely possible without Starfield appearing on PlayStation. Even with GamePass, it's highly unlikely that Starfield would be able to achieve that feat without also appearing on a PS console.

It's entirely possible that it could end up as a timed exclusive.

Regards,
SB

 

[PSman1700]

Well, Sony is also going that direction of not locking down to just the PS, both companies see the benefits i think.

 

[ChuckeRearmed]

Also, there's some indications that Starfield may not remain Xbox exclusive.

Just stop. This is already old topic.

And I'm pretty sure that Phil Spencer and the people at MS knows that would not be even remotely possible without Starfield appearing on PlayStation.

Xbox + PC + XCloud is bigger than anything that Playstation can provide. The game is not released on Playstation 4 so Playstation doesn't have 100m userbase anymore.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Xbox + PC + XCloud is bigger than anything that Playstation can provide. The game is not released on Playstation 4 so Playstation doesn't have 100m userbase anymore.

Skyrim was sold on PC, Xbox, PlayStation and Nintendo Switch. Skyrim also sold to more people on PlayStation than it did to people on Xbox by almost 2:1.

There is no way that Starfield will reach more players than Skyrim does if it's limited to just Xbox and PC even with Game Pass.

Regards,
SB

 

[ChuckeRearmed]

Skyrim was sold on PC, Xbox, PlayStation and Nintendo Switch. Skyrim also sold to more people on PlayStation than it did to people on Xbox by almost 2:1.

There is no way that Starfield will reach more players than Skyrim does if it's limited to just Xbox and PC even with Game Pass.

Regards,
SB

Except there is. But no reason to bring this topic back.
People should understand - Microsoft is there to sell their ecosystem and not the games.