I played Spiderman 2 on the most capable system during 6th gen. Now thats history.
Microsoft acquired Activision Blizzard King for $69 Billion on 2023-10-13
- Thread starter Rangers
- Start date
I played Spiderman 2 on the most capable system during 6th gen. Now thats history.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
It will be good for the industry as long as Sony feel able to compete and remain in the industry. Sony possiblyexiting the industry because it's not worth the risk of investment, is not desirable and less competition is not good for consumers. Microsoft and Sony are a good counter to each other, they keep competition and innovation going.
Call of Duty is the biggest selling modern franchise on home consoles and only two franchises that have sold more because they have been sold longer and/or because of mobile/handheld sales and those are Mario and Pokémon. This is what the regulators are considering. Industry disruption is healthy, but if disruption results in less companies being sustainable, then it is objectively bad.
Microsoft may just have to commit to Call of Duty being multi-platform for 20-to-50 years. That's not a problem to do, unless they do intend to make it exclusive in the near-to-middle future. Microsoft have a credibility problem, which is when acquiring Zenimax, specifically Bethesda,, Microsoft committed to make decisions on platform support on a "case by case basis" but have already confirmed niether Starfield nor Elder Scrolls VI are coming to PlayStation. Microsoft should probably have not been so vocal about that because they have already established a pattern for choosing platform exclusively whilst at the same time claiming they want less exclusives, which either makes them stupid or liars - and this kind of contradictory narrative and behaviour will colour regulators assessments.
Nobody should be swallowing what Microsoft or Sony are saying on this. Both only care about their bottom line, neither care about gamers other than as an endless pot of money to tap into.
Any purchase of any company is disruptive, is this really what your on about. Sony buying Bungie was disruptive , sony buying nixxes is disruptive and so on and so forth. It seems you only have an issue when it has a chance to negatively affect sony's position in the market.
What does sony's feelings have to do with anything ? last generation Sony sold what 110-120m PS4s and they are just going to leave run away from the market crying cause activision was bought by MS ? Isn't this counter to the arguement put forth here that MS would never take COD exclusive cause they don't want to miss out on sony's market share?
Look, I'd agree with you if this was reversed. If Sony bought Activision it could have a small chance of MS exiting the market. After all MS sold roughly 60m consoles last generation vs sonys almost 120m consoles. But and I'm not the smartest man in the world but I would think Sony would first actually have to have their sales affected in a hugely negative way for them to exit the market. We've seen through the disaster of a ps3 generation that even massive losses didn't drive sony away. So in what world would Sony exit the market ?
Call of Duty sells well because its one of the only games that releases every single year and has been doing so for almost 20 years. I am not sure why you think MS may have to commit to it being multiplatform but that doesn't mean it has to be on every platform. I highly doubt any government agency wants to step into contract negotiations between two companies. That is utterly insane. Oh MS you have to have COD on on Google Stadia for 20 years otherwise this deal can't go through. Google oh well since you have to have it on here we want a 100% of everything the game makes on our platform. Makes zero sense. The most that will happen is that MS will have to offer good faith contracts to other platforms. That might not be good enough to Jim because that wouldn't include marketing rights and exclusive content that they enjoy now. But no government agency will step in and force MS to give sony marketing rights to an ip that Ms will own or produce exclusive content. Likely if the contract MS offered is a standard contract in the industry it will be good enough and up to sony to accept or deny. Ms would likely meet any multiplatform requirements with putting older CODs on the switch and new games on steam.
MS doesn't have a credibility problem. MS continues to release some games on all platforms. Ms would have a credibility problem if they announced Starfield was coming to playstation or if they announced elder scrolls 6 was coming to playstation and then said oh wait never mind its exclusive. But MS has never claimed that. Even with platform exlusives you seem to exclude the fact that every game MS has been releasing is on multiple platforms. If you want to play starfield you can buy it on xbox , xbox pc , xcloud or steam.
I am also going to bet that when Sony talks about Bungie publishing on multiple platforms they mean exactly the same Playstation and Steam.
Let me ask you a question. How many Sony developed playstation exclusives were on the PC before Nixxes was bought ? How many after ? That seems pretty disruptive to me. MS innovated there and now Sony is starting to follow to keep up parity. Now if you are a pc gamer who uses steam you have a viable path to enjoying once console exclusives.
edit Let me go even further on . I posted a list of companies sony bought and the big games they are now making for the playstation. some of the biggest games of the PS3/Ps4 generation and what many associate Sony with now were made with companies that sony purchased. That seems extremely disruptive to me. What would sony be without those companies? No uncharted , last of us , ghost of tusima , spiderman and horizon ? How would the ps3/ps4 generations have gone for them ? How would we looking at the ps5 now ? To dismiss these purchases is really silly
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
I'll say up front that I feel like trying to further discuss this with you is kind of pointless because you're possibly the only person on the planet who still maintains that Windows isn't a desktop OS monopoly.
I'm not reading all the posts, but I personally don't subscribe to Microsoft caring about money left on the table, any more than they care about spending $70bn on this acquisition in the first place. Microsoft are desperate to grow their Xbox market because they monetise in way beyond people paying subscriptions, MTX or retail for games - and the data that drives that monetization will probably always be inaccessible to them on PlayStation. What they want, is PlayStation games on Xbox where they can monetise that data. Microsoft have been, for many years, shifting into the Google model of data collection and monetization.
Most companies will not invest massively in a market, like developing a console and running a whole ecosystem, unless there is a strong possibility to make a decent return. And without Call of Duty, which sells gangbusters on PlayStation, the potential loss form that one game selling, along with all the MTX, will hurt them annually. Microsoft can easily afford to lose PlayStation revenue more than Sony can. Microsoft have the money to run their business at questionable profitably simply to outlast others through attrition.
And yet, the US (first), EU (second) and UK (third) are all doing exactly that. All of them could have concluded and approved the acquisition, yet none of them have. How are you so blind to the concerns? You present this narrative that all regulators are anti-Microsoft, or even more bizarrely, pro-Sony. Your entire post history in this thread of one of an individual who wilfully disregards history, facts and what is actually happening.
What is insane is that nobody has said that. Who are you debating with? You keep creating these nonsensical straw man arguments. Stadia isn't a viable competitor in gaming in any market. PlayStation is, hence the investigation.
Anybody that says one thing, and does something else has a credibility problem, it's just that Microsoft don't seem to care. Yes, Microsoft do release almost all games on multiple platforms but the vast majority of their games like Halo, Flight Simulator, Gear of Wars, Grounded, Sea of Thieves are only on Microsoft platforms. Microsoft are all about choice, as long as you chose one of their platforms. How is that better than Sony only selling exclusives on Sony consoles? The only acquired franchise that I can think that Microsoft have made a real effort to keep on competitor's platforms is Minecraft.
And Sony will have to satisfy regulators as well. These rules apply to everybody.
Your definition of 'disruptive' is a bit bizarre and I'm not sure what you are arguing here? That Sony shouldn't be releasing games on PC? Because that seems like a pretty popular move, even though sales are relatively small compared to on console. There is only so far Sony can grow the console base, and when you hit that wall, you have to sell to other people which means bringing your products (games) where they are (PC).
Sony releasing a few games on PC is not disrupting the PC gaming landscape. They're selling single digit millions (at most) of games in a market that sells hundreds of millions a year.
1) There are plenty of competition for desktops there is Mac and osx or whatever they call it now and linux. Aside from that PC isn't a dominating platform. In terms of OS market share Windows is what third now ?
2) Yes i agree MS doesn't care about the little scraps of money left over from not putting COD on playstation or whatever game on whatever platform. Their play is to get as many subscribers as possible on Xbox Live/Gamepass/ Xcloud and I bet eventually they will have a m365 + xbox subscription to get more people locked in. It's even why I think their next big purchase will be something like Discovery because unlike Sony / Apple/ Google/ Amazon they have no Movie/TV content. Long run I could see a m365 + xbox + video content tie in subscription from MS .
3) It actually might not hurt them in the long run. There are a lot of gamers out there who love the playstation eccosystem and they would be willing to try out other games to replace COD. Sony used to have a stable of their own shooters like SOCOM , Killzone, MAG and some others . They just paid 4B for bungie with its own massive shooter franchise. Sony should have been diversifying on their content options and instead offer a limited selection of genre. That isn't their competition's fault.
Outside of that COD doesn't exist on the Switch and the switch is still selling extremely well and making a lot of money for Nintendo.
4) I responded to the UK concerns which was that Sony is dominate right now but MS buying activision can be dominate in the future. I don't see an issue. Like I said if this was an issue why would Sony be approved to purchase Bungie ? Sony is the market leader , they have been in the streaming game service longer than MS also. You are going to tell me that Sony continuing to solidify their position in the console market and ultimately the streaming market is healthy for competition ? Enabling a third place company to disrupt the market isn't healthy ? I see Sony coming off a great generation with the ps4 and raising game prices and now raising console prices and now buying up even more companies. But that is some how competitive and not anti consumer ? If anything MS continuing to be a distance third could mean no more xbox and MS would just focus on xcloud and their pc client. Consoles are extremely expensive to develop , produce and support. But sony is allowed to continue to grow through purchases.
Lets be real here , if MS managed to increase market share it would be easier for a 4th party to enter the market. Instead of competition with one dominate market. When you have a market share split semi equally in 3 and a 4th comes in its easier for them to grab content from third parties who might wish to stand out.
5) I am just responding to you and nesh. Maybe you should re read your posts.
6) You are wrong , do you even check what you are writing ?
Halo - Steam
Flight Simulator - Steam
Gears - Steam
Grounded - Steam
Sea of thieves - steam
At this point in time out of Nintendo/MS/Sony its MS who offers the most ways to play on the most platforms. The market is more than just Sony and MS fyi . I played Gears 5 on my series x , went on a flight to Virginia and played on my steam deck and then played it on my surface connected to my hotel room. MS is opening more choices for the players
7) and I bet it goes through the regulators for this deal too and then everyone will be upset with MS until MS buys another company.
8) I have never said if sony should or shouldn't do anything. I am happy that sony is releasing on more platforms. My point is that is due to the purchase of Nixxes which was a disruptive event. Took a great port maker and made them exclusive and now sony is offering games on more paltforms even if they aren't day and date. That is extremely disruptive but its ignored cause it isn't COD and its something that sony did.
9) Sony is selling in low numbers because so far the games are extremely old and have already sold millions if not tens of millions on the playstation platform. That will change as sony changes to day and date publishing on pc.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
No, Windows is the dominant desktop OS. Whilst it annoyingly undermines your point, operating system for PCs and operating systems for mobile devices are totally different. You cannot install Windows 11 on a phone and you cannot install iOS on a PC.
Microsoft bought media companies then got rid of them. They buy companies and get rid of them a lot.
None of the shooters you mention sell anywhere close to Call of Duty. It's the user base. They want the user's engagement and their data.
Yeah, and I know you like to pretend that both the US and EU - and possibly China soon - are not investigating the acquisition beyond an initial stage, but they are. For a good reason. But by all means stick your head in the sand. I don't even think I've seen you acknowledge that the US is at stage 2 of their investigation, when it could have been concluded after stage 1 and approved by now.
And do any of these games on non-Microsoft platforms? The store you buy the game from isn't a software platform. The platforms are Windows and Xbox. Can I run any of these games on macOS? on linux? on SteamOS? Because according top the Steam page, I definitely cannot. I need to pay Microsoft for an Xbox or Windows running on my computer. Of course you know this, you just don't want to admit it.
So you think Sony will be more successful selling their titles on PC day-and-date release than Microsoft have been? Interesting...
Yes and the playstation is the dominate living room tv console. It's easy to add exclusions to make things the way we want. Also hold my beer
It's even funnier since you can now play playstation games on windows 11 that is installed on a phone
Guess windows is a phone OS. now let me ask is IOS a desktop OS since it runs on The ipad tablet and is Windows a mobile os because it runs on the surface tablet ?
Most companies buy and sell other companies or shut them down internally.
Yes other shooters don't have the same user base. IF Sony wanted COD's user base they could have made a bid on Activision , instead they were happy enough to buy bungie. They also could have just made their own FPS game. Worked for Epic and fortnite so I dunno
Saudi already approved , I expect the other countries to approve it soon too. Not sure if China will want to say anything , it may cause issues down the road for them when they want to buy other companies.
Yes Steam is available on linux . Steam deck runs linux not windows.
I think Sony will have great success releasing games from previously third party companies that they bought on the pc day and date.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
I believe Sony has about 40% of the world console market, Nintendo about 35% and Microsoft about 25%. Windows is.. 80% of desktop OS. You were saying about 'dominate' ?
As for Windows 11 on smartphone, colour me surprised it's Project Renegade. I.e. Microsoft does not support this, hardware support is limited, and a lot of software does not run at all or run well. But if that's you low expectations for Windows 11, that's cool. You obviously also need the ARM version of Windows 11 which is only available to WindowsInsider folks. You really do like to cherry-pick minor points and build big claims on those points, don't you.
If you believe Microsoft do support a desktop OS that runs on phones, do provide a link. You're bullshit arguments are the kind of stuff you expect to see in the school yard, not a technical forum. You surely don't believe this?
I don't think "most companies" do this at all. I'm sure you can provide evidence for your claim though. I
No, you clearly "dunno". If it was that easy to make a shooter, why didn't Microsoft just do that rather than burning $70bn? Because perhaps, it's easier to buy recognisable IP than create it yourself.
We already covered this. You know how much of the console market Xbox has in Saudi? Slightly under 6%. Which is why Saudi's regulator concluded that this acquisition wouldn't impact their market. As I've explained a bunch of times, and which I know struggle to grasp, easy regulator is only looking at the impact in their respective markets. In markets where Microsoft have a more competitive presence, the more scrutiny this will get.
And this is the point of monopolies regulation. This shows the process is actually working as intended.
It does, but Microsoft don't support running their games sold via Steam when running on macOS or SteamOS. There are some ways around Microsoft trying to stop you runnng games on non-Microsoft platforms, but that somewhat undermines your point. Microsoft do not want to make it easy to run their games except on Xbox or Windows - both of which they wish to sell you. On the other hand, Sony will quite happily sell you a bunch of their games to run on your Microsoft OS (Windows) or even your non-Microsoft SteamDeck.
Weird huh?
1) No sir there is a handheld and a non hand held market.
2) Windows runs on arm dunno if you have heard of the surface pro x . So windows will run on any phone with that chip in it and when the pro x folds into the pro 9 with a new qualcomm chipsets , dunno if its slated for this fall or next spring. You can go ahead and make a windows recover usb as a non insider for your surface pro x .
3) You never answered my question. Is IOS a desktop os because it runs on an ipad tablet or is windows 10/11 a mobile os because it runs on a surface tablet ? if windows by being on a tablet is a mobile os then how much market share does it have vs andriod and ios ?
4) No never most companies don't sell off failed business ventures ? Oh okay https://www.techspot.com/news/55581...mputer-division-restructures-tv-business.html
https://www.npr.org/2022/03/17/1087268067/amazon-mgm-deal https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/general-news/sony-sells-stake-video-game-697032/#! https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/n...kle-majority-stake-chicken-soup-soul-1197934/ https://www.guru3d.com/news-story/sony-sells-sony-online-entertainment.html
You know what you are right its so extremely rare only MS does so.
5) I mean MS funded and released Halo , Funded and released Gears of war and those have all become big franchises. I've also been told by people on these very forums back in the day that Killzone , Resistance and MAG were all good popular games. I mean EA has battlefield , Activision has COD / overwatch , Valve has CS , MS has Halo / Gears , Epic has Fortnite , Nintendo has Splatoon , Legaue of legends or whatever the company is has Valorant. Bungie had Destiny until Sony bought them and now sony has Destiny.
6) and what is ms's market share in the UK ?
7) MS supports the games running on those platforms by releasing the games on steam. All my steam microsoft games work on my Steam deck. I am not sure what you are going on about. MS even put out a way to play game pass games on xcloud via steam https://support.microsoft.com/en-us...eam-deck-43dd011b-0ce8-4810-8302-965be6d53296
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
I don't know what your'e referring to? In monopoly terms, desktop and mobile devices are considered different platforms by regulators.
There is Windows 11 Home/Pro which supports 80x86 and x64 hardware and comes with drivers to support common 80x86/x64 hardware and there is Windows 11 for ARM which only supports chipsets that ARM supports. They are very different architecturally and Microsoft have this page that sets out the limitations, which are extensive. Enough that they need to give it away rather than being able to sell it.
iOS is not a desktop OS. Apple do not support it running iOS on desktop hardware (Macs).
You said: "Most companies buy and sell other companies or shut them down internally."
You're now saying something else.
And objectively, none sell anywhere near as much as Call of Duty, which is presumably why Microsoft want to buy it.
About the same as Sony.
Microsoft do not support any of these games running on macOS, linux or Steam. You need Microsoft Windows for all of these games.
Please stop this pathetic attempt to pretend there is more support from Microsoft than there is. You can literally see this on the respective Steam Store pages.
Without knowing what games are in your library, that's not useful. As Polygon reported, very Microsoft games are verified, some are playable (with issues) and Halo, Gears and FS don't work at all. Microsoft do not appear keen to support running games on Steam Deck and have not committed to support it. Kind of weird for the company who claim they want their games to more more accessible.
1) But you still can't answer if Windows being on mobile devices makes it a mobile os ?
2) Yes , I spoke about the qualcom chip inside of the surface pro x also. What is your point
3) But its on a tablet. What is a tablet ? If a tablet isn't a desktop pc than windows isn't a desktop os since it runs on tablets.
4) Sony just bought another animation streaming service and is shutting it down. Sony bought MGM couldn't make it work and sold it. Seems par for the course to me. Disney bought Fox but spun off its news company from the main body and a bunch of other things. GM shut down Pontiac . Do you need more examples through history ? Didn't Nintendo shut down its love hotels ?
5) Yes and I am sure Sony wants to buy Activision also. But sony didn't put an offer on the table or a high enough offer . Activision even went to Facebook/meta to try and sell itself to them and Facebook/ meta didn't want it. I am sure they also seeked many other companies. Also how much does COD pull in quarter on all platforms vs fortnite. I wonder if its still bigger.
6) Then MS should tell valve to stop advertising that its playable on their platform https://store.steampowered.com/app/1172620/Sea_of_Thieves/
even your halo deck says its playable on the steam deck. I am not sure what you are going on about
7) Bro your article is from march only flight simulator and gears 5 are listed as not supported and will likely get bumped to supported in the near term since they both work.
When you go to a game on steam on the right side of the page scroll down , after vr , input , play area , languages there is a second for steam deck compatibility.
I mean here is halo infinite on the steam deck in a DF video
And as you can see here
Steam Deck Compatibility Review Process (Steamworks Documentation)
So MS is aware of all of this and has input on the process.
anyway have a good weekend. I have a flight to catch .
At this point the only thing I m getting from @eastmen is a constant whining that its unfair that Sony is the leader and not MS in the gaming industry (possibly because its American). To the point that he is complaining that Sony creates its own original exclusive IPs for Playstation. F*ck me! While in his cognitive dissonance he is trying to excuse and downplay the fact that MS is a freakin monopoly, with significantly larger streams of revenue and far bigger reach in the new economy. And no, the rest of the world doesnt have an anti-American agenda against MS.
edit: Also the argument "Sony would have taken over the world if they could and would have bought Activision but they cant, therefore MS should do it and its ok" sounds super childish and self defeating at best.
edit: Also the argument "Sony would have taken over the world if they could and would have bought Activision but they cant, therefore MS should do it and its ok" sounds super childish and self defeating at best.
MS getting ABK is good. Not seeing a downside. Cod can die in a ditch. Those other IPs can now actually be made now that MS owns it instead of ABK. If ABK was left to it’s own, they would have shut everything down and just kept at being a CoD studio which would have eventually been it’s own downfall anyway.
This statement is true depending on when you start counting. COD games sell around 30M copies in yearly releases. GTA 5 has sold 160M copies. Minecraft has sold over 200M, not counting Story Mode 1/2 and Dungeons. Elder Scrolls is close to 200M as a franchise as well. Cod wins a lot of contests based on strength of schedule. And if it comes to revenue... Not sure COD is top dog at all.
Similar threads
