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

[eastmen]

Those games were crazy good because of the stories they made. They could easily be reimagined titles. If Cobra Kai can take off in this day of age following several failed Karate Kids after 2, then proper execution of Police Quest is easy. You basically are making a Rockstar title with Police Quest 1 and 2 storylines combined. TPS as a narcotics cop after a promotion? I'd totally play it.

WoW is still on the decline however, and it's clear they've run out of good ideas. 5m active subs from the peak of 12M in 2004. The only reason it's 20 years old and still kicking is because no other game has knocked it off yet, nor did Blizzard/Activision have the guts to replace it with Project Titan.

This is another title that was not green lit until after that Diablo Immortal announcement that they thought the company was a joke. ABK had no intention of greenlighting a D4. That's why we've been waiting so long to get a D4, it only started in production after that fateful Blizzcon.

There's so many good old IPs that can be reimagined that have great relevance in today's market which is largely going through its own, lets 'remake' era.

I hate to be an ass but Karate kid was an extremely popular Movie in the 80s spawning 2 direct sequels , a spin off with hilary swank , an animated tv show and then a 2010 remake(which did not have anything to do with karate and took place in china?). I don't think its comparable to a niche series of games from the late 80s/early 90s that itself ditched the original IP name for the sub name in 1999.

Hey tho , I am down for them bringing back IPs , someone for the love of god remake the ultimas !

Sure wow is in decline , its a 20 year old . Even its peak in 2014 was 8 years ago. I am sure there are many companies that would kill to have a game still actively brining in 5m subs a month. Like I already mentioned there are other older MMOs that still exist that never reached the hights of Wow. Ultima online is still running and that is from 1997 so its 25 years old now . My assumption is that the cost to keep the servers down and bringing in more content is a fraction of what they bring in from subscribers. Who knows what is going on with Project Titan , Blizzard could still be working on it or may have moved onto a new project

if Diablo 4 was a reaction to that Diablo immortal announcement 4 years ago then that is an amazing turn around to get a game green lit and into the state they have been showing it off at. It also still doesn't negate the money Diablo immortal is making and likely the money diablo 4 would make. Out of all of Activision/Blizzard titles that is the only one I am interested in (unless there is some awesome wrpg that I'm not aware of lol)

They can of course reboot dead franchises but I think that would be the exception rather than the rule. I would imagine you'd need someone passionate about the IP and has enough clout to get it green light to go through.

 

[mr magoo]

I think the whole deal it’s not about cod like iroboto said. It’s about the manpower to produce content for gamepass to sustain attractive for subscribers. There is currently like 5-7 studios (?) working on cod that can be put to produce other games for average gamepass consumer. After all it’s like Netflix, you cant just relay on stranger things to keep subscribers hook up. You need content.

 

[Malo]

When CoD+Warzone generates 2 billion a year in microtransactions alone... I'm pretty sure it's mostly about CoD. At least from the PC/console side, ignoring King in all this.

 

[eastmen]

I think the whole deal it’s not about cod like iroboto said. It’s about the manpower to produce content for gamepass to sustain attractive for subscribers. There is currently like 5-7 studios (?) working on cod that can be put to produce other games for average gamepass consumer. After all it’s like Netflix, you cant just relay on stranger things to keep subscribers hook up. You need content.

of course, cod is just a happy addition to the purchase.

When the purchase goes through you are going to have all Microsoft Games , Zenimax Games and Activision/ Blizzard games on gamepass. Then with MS's deals you have all of Riots stuff also on Gamepass. That is a huge amount of content to access with a relatively small monthly buy in. But for MS its buying all these studios at once , they could do what sony is doing and just buying a bunch of smaller devs over time but the end result is goign to be the same both companies will have a lot more content studios

 

[iroboto]

They can of course reboot dead franchises but I think that would be the exception rather than the rule. I would imagine you'd need someone passionate about the IP and has enough clout to get it green light to go through.

When CoD+Warzone generates 2 billion a year in microtransactions alone... I'm pretty sure it's mostly about CoD. At least from the PC/console side, ignoring King in all this.

The GP strategy is to release a new exclusive each month. COD + warzone alone won't assist in generating additional game pass subs. WZ is F2P to begin with, and COD can at most only come out once a year.
MS needs IPs, various ones to release. The more IPs they have to work with the more time each game gets in development, the run rate doesn't need to be through the roof because having a longer development cycle helps manage budget and reduces crunch time. They can take more risks now, because each game doesn't need to be this crazy winner. It needs to be a new game that is different from the standard fare of games that is good enough to keep people subbing because variety to trying these new titles is GP differentiation value.

 

[mr magoo]

Yep I think this is directly what Phil said, to have content whole year to keep you interested in GP and not unsubscribe. It doesn’t need to be cod just good enough to keep you interested and keep paying for subscription.

 

[eastmen]

I said years ago that was MS's ultimate goal but of course that takes time and I think even with Activision MS still wont have enough studios. I think they may go up to 50+ studios esp with the time it takes to make a game. In some instances MS is developing mmo's and other longer term projects. So yea I think they will be going pretty high up in terms of studios

 

[PSman1700]

Cross-play is needed imo. MP focused games tend to die rather quickly after a new release on console while on PC these tend to continue to be popular. BF3 and BF4 on consoles are as good as dead while on PC even BF2 is still active in special 3 and 4.

 

[see colon]

Microsoft keep Fallout 76 and Elder Scrolls Online on PlayStation because it would be the death of those games if they did remove it from PS. MMO's live and die based on their online populations and MMO's traditionally have a much larger playerbase on PC than console.

Neither ESO nor Fallout 76 have crossplay. If the Playstation community in those games were to dwindle, they would get no help in terms of player base from the Xbox or PC players.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

I said years ago that was MS's ultimate goal but of course that takes time and I think even with Activision MS still wont have enough studios. I think they may go up to 50+ studios esp with the time it takes to make a game.

What does that tell you about Xbox if Microsoft need 50+ studios to pull people away from competitor's platforms? They have the cheapest and most powerful hardware, which is more readily available and with GamePass you can play hundreds of games for £10/month. How much of the industry does Microsoft need to consume in a Borg-like assimilation strategy for people's preferences to change?

 

[eastmen]

What does that tell you about Xbox if Microsoft need 50+ studios to pull people away from competitor's platforms? They have the cheapest and most powerful hardware, which is more readily available and with GamePass you can play hundreds of games for £10/month. How much of the industry does Microsoft need to consume in a Borg-like assimilation strategy for people's preferences to change?

It tells me nothing. If you want to have a large number of subscribers that continue to subscribe month in and month out you need a lot of content and new content every month. It's why Disney bought fox , its why Discovery bought Warner brothers and its why Netflix started buying up Korean dramas.

It's also why Sony has continued to buy studios like Bungie. You need to have a continuous stream of content and varied content. Sony has its own issue which is that the majority of their first party content is 3rd person adventure game types. They are scared of MS buying activision because sony is lacking in a lot of genres.

When I look at Microsoft 4 years ago they lacked in 1st party content period. But they have spent the time on their own studios and on studio purchases that have actually given them the most varied 1st party line up of games coming out. They have C/WRPGs coming out like Outer worlds , fable , avowed , starfield and elder scrolls. They have an mmo with elder scrolls, they have their racing games with forza motor sport/ horizon they have RTS games like halo wars , they have X-com like games with gears tactics . They have big shooters , they have loot games like diablo coming and so on and so forth. there is content for everyone coming for game pass provided by microsoft which means they aren't dependent on other companies for content.

You can look at netflix to see how important something like that was. Early on netflix was getting content from everyone but slowly those companies made their own services. So ultra popular things like Friends/ the office / parks and rec and so on were pulled off netflix and netflix had to fill the void themselves. With MS building out its content at the start of game pass they will have time to build up enough content to avoid what happened with netflix. The same would go with Sony. Them purchasing studios making games they are not known for is a good thing for sony's subscription offering.

 

[Nesh]

Surely you haven't forgotten the Tomb Raider timed exclusive deal. There are so many articles about that, pick any dozen to look at.

Surely, that was the only third party deal XBOX ever got in its whole existence. You know thats not the case.

The subject back then was revolving around MS deliberate unclear communication and trying to figure out if it was time or full exclusive. And surely you had the greatest market share not owning XBOX so the majority were wondering if they were opted out. Once it ws confirned timed, the fuss calmed down.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

It tells me nothing. If you want to have a large number of subscribers that continue to subscribe month in and month out you need a lot of content and new content every month.

And this is what it's all about. After 20 years, this is Microsoft's latest strategy to make Xbox more popular. Is it profitable? The jury is out, but Microsoft individually report all of their very profitably businesses in their quarterly and annual reports and Xbox is showing up yet, other that noting capital investments/acquisitions.

The difference which this particular strategy is that it is disrupting the industry, in terms of a reduction of the number experienced and successful studios. If Microsoft realise that the subscription plan is not a sustainable economic model, what happens to all of these studios? What happens if the subscription model does work but Microsoft coerce all this teams to change the way to develop games to order to get things our faster to feed the content machine?

It's also why Sony has continued to buy studios like Bungie. You need to have a continuous stream of content and varied content. Sony has its own issue which is that the majority of their first party content is 3rd person adventure game types. They are scared of MS buying activision because sony is lacking in a lot of genres.

Having been in the console industry one generation less than Sony, Microsoft have acquired or tried to acquire twice as many studios. Microsoft only really have themselves to blame for their lack of first party studios. They've been working on Xbox for over two decades now, it's not like the have not had the opportunity to build a stable of good first party teams. The company really don't seem to know what they want and they chop-and-change and this is mostly what worries me about GamePass. It's the latest experiment and if it doesn't work.. look at the disruption to the industry.

 

[Nesh]

And this is what it's all about. After 20 years, this is Microsoft's latest strategy to make Xbox more popular. Is it profitable? The jury is out, but Microsoft individually report all of their very profitably businesses in their quarterly and annual reports and Xbox is showing up yet, other that noting capital investments/acquisitions.

The difference which this particular strategy is that it is disrupting the industry, in terms of a reduction of the number experienced and successful studios. If Microsoft realise that the subscription plan is not a sustainable economic model, what happens to all of these studios? What happens if the subscription model does work but Microsoft coerce all this teams to change the way to develop games to order to get things our faster to feed the content machine?



Having been in the console industry one generation less than Sony, Microsoft have acquired or tried to acquire twice as many studios. Microsoft only really have themselves to blame for their lack of first party studios. They've been working on Xbox for over two decades now, it's not like the have not had the opportunity to build a stable of good first party teams. The company really don't seem to know what they want and they chop-and-change and this is mostly what worries me about GamePass. It's the latest experiment and if it doesn't work.. look at the disruption to the industry.

It is already disruptive because the economics of Gamepass and how it remunerates developers shows signs of economic distortions through heavy subsidization. Otherwise it wouldnt have existed.

MS bets that they will subsidize it enough for such a long time as a carrot on a stick, it will reach a point of no return.

Thats why they bought those studios with existing multiplatform franchises and now its starting to make even more sense. Third parties are less likely to join gamepass and put their games permanently compared to MS's own games, unless they get some heavy remunaration from MS.

Owning them, means MS can do whatever they want with their games in gamepass, putting them there from day one, and looks like, keeping some releases on other platforms will funnel their subsidization for existing permanenently or longer periods on gamepass from day one. Until the consumers buy the carrots at the critical mass where it enjoys larger economies of scale, and big enough revenues, to become the defacto subscription service with whatever consequences that may have on game development, competition and the industry.

MS tries to force content on Gamepass regardless if the economics are there because they can. This is why Sony cant do what Gamepass does with Plus and talk about managing the game life cycle through their subscription and using the revenues of selling their games to fund future titles before they add them in Plus' collection

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Hail Sony, saves us from borg msft.

Financially, there is just one 800lb gorilla relevant in videogames. It's isn't Sony, it isn't Nintendo (both are which are tiny compared to Microsoft), nor is it Google, Amazon or Netflix (who aren't relevant).

I wonder who it could be..

 

[mr magoo]

And this is what it's all about. After 20 years, this is Microsoft's latest strategy to make Xbox more popular. Is it profitable? The jury is out, but Microsoft individually report all of their very profitably businesses in their quarterly and annual reports and Xbox is showing up yet, other that noting capital investments/acquisitions.

The difference which this particular strategy is that it is disrupting the industry, in terms of a reduction of the number experienced and successful studios. If Microsoft realise that the subscription plan is not a sustainable economic model, what happens to all of these studios? What happens if the subscription model does work but Microsoft coerce all this teams to change the way to develop games to order to get things our faster to feed the content machine?



Having been in the console industry one generation less than Sony, Microsoft have acquired or tried to acquire twice as many studios. Microsoft only really have themselves to blame for their lack of first party studios. They've been working on Xbox for over two decades now, it's not like the have not had the opportunity to build a stable of good first party teams. The company really don't seem to know what they want and they chop-and-change and this is mostly what worries me about GamePass. It's the latest experiment and if it doesn't work.. look at the disruption to the industry.

What if ea falls ? What if Sony falls? Msft may be one gen behind but this is not the whole story. Msft enetered the marked when psx was already a worldwide success. Xbox was released two years after ps2 where ps had already established franchises like mgs tekken gran tourismo ff etc etc you have to acquire studios if you want compete with something like that or you end up like sega. Sony is acquiring studios as well btw. If GP falls pc gaming still will be a thing even if Xbox fails.

 

[Remij]

This is another title that was not green lit until after that Diablo Immortal announcement that they thought the company was a joke. ABK had no intention of greenlighting a D4. That's why we've been waiting so long to get a D4, it only started in production after that fateful Blizzcon.

There's so many good old IPs that can be reimagined that have great relevance in today's market which is largely going through its own, lets 'remake' era.

Huh? Nah. Why do you think that? I'm pretty sure Diablo 4 was in development before Diablo Immortal was announced... They were literally telling people to calm down because Diablo 4 was coming. It was just in bad taste that they revealed Diablo Immortal when everyone was expecting Diablo 4 to be announced at that particular event.

If they would have even just announced the title "Diablo 4" and shown a couple of artwork pieces before bringing up Diablo Immortal... the reception would have been entirely different.

 

[iroboto]

The difference which this particular strategy is that it is disrupting the industry, in terms of a reduction of the number experienced and successful studios. If Microsoft realise that the subscription plan is not a sustainable economic model, what happens to all of these studios? What happens if the subscription model does work but Microsoft coerce all this teams to change the way to develop games to order to get things our faster to feed the content machine?

Disruption whether in a form of a new service or technology is normal in any industry. It’s a sign of innovation and sometimes disruption is what keeps an industry moving forward. While the results of this move may have large scale impacts the reality is that many studios have been dying off or dropping riskier titles due to increased development costs and decreased appetites for risk. Expectations for feature sets
In games have only gotten larger leading to longer dev times and bigger dev teams. Only the indie scene has exploded and AAA has largely stagnated with safe titles and remakes.

It’s not like the status quo wasn’t having problems, mobile gaming has had a meteoric impact on games earning nearly 50% of all gaming revenue at a fraction of the cost.

It seems extremely unfair to point at MS and say that gamepass will be the downfall of the industry when it clearly has been suffering for so long. Gamepass will not be the cause of a video game crash of like in 1983.

 

[iroboto]

Huh? Nah. Why do you think that? I'm pretty sure Diablo 4 was in development before Diablo Immortal was announced... They were literally telling people to calm down because Diablo 4 was coming. It was just in bad taste that they revealed Diablo Immortal when everyone was expecting Diablo 4 to be announced at that particular event.

If they would have even just announced the title "Diablo 4" and shown a couple of artwork pieces before bringing up Diablo Immortal... the reception would have been entirely different.

Hmm you are probably right on this. Not sure why I thought this, some journalist I must have read was wrong on this.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Neither ESO nor Fallout 76 have crossplay. If the Playstation community in those games were to dwindle, they would get no help in terms of player base from the Xbox or PC players.

Ouch, no wonder their player bases are so relatively anemic. They really need to get crossplay into those games ASAP. Game Pass won't even help ESO really since it's been free to play for a while.

If they removed either of those games from any platform they likely become unprofitable or close to unprofitable at this point.

Regards,
SB