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

[Deleted member 11852]

Xcloud is built entirely of Series X hardware and unless something has changed it’s still the only dedicated silicon to supporting xcloud.

The hardware I understand, but if what Microsoft says is true then nothing about xCloud is leveraging the existing Azure infrastructure. It's all completely different. Different sites, power, pipes, data centres.

Mobile only people (2 billion) of them is much larger than the console market (200M-300M). If more games come to game
Pass and therefore xcloud, 2B people now have access to those titles.

Good point! I struggle to play Minecraft on mobile, I still dev mental blinkers that some people do steam 'fuller' games to small touch screen devices. I cannot for the life of me imaging playing something like Skyrim or Fallout though.

 

[iroboto]

The hardware I understand, but if what Microsoft says is true then nothing about xCloud is leveraging the existing Azure infrastructure. It's all completely different. Different sites, power, pipes, data centres.


Good point! I struggle to play Minecraft on mobile, I still dev mental blinkers that some people do steam 'fuller' games to small touch screen devices. I cannot for the life of me imaging playing something like Skyrim or Fallout though.

Agreed. Xcloud is a bit of the who came first; chicken or egg type question. They need to build xcloud to support more games, but they need more players to give them the feedback and support xcloud.

It feels like they are going the mobile console route, so you need a switch/deck type combo to experience it. Mobile phones on their own is fairly weak but i suppose if you have nothing else some people may be willing to put up with it.

A good example might be world of tanks. It’s very similar to say counter strike but because tanks are inherently slow, the pace is slow enough for mobile players to be good at it. I do agree some things would change, I guess it depends on the market they want to hit.


Having said that however, Fortnite, apex and PUBG abd Warzone ste all on mobile today. Not sure how well it does other than to feed them to get the real game.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

It feels like they are going the mobile console route, so you need a switch/deck type combo to experience it. Mobile phones on their own is fairly weak but i suppose if you have nothing else some people may be willing to put up with it.

And it feels like there are few of these type of devices - actually credibly good ones - announced or in the works. Streaming does take the edge of needing a battery-guzzling APU.

 

[eastmen]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1581967314152366080

Don't see the logic in this , Unless Sony didn't want to announce a bunch of exclusive games from companies they just bought like Bungie.

 

[BRiT]

I doubt the credibility of that account. Weren't they proven wrong on several other occasions too?

I don't believe it at all. Namely because the FTC and other regulatory bodies are able to request and gather information that is not released to the public. To think that any regulator bodies sit there watching showcases and taking notes is laughable.

 

[eastmen]

I doubt the credibility of that account. Weren't they proven wrong on several other occasions too?

I don't believe it at all. Namely because the FTC and other regulatory bodies are able to request and gather information that is not released to the public. To think that any regulator bodies sit there watching showcases and taking notes is laughable.

I think they were right on a few things but wrong on a bunch so who knows.

As for them delaying any big conferences , I doubt it would sway regulators but it would sway the court of public opininon. pretty sure if they came out and announced Destiny 3 exclusive to Playstation while still crying about Microsoft purchasing activision it would fall really flat amongst the general public.

 

[see colon]

As for them delaying any big conferences , I doubt it would sway regulators but it would sway the court of public opininon. pretty sure if they came out and announced Destiny 3 exclusive to Playstation while still crying about Microsoft purchasing activision it would fall really flat amongst the general public.

Destiny 3 doesn't have to be Playstation exclusive to have it be problematic to their case. Isn't part of the problem Sony has is that COD on Gamepass is objectionable for them? So wouldn't Destiny on PS+ be just as problematic for Xbox?

 

[Nesh]

Microsoft’s Actions Post-ZeniMax Acquisition Are What Concerns The UK CMA With It Acquiring Activision

The UK CMA has published a statement regarding Microsoft’s acquisition of Activision Blizzard, citing that its concerns with granting approval

todayheadline.co

Microsoft’s Actions Post-ZeniMax Acquisition Are What Concerns The UK CMA With It Acquiring Activision​

The UK CMA has published a statement regarding Microsoft’s acquisition of Activision Blizzard, citing that its concerns with granting approval for the acquisition come from Microsoft’s actions after it acquired ZeniMax.

“Third parties told the CMA that Microsoft would benefit from making Activision’s content exclusive to Game Pass, and that this would be consistent with Microsoft’s behaviour in relation to past acquisitions, including that of ZeniMax Media, where Microsoft did not uphold its promise to continue making Bethesda content available on multiple stores and platforms.”

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Destiny 3 doesn't have to be Playstation exclusive to have it be problematic to their case. Isn't part of the problem Sony has is that COD on Gamepass is objectionable for them? So wouldn't Destiny on PS+ be just as problematic for Xbox?

It absolutely would but Sony would rather charge people full price for things that people will pay full price for, and any sort of subsidy like PS+ is very much an afterthought. Even some PS4-to-PS5 games upgrades are paid for. Sony do not put all, nor even most, of their first party titles into PS+ and some games can take years. E.g. God of War took four years to make to PS+. Destiny has ongoing costs that need to be covered from somewhere and paying for it seems to work.

 

[fehu]

it would sway the court of public opininon. pretty sure if they came out and announced Destiny 3 exclusive to Playstation while still crying about Microsoft purchasing activision it would fall really flat amongst the general public.

I don't think that this would create any public relations problems. They can just grab an exclusive and say "see? this is what happens, do you want that microsoft to steal your game?", and still be backed by millions of gamers.

 

[eastmen]

Microsoft’s Actions Post-ZeniMax Acquisition Are What Concerns The UK CMA With It Acquiring Activision

The UK CMA has published a statement regarding Microsoft’s acquisition of Activision Blizzard, citing that its concerns with granting approval

todayheadline.co

Microsoft’s Actions Post-ZeniMax Acquisition Are What Concerns The UK CMA With It Acquiring Activision​

The UK CMA has published a statement regarding Microsoft’s acquisition of Activision Blizzard, citing that its concerns with granting approval for the acquisition come from Microsoft’s actions after it acquired ZeniMax.

Bethesda games are still available on multiple platforms. MS clearly stated that new games would be on a case by case basis in all their discourse. This is going to come back and bite the UK and Sony in the ass. Each time sony wants to purchase any company that has a foot print in the UK MS will simply raise the same exact concerns over and over again. Ms will simply avoid buying companys that have a UK foot print and I would wager if the deal still goes through they will start to move as much game development as possible out of the UK .

last I checked the UK with their exit from the EU is doing quite bad so even more job losses would be a net loss for them

 

[eastmen]

I don't think that this would create any public relations problems. They can just grab an exclusive and say "see? this is what happens, do you want that microsoft to steal your game?", and still be backed by millions of gamers.

There are always fan boys. But it will get louder about what Sony does , it will bring sony's past behavior to new generations of gamers that may have just been kids when sony entered the industry.

 

[see colon]

It absolutely would but Sony would rather charge people full price for things that people will pay full price for, and any sort of subsidy like PS+ is very much an afterthought. Even some PS4-to-PS5 games upgrades are paid for. Sony do not put all, nor even most, of their first party titles into PS+ and some games can take years. E.g. God of War took four years to make to PS+. Destiny has ongoing costs that need to be covered from somewhere and paying for it seems to work.

Well, the whole game doesn't have to be on PS+, as part of the argument Sony has made against Microsoft is...

• Microsoft could offer a range of attractive incentives about Call of Duty through Xbox Game Pass, whether that’s bonus features or modes or presumably, the idea that they’d offer the game itself through Game Pass, which they obviously plan to.

Source
So if Destiny 3, or even Destiny 2, gets incentives on PS+ then what happens? Are we all supposed to think this is a bad thing? I actually thought something like this had already happened, where they were giving away Destiny 2 skins or free silver as a PS+ perk, but I looked at the perks page and no Destiny content is currently listed. But there is Fallout Shelter content, ironically.

Bethesda games are still available on multiple platforms. MS clearly stated that new games would be on a case by case basis in all their discourse.

Not just for sale, either. Deathloop just hit Xbox and Gamepass, but is free this month on Humble and has free skins on Amazon Gaming, as is Fallout 76. I understand that there may have been deals in place already, but they've made no effort to pull Bethesda content from competing storefronts, and in fact have made available the classic Bethesda games that were only on GOG for free available elsewhere for free. And, Amazon Gaming is giving out the Minecraft Dungeons DLC. I'm fairly confident any deals with Mojang would have expired by now, and Dungeons was released after that acquisition was finished and settled, so...

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Well, the whole game doesn't have to be on PS+, as part of the argument Sony has made against Microsoft is...

Again, I agree. What I'm saying is, Microsoft have a history of putting all their games inside GamePass (Xbox), that's the linchpin of their strategy. Sony does not.

So if Destiny 3, or even Destiny 2, gets incentives on PS+ then what happens? Are we all supposed to think this is a bad thing? I actually thought something like this had already happened, where they were giving away Destiny 2 skins or free silver as a PS+ perk, but I looked at the perks page and no Destiny content is currently listed. But there is Fallout Shelter content, ironically.

That would also be a bad thing. In terms of trying to sway consumers but offering extra console-exclusive DLC, that's as old the hills, e.g. GTA III/VC early exclusivity on PS2, GTA IV DLC early exclusivity on 360, but how you treat another platform when you own the property is very different. Sony absolutely should not being producing any Destiny-exclusive content for PlayStation - unless there is an equivalent on other platforms, I.e. blue t-shirt on PS, green t-shirt on Xbox. Irrelevant differentiation.

 

[iroboto]

Again, I agree. What I'm saying is, Microsoft have a history of putting all their games inside GamePass (Xbox), that's the linchpin of their strategy. Sony does not.



That would also be a bad thing. In terms of trying to sway consumers but offering extra console-exclusive DLC, that's as old the hills, e.g. GTA III/VC early exclusivity on PS2, GTA IV DLC early exclusivity on 360, but how you treat another platform when you own the property is very different. Sony absolutely should not being producing any Destiny-exclusive content for PlayStation - unless there is an equivalent on other platforms, I.e. blue t-shirt on PS, green t-shirt on Xbox. Irrelevant differentiation.

I would be shocked if Destiny did not, this is probably an OT. But before Bungie went solo, Sony had the lions share of times exclusive items, exotics, pvp maps, and dungeons that took over a year to unlock on Xbox. Now that they own bungie again, I fully expect this to continue, there is virtually no reason not to. The game is still multi platform, I find it highly unlikely Sony wouldn’t try to sway buyers to play it on PS over Xbox now that both consoles treat f2p titles the same when concerning subscription requirements.

 

[Nesh]

Bethesda games are still available on multiple platforms. MS clearly stated that new games would be on a case by case basis in all their discourse. This is going to come back and bite the UK and Sony in the ass. Each time sony wants to purchase any company that has a foot print in the UK MS will simply raise the same exact concerns over and over again. Ms will simply avoid buying companys that have a UK foot print and I would wager if the deal still goes through they will start to move as much game development as possible out of the UK .

last I checked the UK with their exit from the EU is doing quite bad so even more job losses would be a net loss for them

I am sure your reading skills and expertise are at incredibly higher levels than CMA's

 

[eastmen]

Again, I agree. What I'm saying is, Microsoft have a history of putting all their games inside GamePass (Xbox), that's the linchpin of their strategy. Sony does not.



That would also be a bad thing. In terms of trying to sway consumers but offering extra console-exclusive DLC, that's as old the hills, e.g. GTA III/VC early exclusivity on PS2, GTA IV DLC early exclusivity on 360, but how you treat another platform when you own the property is very different. Sony absolutely should not being producing any Destiny-exclusive content for PlayStation - unless there is an equivalent on other platforms, I.e. blue t-shirt on PS, green t-shirt on Xbox. Irrelevant differentiation.

I don't get this logic. Shouldn't it be the first party titles that get exclusive content and not third party titles?

I would expect Destiny 3 to have skins or maps or something that is only on playstation. But I wouldn't expect harry potter to have it. I would say it sucks going and buying a 3rd party game at full price only to find out that since said 3rd party made a marketing deal with a different company you suddenly don't get a completed game.

 

[JPT]

I don't get this logic. Shouldn't it be the first party titles that get exclusive content and not third party titles?

I would expect Destiny 3 to have skins or maps or something that is only on playstation. But I wouldn't expect harry potter to have it. I would say it sucks going and buying a 3rd party game at full price only to find out that since said 3rd party made a marketing deal with a different company you suddenly don't get a completed game.

You mean like Destiny before Sony bought Bungie? Or a bunch of other 3rd party games? This has been done before and by both parties.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

I fully expect this to continue, there is virtually no reason not to.

How about because it introduces greater risk that regulators will slow, and perhaps reject future acquisitions because approving a acquisition, even if you support other platforms, you are advantaging your own platform and therefore competitively disadvantaging others?

That is the crux of all of the regulators assessments, with the EU expected to announce a deeper four-month investigation in early November, is that acquisitions can either remove availability of titles entirely from some platforms/stores/services, but even when it doesn't entirely, it gives the owner opportunity to disadvantage the competition.

That's a reason to do this assuming you wish to make strategic acquisitions in future. Again, this is just not about Microsoft and Sony here, there has been a motion of big tech being "too big" for a few years. I think there is now just a general disposition to say no whereas a few years back they may have said yes.

You mean like Destiny before Sony bought Bungie? Or a bunch of other 3rd party games? This has been done before and by both parties.

I think this is probably a key distinction. Grown in-house first party titles like Halo and Gears and very different from acquired first party titles that were previously more widely available. I've said it a lot before and I'll say it again, I think Microsoft stating early on that Starfield and Elder Scrolls VI being Xbox console exclusive has set expectations on what they will do going forward. Elder Scrolls VI is fecking years off, possibly releasing on the next generation of console hardware, so why even talk about supported hardware now? D'oh!

 

[iroboto]

How about because it introduces greater risk that regulators will slow, and perhaps reject future acquisitions because approving a acquisition, even if you support other platforms, you are advantaging your own platform and therefore competitively disadvantaging others?

I would then ask what the value of an acquisition is if not to take advantage of both the talent and the IP. Unless Sony has completely changed their trajectory of how they do business, exclusivity is still a very big part of platform selection. I don't see why regulators need to get involved here, stopping industry consolidation for the sake of allowing other competitors in is borderline virtue signaling like they are doing their job, but most start ups in the gaming space have largely died irrelevant of industry consolidation.
Stadia has died
Geforce now has not taken off
Epic store has gone no where
Gai kai has gone no where
xcloud has not taken off
other groups like Atari and some kickstarters are toast
VR has gone no where, largely.
Amazon has gone no where
MS store has gone no where
Facebook has gotten no where
Mixer has died

It's an incredibly difficult industry to enter and hold a position. Realistically these will be the final players with Xbox still the closest to opting out of console hardware entirely in exchange for moving to cloud if that ever works. So much of this is predicated on what ifs and emotions and the possibility of where the future is headed, it doesn't seem fair at all to either company.