Microsoft buying Activision Blizzard for $69 Billion, NICE! Possibly Completes 2022-07 to 2023-06

I didn't mean to imply MTX was required to enjoy the game, just that Microsoft focuses on releasing games where they can make additional revenue through MTX, and not necessarily on what developers want to make.

I haven't bought a COD title since Modern Warfare back in 2007 or whenever it came out, they aren't my cup of tea either. I'm pretty sure it dwarfs everything on that list with the exception of maybe Candy Crush/WOW when it comes to profit though. Do we have any numbers on what COD games actually cost to make? I wouldn't expect them to be that high. They reuse the same engine for years and years and rarely do anything new. Content creation would have to be hugely inefficient on their toolset which seems unlikely. They are the best selling title every year no? If not right behind an EA Sports title.

 

maybe , or maybe they put a new ip (minecraft dungeons) on multiple platforms to build up its brand. Sequel may only be on one platform. Or contracts may have been signed from pre purchase on that game. Dunno the behind the scenes

There is some speculation that the ray tracing minecraft isn't out because of lingering contractual obligations that would require it to come out on other platforms. Those might be ending this year or next year.

 

The move is investing $70Bn of cash that's just sitting around idle doing nothing otherwise. Now it's in play. It has more potential. Potential upside as well as downside. Of course it's a risk that could go south, but then there are a lot of accounting benefits for that as well.

Bezos. At least that action provided some laughs, even if juvenile in nature.

 

How is platform agnostic gaming relevant to such extreme buyouts that promotes monopolies? Why is it a requirement? And why.do we ignore how it over shifts the landscape in the hands of one conpany

 

Approximately 200M-250M for each COD title when including marketing.
They generate over 1B in revenue. The return is about 1:4 which is great.
Except MS may not have 250M * 3 to spend to release COD annually. So it can shuffle to find 3-10M dollar projects instead and still net a worthy ROI less than 1:4 for instance but fill out it's monthly release schedule and continuing to keep subscribers onboard instead of waiting for the annual release.

That's sort of the issue with launching AAA titles on game pass, you can finish them under a month easily. So you sub and leave. you need a lot of variety of different titles and experiences to keep players subbed. The bulk of game pass titles are in the AA category, they are the type of games they target for 3P and 1P.

And this is why I don't think CoD was the big play here for MS.

 

For less than a tenth of what Microsoft just spent they could have bought capacity at TSMC and have ample supply of Xbox Series X consoles on shelves within weeks/months for that money. Other companies with things in train would definitely take a bucket of money to yield fab time to Microsoft.

Invest a fraction of that money to make Microsoft employees terms and conditions so much better that would make creatives working for other companies flock to Microsoft. Buying Activision feels like an utter lack of imagination when there is no clear return for decades. They can make things better for lots of people - customers wanting consoles and their own employees - right now! ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

To add on

https://www.gamesradar.com/wasteland-3-gamescom-2019-preview/

Microsoft basically came in, gave us a tonne of cash, and said go and make the best game that you possibly can," Brian Fargo, founder of inXile Entertainment, tells me before I get my hands on a new build of Wasteland 3. Fargo is laughing as he says this to me and I think I know why – Fargo knows that he's really got something special on his hands this time.

Phil Spencer and Microsoft have been great stewards for gaming. That's why I'm not up in arms about this. Microsoft has done right by their teams. Of the three console manufacturers, who would have stuck with Sea of Thieves as long as they did for example. They pushed back Halo a year to make it right. This isn't the Microsoft from our childhood.

 

Yup, in an instant this would make PC Gamepass a real contender and not just the weaker companion to console Gamepass.

I don't have a current or even a last gen machine (360 was my last console) but if all the Actiblizzard stuff comes to Gamepass I'm going to resubscribe even though PC Gamepass is rather janky. Might even try WoW again.

 

COD multiplayer keeps people coming back, it's hardly a sub for a month and quit title. It doesn't need to be a GP driver though. The amount of money it makes through people who buy to own is exceptional.

 

Psychonauts 2 is the counter point that not everything is MTX.

 

Sony and Nintendo delay their first party games all the time. I'd say Microsoft is far behind both when it comes to game development.

It is a legit exception, if the only one in 9 years.

 

Hmm there's a bunch of ms games with no mtx. Flight simulator, hellblade, halo infinite single player, ori, age of empires, and many more.

Halo INFINITE multiplayer, the most mtx laden Microsoft's game, also limited to vanity stuff like helmet design, etc AFAIK.

 

If this doesn't force Sony into irrelevance, it's going to force them into making a big purchase probably on the Japanese side. I can see square .

MS has made no indications they are stopping aquisitions until they have pretty much every major publisher under their belt, if Sony even wants to exist as a gaming company they pretty much have to do something as drastic as MS.

But I honestly don't see Sony having the resources to do anything like that.

 

@techuse When I look at Microsoft's gamese, I don't really see pattern of micro-transaction heavy games. State of Decay, Forza, Gears, Gears Tactics, Ori, Age of Empires, Tell Me Why, Psychonauts 2, Grounded, Flight Simulator, Halo, Halo Wars, Super Lucky's Tale, Sea of Thieves. A few of thieves have skins for PvP multiplayer, like Gears 5 and the Halo Infinite free-to-play multiplayer. I really don't see a pattern of building super micro-transaction heavy games. Halo Infinite free-to-play mp is obviously build directly around micro-transaction. That's probably the worst offender. The rest seem pretty bog standard. I'm guessing games like Wasteland 3 don't have microtransactions and future inXile games won't. I'm guessing Ninja Theory games won't have them. Bethesda games like fallout might have as much as they've ever had. I don't see any reason to be concerned that Microsoft is going to force any studios to change their directions and start building games that are micro heavy revenue generators. If anything, I hope they'll give more studios the freedom to make something other than COD, and we'll actually get some unique stuff.

 

There's no need to buy the cow when you get the milk for cheap. Square doesn't make sense because it's cheaper for Sony to continue the moneyhats than outright purchase.

 

Yah, COD is a game that has people play all year round because of the multiplayer on top of the people who buy just for the campaign. If anything the value of having COD on gamepass makes gamepass a muich better deal for most console gamers. You save the $70 yearly on the title, which is a good chunk of the yearly subscription. COD sales are faltering though. The last two titles have gotten progressively worse.

 

exactly and I agree with this, if it weren't on game pass it would still generate the sales it needs to.
And this is part of my reasoning behind CoD not going exclusive, it doesn't necessarily mean a mass migration of new users. I think a large catalog of games combined with CoD could, but not CoD on its own. And so, for now to keep good will, I think CoD will stay MP at least for a while, not to mention keeping the population alive will result in a lot more MTX sales over it's lifetime. More players = better for CoD.

 

https://venturebeat.com/2022/01/19/activision-blizzard-wanted-to-sell-so-it-approached-microsoft/

Interesting......

Still digesting this. The fact that AB approached MS in and of itself..... This really does seem to have been thrown together. By the usual standards of buyouts of this size anyway.

Now I am wondering if this has put the kibosh on the acquisitions that were discussed as being in the works previously, or if MS are not done yet.

 

They would if they believe that exclusive content is a necessary strategy, to make Square games exclusive to their platform.

But if anything, isn't Sony putting first-party games on Xbox and PC?

 

this article.

Thank you, this confirms what I truly hoped for. The focus will not be triple down on all of duty once the acquisition is completed. Let's get those non CoD games up and going.