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

The more healthy players in the market the more innovation. If a company isn't selling enough consoles and thus enough software then they will exit the market. I don't think anyone actually wants a market of just sony and nintendo or worse just one company. It will be bad for the consumer in the end.

On the flip side having more companies in the market will breed innovation or advance progress faster . For example if say google came to the market in 2023 with an intel based console that have an intel core cpu with a next gen graphics card from intel (not the generation in line with the 30x0 series but one after that) It of course could offer a much better visual and performance experiance than the current consoles from ms/sony.

We see it with the steam deck happening now. Nintendo claims the switch is half way through its life span. But Valve is producing a handheld that far and away offers a much higher fidelity and performance profile over what the switch can handle. Just having that 4th console maker or 2nd hand held maker if you want to go there opens up a much more competitive market.

 

Nadella has chimed in personally. Have to see if he is correct or not.

 

I cannot see ay evidence of this ever having happened. Sony's worst selling console, in both absolute and relative numbers, was the PlayStation 3, which was also the generation in which Sony has the most first-party critically-acclaimed games. I cannot see how there is any correlation between the number of consoles sold and the creative environment in which innovative software is made. There just has to be enough money to fund software development.

It didn't matter to me as a consumer that Sony didn't sell a lot of PS3s, I couldn't care less.

 

I also cannot see what the issue is either. Monopolies legislation is there to preserve a competitive market and consumer choice. It's not about enshrining that non-Microsoft console owners have access to first person military shooters called Call of Duty. There are lots of first person military shooters.

And the expectation from everybody is that Microsoft will flip the CoD model anyway, going for annual to a slower release cadence.

 

He was also very bullish in todays town hall.

Also apparently hololens 2 sales are really good

 

Gandhi with a warchest

But I thought HoloLens 3 were scrapped no? I remember some article about that.

 

I am a little surprised he isn't being more circumspect.

 

MS has multiple hololens in development based on what they believe the time lines for hardware will be. There were some things that came to fruition sooner than they thought and made it into what became the second hololens. But MS is still very much focused on Hololens. They have new prototypes that they constantly iterate on and when the time is right they will release a new one. I am sure we will see one as supply chain issues work themselves out. Right now its most likely easier to produce the older ones since the chips are on older processes.

 

To gamers this is a big deal , to everyone else it really doesn't matter. MS wont get a monopoly from this or even anywhere near it. They are still behind two other companies , one a Japanese one and one a chinese one. It could be different if it was all American companies ahead of Microsoft.

 

Sure but if Sony sold few enough PS3's that they exited the market then you would likely care. That would have meant no PS4 and no PS5. And the most powerful home console would then have been the Xbox One and media would have then continued to be a dominant focus which means Xbox Series consoles would likely have subsequently been less powerful with more of a focus on media playback.

As a real example, we have plenty of people that lament Sega leaving the console hardware space because they didn't sell a lot of Sega Dreamcasts. I'm sure a PlayStation player likely didn't care that Sega exited the console hardware market due to not enough sales, but a lot of people certainly did care as a consumer.

Likewise we can look back at the Amiga with plenty of people lamenting that Amiga basically exited their market due to low sales.

So, yes, it's not uncommon for consumers to actually care whether or not a company sells at least enough units that the company continues to make those products.

As another example using companies that haven't gone out of business. Many PC enthusiasts are much happier now that AMD are selling more CPUs, especially Intel enthusiasts. Not only has that made the PC CPU market more vibrant, but it has caused Intel to significantly increase the performance and value of their CPUs due to them actually having competition for the first time in over a decade when Ryzen and more importantly Ryzen 2 came out and thus AMD CPUs actually starting to sell in volumes that represented a threat to Intel.

Does the average consumer who doesn't care what console they use or what CPU they use or what product they use care? Probably not. For them a Nintendo console is just as good or better than a PlayStation console. For many an Atom CPU was as good as a Core i7 CPU. For the consumers that care, however, they do indeed quite often care how many units a manufacturer they like sells and even in some cases they care about how many units a competitor to their favorite manufacturer makes (the Intel vs. AMD example).

Regards,
SB

 

If Sony released a console that sold so few it could support the business, then the market would be better off without them. Manufacturers leaving the market has only happened with consoles that were never largely commercially viable in the first place. If selling the least amount of consoles meant leaving the market, the 360 wouldn't exist. It's why Sony are no longer in the handheld console market.

But that's not what eastmen said, he said it would be better if the market shares roughly equal. I see no evidence to support this, actually the opposite is more likely to be true. If there was some balancing influence that meant market shares were almost equal then the reduces the motivation to innovate and try harder. If working harder doesn't get you ahead, you stop trying.

This is human nature and for companies, effort and investment is entirely about chasing profit. If cannot double your market to make that a reality, why invest much beyond what you have to?

This is why markets are freely competitive. This is the healthiest position for markets and best for consumers.

 

The data confirms what many have suspected, COD is dropping in importance (still super important though)
I wonder if MS knew this info before they sealed the deal, could of knocked a few billion off the price
https://www.gamesindustry.biz/artic...ion-blizzard-holiday-bookings-drop-18-percent
Candy crush maker King done well though

I have tried the game some years ago, but how can one enjoy the same product for nearly 5 years! I'm unusual as I always like to seek new stuff but still, sheesh ppl are so conservative

 

It appeals to a wide range of more casual gamers and even some that aren't gamers. My aunt plays Candy Crush a lot. It's the only game she plays. It's the only game she has ever played on any electronic device.

Regards,
SB

 

Well, Vanguard was so-so COD so it was not surprising. However I wonder how the next COD - what sales for the next COD are gonna look like. As it is rumored to be Modern Warfare 2 or something. Should be more popular that WW2 based.

 

Microtransactions and DLCs Generated 61% of Activision Blizzard revenue for 2021 (guru3d.com)

 

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

 

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

 

Deja-Vu...

 

It's interesting that despite King being part of Activision-Blizzard, microtransactions and DLC for them aren't far off what's pretty standard for console gaming. If we take a look at Sony's FY2020 ending March 31, 2021 we can get a decent idea at what industry breakdowns for this would be.

• Physical Software ~138 billion yen
• Digital Software ~543 billion yen
• Add-on content ~912 billion yen

In percentages that would mean that microtransactions, DLC, etc. make up ~57.25% of total games revenue. That's not far off the ~61% for Activision-Blizzard (King).

Regards,
SB

 

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