Who wants a mere 6 pack when they can have a keg?
I'm lucky the wife liked him more as Andy in parks and rec. One of her favorite tv shows.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Microsoft rumored to be buying...... [2020-04, 2020-07, 2020-11]
- Thread starter Nesh
- Start date
-
- Tags
- microsoft xbox xbox game pass
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
I'm lucky the wife liked him more as Andy in parks and rec. One of her favorite tv shows.
Warnes looking to sell Netherrealm and TT games according to Jez Corden from windows Central. That would be Mortal Kombat and most likely the Lego franchises
Both could be good pick ups for Microsoft. Even if they don't get the Lega franchise the teams behind Lego could be put onto some of MS's dormant kid friendly stuff. Would love a new viva pinata , banjo and kameo set of games.
ChuckeRearmed
Regular
The problem is that only people with the access to the documents know what is happening there because WB denies that hard. Add to the timelines of negotiations - years and it will take some time to know.
Warnes looking to sell Netherrealm and TT games according to Jez Corden from windows Central. That would be Mortal Kombat and most likely the Lego franchises
Both could be good pick ups for Microsoft. Even if they don't get the Lega franchise the teams behind Lego could be put onto some of MS's dormant kid friendly stuff. Would love a new viva pinata , banjo and kameo set of games.
Also from my observation, it seems people underestimate what MS can and can't purchase and overestimate Playstation in that regard.
MS can get Lego license, but I wonder if TT really wants to work on Lego.
cheapchips
Veteran
MS can get Lego license, but I wonder if TT really wants to work on Lego.
They've not done anything other than Lego games for over a decade. They either love doing what they're doing or start to have spasms whenever they see little bricks.
ChuckeRearmed
Regular
Well they can make Halo and Sea of Thieves Lego packs. Like imagine Sea of Thieves pack with the pirates of the caribbeanThey've not done anything other than Lego games for over a decade. They either love doing what they're doing or start to have spasms whenever they see little bricks.
The question with MS is never can they afford to purchase something, the answer is almost always going to be yes. But sales are not unilateral, outside of hostile take overs, and that doesn't seem to be MS's style. Willingness to be sold is the limiting factor on acquisitions.The problem is that only people with the access to the documents know what is happening there because WB denies that hard. Add to the timelines of negotiations - years and it will take some time to know.
Also from my observation, it seems people underestimate what MS can and can't purchase and overestimate Playstation in that regard.
MS can get Lego license, but I wonder if TT really wants to work on Lego.
And that applies to licenses as well. Licenses can require multiplatform releases, which is why MLB The Show is now on Xbox. If they do that makes them less appealing purchases for Xbox Game Studios. They might not even be able to do day one Game Pass depending on license terms, because the license holder has a say there, in both directions, which is why MLB The Show was day one in the service. No way in hell Sony wanted that to happen, just that it was less bad than not being able to make the game at all. So licenses create complications for strategic planning. They'd need to work out those terms in addition to the purchases. Much more complicated negotiations.
Last edited:
ChuckeRearmed
Regular
My point is not about the complexity of the negotiations - pretty obvious that such things take time - but the general notion that the purchase of Bethesda was some fluke and MS won't be able to do that again because it is expensive or whatever.
I am pretty positive that will we see some big moves from MS. I have been always arguing that MS should go after Playstation IPs - as most of them were third party anyway - and directly attack the mind share of Playstation, while at the same time doing the strategical purchases that would prevent reliance on third parties and losing the games with moneyhats.
I am pretty positive that will we see some big moves from MS. I have been always arguing that MS should go after Playstation IPs - as most of them were third party anyway - and directly attack the mind share of Playstation, while at the same time doing the strategical purchases that would prevent reliance on third parties and losing the games with moneyhats.
I'm saying this isn't just a factor of time. Some companies will straight up just never sell themselves to MS even though MS can afford them and has a reason to want them.My point is not about the complexity of the negotiations - pretty obvious that such things take time - but the general notion that the purchase of Bethesda was some fluke and MS won't be able to do that again because it is expensive or whatever.
I am pretty positive that will we see some big moves from MS. I have been always arguing that MS should go after Playstation IPs - as most of them were third party anyway - and directly attack the mind share of Playstation, while at the same time doing the strategical purchases that would prevent reliance on third parties and losing the games with moneyhats.
But I agree, there will be further big moves. MS is attempting a massive growth strategy. As long as Game Pass growth continues along the lines it has been, they'll keep aggressively pushing for more studios.
AT&T is in really bad financial straights and is selling off time warner to Discovery. I don't see AT&T wanting to stick with video games and only producing mortal kombat and lego games. I think for Discovery the teams working on dc games might just be a thing that comes along with the DC properties. So at the end of the day the deal Jez is proposing could be a really quick purchase on Microsoft side.
MS buys the teams . Nether realm would keep the Mortal kombat ip because lets face it outside of video games it means nothing. The last movie that did decently was what the early 2000s ? If another injustice was far enough along in development the deal might let MS release that title but then I would think the license would end unless its highly successful. TT would most likely finish up the games its working on but then I think it be up to the Lego Group (Which is danish) if they want to continue working with Microsoft. I would think MS would want those projects exclusively.
MS buys the teams . Nether realm would keep the Mortal kombat ip because lets face it outside of video games it means nothing. The last movie that did decently was what the early 2000s ? If another injustice was far enough along in development the deal might let MS release that title but then I would think the license would end unless its highly successful. TT would most likely finish up the games its working on but then I think it be up to the Lego Group (Which is danish) if they want to continue working with Microsoft. I would think MS would want those projects exclusively.
ChuckeRearmed
Regular
Why does AT&T have such big debt?AT&T is in really bad financial straights and is selling off time warner to Discovery. I don't see AT&T wanting to stick with video games and only producing mortal kombat and lego games. I think for Discovery the teams working on dc games might just be a thing that comes along with the DC properties. So at the end of the day the deal Jez is proposing could be a really quick purchase on Microsoft side.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
I have been always arguing that MS should go after Playstation IPs - as most of them were third party anyway - and directly attack the mind share of Playstation, while at the same time doing the strategical purchases that would prevent reliance on third parties and losing the games with moneyhats.
This isn't the way that Phil Spencer works, however. If you notice all of their acquisitions so far haven't been so much to deny IP to PS, but acquisitions to strengthen Game Pass.
If you think about it from a business standpoint, this is how you should be thinking about acquisitions.
That isn't to say that MS hasn't in the past done things like this, but at least thus far, this isn't how Phil Spencer operates. Also, if you listen to his various interviews and talks, acquiring a studio to deny IP to another platform is very much not what he believes in.
I feel that if it were entirely up to Phil Spencer and nobody else, then not only would Bethesda games still be on PlayStation, but MS Game studio products would be available on all platforms (including PlayStation). However, he holds the position at the discretion of Satya Nadella and more importantly the board of directors. And they still hold to the antiquated notion that at least within the realm of consoles, MS Game Studio games should remain on Xbox, but at least he's managed to push through having everything appear on PC day and date.
Regards,
SB
ChuckeRearmed
Regular
It is one and the same - acquisition means that other platform won't get exclusive games from the IPs that the studios have or could produce. Nobody expects Bethesda's games on PS Now or any other streaming service that might appear in the future.This isn't the way that Phil Spencer works, however. If you notice all of their acquisitions so far haven't been so much to deny IP to PS, but acquisitions to strengthen Game Pass.
His point has always been about Game Pass and delivering the games to the platforms where Game Pass exists. So nobody expects XGS starting purchasing Playstation devkits and making the games for Playstation. But XCloud is a possibility. (I see no reason though considering possible dongles and the fact that Playstation require TV anyway).That isn't to say that MS hasn't in the past done things like this, but at least thus far, this isn't how Phil Spencer operates. Also, if you listen to his various interviews and talks, acquiring a studio to deny IP to another platform is very much not what he believes in.
I feel that if it were entirely up to Phil Spencer and nobody else, then not only would Bethesda games still be on PlayStation, but MS Game studio products would be available on all platforms (including PlayStation).
Phil Spencer is a really good guy, but he is not naive. He indeed is not a prick - sometimes he should be though - but that's what make him likeable.
The point is not about Xbox. Xbox stopped being about Xbox consoles as soon as games went to PC. In fact hardware sales for now reminds me of physical sales in era of digital transition. We can argue about how the games don't sell on Xbox, but the fact is that PC sales are not even present in the boxed charts yet nobody says anything about the games not selling on PC.However, he holds the position at the discretion of Satya Nadella and more importantly the board of directors. And they still hold to the antiquated notion that at least within the realm of consoles, MS Game Studio games should remain on Xbox, but at least he's managed to push through having everything appear on PC day and date.
Funnily enough, the way Playstation operates right now reminds me too much of 90s Microsoft. But as soon as Playstation lose its market share, it won't have any friends and allies - even now a lot of developers deal with Playstation mostly because they have the big market share. At the same time, Nadella was able to transform MS so much so it literally became almost a good guy despite being more aggressive than before. I wouldn't be surprised that Windows 11 with its windows store will be able to realize the vision Ballmer and co. had. While at the same keeping MS as a good guy. His empathetic approach is fantastic.
Last edited:
I don't think it's quite that simple, there are also market expectations around exclusives on consoles. Really passionate Xbox fans want quality titles to be exclusives to the platform. It's part of how the gaming press talks about the state of the market. Though I'll note they're really selective about how they do that too. Sea of Thieves has as many players as God of War or Spiderman sold copies, but it never gets talked about as being a big Xbox exclusive, etc. But fair or not it was a constant drum beat last generation, where are the exclusives? No one wants Xbox because it has no exclusives. This stuff hurts the brand a lot.This isn't the way that Phil Spencer works, however. If you notice all of their acquisitions so far haven't been so much to deny IP to PS, but acquisitions to strengthen Game Pass.
If you think about it from a business standpoint, this is how you should be thinking about acquisitions.
That isn't to say that MS hasn't in the past done things like this, but at least thus far, this isn't how Phil Spencer operates. Also, if you listen to his various interviews and talks, acquiring a studio to deny IP to another platform is very much not what he believes in.
I feel that if it were entirely up to Phil Spencer and nobody else, then not only would Bethesda games still be on PlayStation, but MS Game studio products would be available on all platforms (including PlayStation). However, he holds the position at the discretion of Satya Nadella and more importantly the board of directors. And they still hold to the antiquated notion that at least within the realm of consoles, MS Game Studio games should remain on Xbox, but at least he's managed to push through having everything appear on PC day and date.
Regards,
SB
So as long as MS is in the console business they need to be sensitive to that reality. Phil is pragmatic above all else. His job is to make Xbox succeed and right now that involves selling consoles. For as long as that's the case that means having a bunch of high quality exclusives.
And even if hardware exclusivity goes away, which it could if market conditions changed, there's no sign that Phil wouldn't be pushing service exclusivity instead. Game Pass has stipulations that prevent titles from showing up on other streaming platforms. You need some differentiator if you're going to sell product, and content is a big one here.
Why does AT&T have such big debt?
They financed the purchase by issuing stock and paying cash. But once they absorbed Time warner and took on their debt they were 180.4B in debt as of 2018.
I believe the new deal creates WarnerMedia that is 71% owned by AT&T and 29% Discovery. It cuts like 43B from their debt
Rumor mill heating up again.
cheapchips
Veteran
I was thinking the other day that MS acquisition news had gone awfully quiet.
Looking forward to the rumour mill being squeezed dry for views again!
Looking forward to the rumour mill being squeezed dry for views again!
I think the comment was here but I don't have time to dig it up. So take my question with that proverbial grain of salt.
Would there be anyway, or reason, to hide a large acquisition of a publicly traded company? Generally a company that has decided it might sell wants an open bidding war to get the best price. Doesn't that virtually rule out any number of acquisition possibilities? (Including EA, Nintendo ( I know, but I have seen it mentioned.), Activision, etc)
Would there be anyway, or reason, to hide a large acquisition of a publicly traded company? Generally a company that has decided it might sell wants an open bidding war to get the best price. Doesn't that virtually rule out any number of acquisition possibilities? (Including EA, Nintendo ( I know, but I have seen it mentioned.), Activision, etc)
cheapchips
Veteran
I think the comment was here but I don't have time to dig it up. So take my question with that proverbial grain of salt.
Would there be anyway, or reason, to hide a large acquisition of a publicly traded company? Generally a company that has decided it might sell wants an open bidding war to get the best price. Doesn't that virtually rule out any number of acquisition possibilities? (Including EA, Nintendo ( I know, but I have seen it mentioned.), Activision, etc)
As I understand it, which maybe wrong, you can discuss a purchase offer with the board of a company in private. If they agree, then the offer has to be presented publicly to shareholders and go through that step. Regulators can join in the party too. I think at the point it's public then trading in that company stops?
MS may have privately agreed a purchase with the management of one of these companies. The next stage would be public and might not succeed.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
That's roughly true for non-hostile takeovers, hostile takeovers can skip most of that although they can still require regulatory approval in relevant countries where the company they are taking over does business. So basically in a hostile takeover you skip the whole negotiating with the board of directors as well as the stockholders since the point of a hostile takeover is to purchase a controlling interest in a company thus circumventing all of that.
Technically, the stockholders are still involved, but since you hold a majority of the shares, anything that goes up for a vote can be approved by you regardless of what the other stockholders desire.
At that point the only thing that can become a thorn in your side is getting regulatory approval. Hence, because of this, hostile takeovers are usually done via either a holding company or a shell company which has no direct ties to the actual person or company doing the takeover.
While it's fairly rare for something like this to happen in this day and age, it does still happen and it is still attempted. There have been multiple attempts at a hostile takeover of UBIsoft, for example, but thus far the Guillemot family has been able to fend these off.
That said, I can't imagine any situation where Microsoft would be interested in doing a hostile takeover since at the very least they are also interested in the development teams in addition to the IP that a developer holds. In some cases, they value the development teams far more than the IP that a developer holds. And in a hostile takeover, it's quite likely that all of the talent that MS would be interested in would jump ship.
Regards,
SB
Technically, the stockholders are still involved, but since you hold a majority of the shares, anything that goes up for a vote can be approved by you regardless of what the other stockholders desire.
At that point the only thing that can become a thorn in your side is getting regulatory approval. Hence, because of this, hostile takeovers are usually done via either a holding company or a shell company which has no direct ties to the actual person or company doing the takeover.
While it's fairly rare for something like this to happen in this day and age, it does still happen and it is still attempted. There have been multiple attempts at a hostile takeover of UBIsoft, for example, but thus far the Guillemot family has been able to fend these off.
That said, I can't imagine any situation where Microsoft would be interested in doing a hostile takeover since at the very least they are also interested in the development teams in addition to the IP that a developer holds. In some cases, they value the development teams far more than the IP that a developer holds. And in a hostile takeover, it's quite likely that all of the talent that MS would be interested in would jump ship.
Regards,
SB
ChuckeRearmed
Regular
Tell us your secrets
Rumor mill heating up again.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 83
- Views
- 11K
- Replies
- 191
- Views
- 25K