| RolStoppable said: It was about ten years ago that Microsoft bought the Minecraft IP. Back then I thought the logical plan was to make it exclusive to Xbox. When Microsoft kept porting to more platforms, I thought their endgame was to have the first Minecraft everywhere in order to create much greater demand for an Xbox-exclusive sequel. This didn't happen either. Instead Minecraft itself got more and more updates that were available everywhere, plus spinoffs that went everywhere too. Microsoft's strategy for consoles clearly differs from what Sony and Nintendo would have done with a monster IP like Minecraft, if they had gotten such a hold of it. But I don't think it's so much because Microsoft has a broader vision than console hardware, rather it's because they have opposing forces within the company and that results in no clear direction and the lack of consistence in their decision-making for their gaming department (and the sorry state of their first party output that has lasted for many years). The necessary contracts to even make the A-B acquisition happen secure CoD for at least ten years on PS anyway. Making predictions for two generations ahead is incredibly tough, but right now it's looking unlikely that Microsoft will return to a strategy of selling as many Xboxes as possible. They used to do this and it came at the expense of the PC, but since subscriptions are basically the only thing that made Microsoft consistently money in gaming, they'll stick to that. So once the ten year CoD deal expires, it's improbable that CoD will be taken off PS. At that point it's more probable that Sony will have to suck it up in a deal where Microsoft either can plant their own subscription service on PS or get a cut from Sony's PS+ money. But all this is speculation. It may as well amount to not more than gamers having to use Xbox Live accounts to be able to play CoD online, without having to Microsoft a cent. Sony does not have the money lying around to keep retaliating against Microsoft, so chances are high that Sony won't seek out a grand acquisition in the first place. Nevermind all the hurdles Microsoft already has to take with A-B. So it's not reasonable to fear that this entire affair will spiral out of control where everything gets consolidated, both because of the legality and the money. Nintendo won't acquire any entire publisher anyway. Any player from China, namely Tencent, will be out of luck by virtue of the West tightening things up against Chinese companies in general. So while I do think that China has the money, I doubt that they'll be allowed to buy. My comment about taking sides was a general one. |
this is true in regards to microsoft, i conceded that in prior conversation with someone else. for the most part, i don't really care how fair or not microsoft will be/is in regards to the sharing of their games, rather that they are owning a larger piece of the pie in general. i wouldn't like any company profiteering off of an acquisition that cuts down publishers in the industry. however, that is almost a completely different argument and is more chalked up to me not enjoying corporations getting too large in general.
also, i didn't even think about your last point about sony not having enough money to pull the same move. that is also quite true. in some part, i guess my next concern would be an outside-industry source acquiring developers/publisher within the industry. that has been mentioned by a few people in here.
| Ryuu96 said:
In addition to all the above, thanks to the European Commission who unlike the FTC didn't fuck around for a year building a weak ass case, instead actually sat down with Microsoft to formulate pro-competition, pro-consumer deals. As a result, the EC told Microsoft their initial contract wasn't good enough, so they worked together on a better one, now it is a free license to Cloud Gaming Providers in the EEA to stream any Activision-Blizzard titles, a contract which is available to anyone who asks for it. The moment Microsoft doesn't honour this contract, the EC will come down on them like a ton of bricks. The CMA/FTC could have spent their time doing something similar, ensuring pro-competitive, pro-consumer benefits, which Microsoft was willing to do, such as the Sony 10 year offer, but they didn't and instead tried to block it based on weak grounds because "big tech bad" and now we're in a situation where both the FTC and CMA look like clowns and the EC looks like the best regulator, once again. Movie Industry This comparison fails at the start because this is a vertical merger, Disney acquiring Fox was a horizontal merger, it would be a horizontal merger if Microsoft were acquiring Nintendo, horizontal and vertical mergers are looked at through different lenses, Microsoft is not acquiring a direct competitor in the market, thus it is vertical. Also, I don't really think it holds as a comparison even outside of that, I would argue that the film industry is far more condensed than the gaming industry. In the film industry at the time of Disney acquiring Fox there was like 5-6 notable players (Universal, Paramount, Warner Bros, Disney, Sony and Fox). In the gaming industry, there is currently Sony, Nintendo, Tencent, EA, Bandai Namco, Take-Two, Ubisoft, Square Enix, Epic Games, Capcom, NetEase, Embracer Group, etc. All who have major highly successful IPs under their belt. Embracer Group came out of nowhere to become (temporarily) one of the largest videogame publishers even with an over $10bn market valuation, overtaking Ubisoft. In addition, I would argue the barrier to entry in the videogame industry is lower than the film industry, if you can't get into cinemas then you're basically screwed and the cinema industry is largely dominated by the big players hogging the theatre seats. The gaming industry does not have this problem, there is no "physical" limit to your capacity, in the gaming industry you can publish your title to numerous digital stores without having to sign up to a major publisher (even so, there are a lot of them). As a result, indie companies very often have huge successes on console platforms, PC platforms, etc. In the past 10 years, over 50+ gaming studios have been established, many of them being AAA. Multiple have received dozens or even hundreds of millions in investor funding simply for having a known name at the studio. This has happened since the beginning of the gaming industry, a company is acquired, a few veterans leave, they go on to set up a new studio and publishers or investors come running to throw cash at them based on their name alone. You'll see people leave ABK when the acquisition is complete and do the same, hell, it is already happening, multiple studios are being formed by former Blizzard employees in the past few years, being an indie in the videogame industry is a lot easier than the film industry. There is plenty of AAAs to go around still, there is plenty of popular IPs to go around, Sony will be fine, the industry will be fine. People were acquiring no matter what but whilst people are acquiring, new studios are constantly being formed from the people leaving the acquired studios, the cycle continues. Activision-Blizzard will be replaced by EA as the largest publisher and another publisher will fill the gap of one major publisher "leaving" if you can even call it that since ABK will still act largely independently and not much will change for platform holders. King is irrelevant to take into account for console owners and absolutely nothing will change for them. Activision is largely focused on COD and the occasional Spyro or Crash, WoW situation is irrelevant for console owners, Blizzard is largely focused on Overwatch and Diablo (both already on PlayStation) Microsoft is barely going to get any exclusives out of this in the short-mid term at least. The gaming industry is far too large and diverse to be worried about one publisher. A hypothetical (extreme) future of 3 companies owning every publisher wouldn't be Microsoft's fault because it would happen regardless if that would come to pass, which I don't think it will, for all the reasons I've stated above and after how damn hard it was to get ABK through, I doubt Microsoft will be acquiring another publisher anytime soon, if they're even allowed. Tencent might be blocked simply on political grounds of them being a Chinese company, Lol (The frigging US National Security Panel investigated Tencent's acquisition of Sumo Digital even and required "measures" to approve it). Sony is already a dominant leader so they'll also go through tough scrutiny. |
great explanation. it actually does lighten my concern a little bit. i also didn't read into the EC's conversations with MS over the acquisition, so that's actually awesome news to me. (not surprised the EC works better than the FTC, really.)
though, i do want to say that yes, obviously the gaming industry is much more diversified in its number of players right now. however, the film industry wasn't always as conjoined. of course, and this is almost a tangent, there was the time of the big studios in the "golden age" of hollywood, which was certainly way worse than now in terms of massive monopolies/oligopolies. if i'm not mistaken though, that was a case where the industry got too consolidated and the court actually founded them in the wrong in regards to the anti-trust act. and yet now, here we are again with the industry increasingly becoming very consolidated and frightfully in an even more pro-big-business environment than back in the '40s.
again, i've heard from some that this comparison is fear mongering but, the gaming industry is much younger than the film industry and we haven't had enough time to see how these decisions will play out. clearly, the film industry is repeating history.
i guess i also should mention that despite the fact that this is a vertical merger and i understand how that's different than a true monopolization, i still personally feel that even vertical mergers can tend to slide into scary levels of "big corporatocracy" vibes. all the players you listed out could, in theory, buy each other in some way or another. i don't think ubisoft owning take-two is a good thing as much as i don't think nintendo owning take-two is a good thing or microsoft owning playstation is a good thing. (obviously, all for-instance, not that i think these would 100% happen.) in the end though, i think that's a philosophical and political difference between how i view these things, so i understand how that's different than what you were originally saying.
overall, now that it's been said by you lol, i'm a little more concerned about outside actors such as amazon, apple, google, and the like meddling in the business. obviously, this hasn't happened but, they've certainly had eyes on the industry. again, that's another topic but, it illustrates even more the slippery slope i alluded to in my past posts.
i also do want to point out that i don't think the FTC was necessarily in the right; their case was basically bullshit and they did a terrible job. i'm certainly not trying to side with them, rather from completely my own POV outside of any company "allegiances" or the like.
Last edited by NintendoPie - on 12 July 2023
Essay Pro