By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Ryuu96 on 12 July 2023
Edit Thread
PotentHerbs said:
EpicRandy said:

People's opinions and beliefs, you can find people in about any groups you can come up with that thinks the earth is flat, but it does not make it so. 

Yes some Nintendo fans are against it, and I'm sure even some Xbox fans are against it, but ask why and you find very little substance to the position, it mostly boils down to generalist big transaction = bad, or big actor doing transaction = bad, doing something Sony never did = bad. Have not seen credible concern with an actual logical/undeniable path to a bad outcome for any group of gamers but yet the benefits to some are undeniable.  

Microsoft taking away Activision Blizzard games permanently from the PlayStation platform is absolutely a bad outcome. Promising to release Call of Duty on PlayStation platforms for the next ten years, if Microsoft doesn't try to renege those contracts like they did successfully with Indiana Jones, and failed to do so with Minecraft Dungeons, is not something I see as some benefit, since Microsoft won't be releasing CoD on PlayStation perpetually. As for the rest of Activision Blizzard's catalog, I expect that to be treated like Bethesda games, or how Microsoft planned to handle Sega if their M&A proposal was accepted; shortly after the acquisition closes, none of those games are going to be releasing on the PlayStation 5, outside of whatever is currently announced. When it comes to competing cloud services, and Nintendo, similar to the PlayStation platform, its only a temporary thing, and for all we know, they might only be doing it to appease regulators, especially with the information that has come out via unredacted court documents.

The many gamers who oppose this deal are concerned about the industry being completely consolidated in a decades time. The variety and choice in the catalog of games we have access to as consumers, on our platform of choice, will slowly disappear as publishers start getting bought up, and gaming becomes four or five walled garden ecosystems/subscription services, similar to the streaming wars. Even if Microsoft is the strongest in this front, they aren't going to acquire every single publisher out there, and they will lose a ton of content. As for Sony, they highlighted one of their paths forward in terms of M&A, where they plan to spin off their financial arm, in order to make bigger investments in their entertainment division. Sony has seen the music industry consolidate, and took part in it, they have seen the movie industry consolidate, and attempted to take part in it via Fox, and now they see the gaming industry beginning to consolidate, from their direct competitor nonetheless. Would Nintendo really sit idly by if Sony decides to acquire a publisher like Square Enix? That's also not considering what Amazon, Tencent, or Netflix will do once the floodgates open. 

Whether or not you think mass consolidation is an irrational outcome to Microsoft's biggest acquisition ever is where we may differ. Personally, I doubt industry consolidation will ease up if Acti/Blizz is cleared, only accelerate. 

They didn't "renege" on Indiana Jones, Microsoft didn't promise Disney anything, Zenimax formulated that contract agreement before Microsoft acquired them, Microsoft went to Disney and asked if they could make Indiana Jones exclusive and change the contract, Disney agreed. They also didn't "fail" to renege with Minecraft Dungeons (?) They own Mojang, they chose to release Minecraft Dungeons on PlayStation.

Changing contract agreements between two corporations is a whole lot different to what we're talking about here, the contract agreements that Microsoft have are enforced by the European Commission, if Microsoft tries to "renege" on them without a very serious explanation then the EC will come down on them hard, if Microsoft so flagrantly breaks the promises made to the EC to get the deal approved, then the EC is well within their power to force a divestiture.

Microsoft will continue releasing COD on PlayStation for as long as COD remains huge on PlayStation, exactly the same as they do with Minecraft. It simply makes zero financial sense to remove a title as massive as COD from PlayStation for such little benefit. They would LOSE money on it. There's ZERO evidence that this is their intention and they've even sworn under oath that they will continue releasing on PlayStation, Lol. What more does it take?

The rest of ABK's catalogue is slim, maybe Spyro and Crash become exclusive, Diablo releases every 10 years and I suspect that won't be exclusive either, Overwatch 2 was literally an update over Overwatch 1 so I don't anticipate an Overwatch 3 anytime soon and if it does, it could simply be an update over the Overwatch 2 client. WOW is PC only. Maybe Xbox fans will get some Blizzard New IP exclusive, Lol.

Hell there's even emails from Zenimax to Microsoft confused about why Activision-Blizzard is being treated differently to Zenimax in terms of exclusivity so no it isn't the same case at all, Activision-Blizzard is not being treated the same as Zenimax.

The Sega plans actually back up Microsoft...

They planned (if they acquired Sega) to keep all their IPs multiplatform, Lol.

Their priorities for future acquisition were/are PC, Mobile and Console/PC in Asia-Pacific.

Of course, they made these contracts to appease regulators, it doesn't change the fact that they're pro-competitive contracts which the companies have willingly signed and agreed that they're good contracts, Nvidia will have an army of lawyers for example, they aren't dumb, they know a good contract when they see one and wouldn't sign one if it wasn't.