That is PRECISELY how Microsoft has been operating for decades. "If you can't compete with the competitor, buyout the competitor" has been the modus operandi since Visicalc times.

Microsoft (like Apple) has a lot (and I mean A LOT) of cash floating around the globe. If they moved those piles of cash to the States, the US-taxman would be more than happy to grab a sizeable part of it. So what companies do instead of paying taxes or having unused money lieing around is buying other companies. No surprise here. And since MS has a monoply on many things, the piles of cash will be there in the future as well.

It will be interesting to see how MS handles this takeover. Activision/Blizzard essentially having been on an accelerating downspiral for years. Can they restructure this mammoth into something productive? $70b is a lot of microtransactions...., and they have 5000+ (?) more mouths to feed now. It is also time finally that this Spencer guy actually delivers ("Taking a ay ips from the competitors is bad for gaming" - then starts on to do exactly that every f*ing time)...

Sorry but thats wrong Sony isn't a competitor anymore, MS is looking ahead namely outside of the constraint of consoles
its like you have your playground rival but you have grown up and look beyond that

don't worry they will want a piece of the mtx pie

also my competitor is not regarding size but in context of goal oriented

The main issue I see with the likes of Google, Facebook and Amazon, is mainly down to those 3 not starting out or being involved with mainstream gaming.

All 3 of them started out from completely different venues and stuck with them for decades. Fast foward to today and those 3 are suddenly interested in gaming, they make a push but no one cares and they give up like a wet fart, simply because those 3 do not really care that much nor understand how MS and the others have been operating this whole time.

Google def has that short attention span, because I still hate how they once had Google+ going for them at the time, but like a wet fart, they gave up after a few years because G+ didn't magically nor instantly overthrow Facebook, so like a spoilt child they threw their toy out of the pram and never bothered with it since.

They didn't do so great with Stadia, both talked and boasted a big power throw at the big 3, which again turned into yet another wet fart, and they've since dialled back on Stadia, and they yet again still fail to realise why they fucked up.

I honestly and truly believe that Apple and the other 3 won't get it, because they think they can just take core gaming, casual gaming, mobile gaming, mobile apps and online shopping/streaming, and just shove it all together and think it'll help them become top dog, and it just doesn't work that way.

MS knows what they are doing, they know what we want, they know not to just shoved everything together and boast like Google did with Stadia and fuck it all over by going the one track route (which they did try early into last gen, but they actually course corrected, while Google so far hasn't). 

Those other 3 just have a ton of cash and still mostly stick to their original venues. They don't and won't get it, and that's why they'll be stuck for years, while MS has the OS space, mobile gaming, console gaming and PC gaming spaces.

Amazon will still be shopping, Prime still hasn't overthrown Netflix, and their MMO isn't even remotely touching ESO, XIV or even WoW (and since MS now owns WoW and ESo, Amazon won't ever be getting there, because they won't spend as much as MS will to improve).

Google will still be doing the search engine and maps, they've given up on G+, Stadia is next to nothing and their Ai project is god knows where these days.

Apple is still going to price gouge people with their hw/software, still being that "I'm a big name" and not an actual name that means good prices and innovation that isn't locked down to Apple. They'll still have their mobile div, but they still haven't bothered with core gaming and I doubt they will ever bother, since MS already owns a good slice of that pie, pubs, IP's and audience. 

I know some on here talk big of those 3 and what money they make, but I still see those 3 as largely stupid and infantile in their approach to core gaming as a whole. They can make all the money in the world, but if MS is doing something right and making good money and gaining ground, whole Google, Amazon and Apple just fuck up and not gain much of anything, you can only look at them as being rather dim-witted and not focused on the task at hand. 

Hmm, there's no way getting around the fact that Playstation is absolutely standing in the way MS' expansion. If there was no Playstation 4, Xbox One would have sold 100m+ and Gamepass subs will be double their current numbers at minimum. That makes Sony very direct competition. 

Microsofts larger ambitions are quiet far from being realised, I'm not sure if we can extrapolate who will present a threat for them in future. For example MS has yet to meaningfully dive into VR space but doesn't mean that they won't.

"Microsoft feels its HoloLens development already checks the 'VR/AR R&D [research and development]' box for its company, and if it sees the consumer market take off, it can enter late, and still be very successful by leveraging both the Xbox and HoloLens together,"

Buying studio for to bolster first party offering <> Buying studio so that the Ips does not release on competition. Again if this was the case There's way cheaper route. So no, that's not how Microsoft has been operating for years because that's simply not how they look at things and make their decision.

Also what monopoly does MS have exactly? From what I can tell they have more than healthy competition in every sector they're in.

-Activision/Blizzard essentially having been on an accelerating downspiral for years. That's arguable at best, you can argue game wise but Activision Blizzard were at their peak value just before the scandals last year.

$70b is a lot of microtransactions - Again this allude to the false idea that somehow Microsoft need to get there money back through profits. They exchanged $70B in cash for what they value at $70B worth of assets. They may eventually end up getting there money back but this is in the long run, like 20 -30 years+(doesn't really matter). The most likely outcome though is that they will get there money back by increase the value of those assets.

they have 5000+ (?) more mouths to feed now.  Don't worry those Mouths were feeding themselves quite well and, with better management, will most likely do so better than ever, even with no investment from Microsoft simply trhough Activision Blizzard own revenue.

It is also time finally that this Spencer guy actually delivers. I would argue he has delivered quite well, I get way more value out of my Xbox than I was under Mattrick, he killed the Xbox as no game narrative, reversed the bad management with Rare and other studios. What else would do you want, Spencer to deliver for playstation user?? He already did. He could have full well scrapped the deals with Ghostwire Tokyo and Deathloop and removed Minecraft from PS store, he didn't. 

A thought I just had. Amusingly, with each new purchase Microsoft makes me more likely to get a Steam Deck.

I keep getting more games added for a simple monthly payment to Gamepass. The Steamdeck + purchasing Bethesda/Blizzard/Activision/all the other studios they've bought game's would not be appealing to me. But all those coming for $10 (what I pay now) - $30 (what they could go up to) a month? Makes the Deck a lot more valued to me.

But I'm hoping Microsoft just releases their own Gamepass Switch/Deck themselves.

Well I'm of the mind that they were already competitive, but to answer your question, there is absolutely nothing wrong with anything about any of this. The time is neither wrong nor right.

My concern is strictly related to anti-competition, aka buying up all the competition, aka over-consolidation of industry. To be clear, the console war never was bad, it was actually good. What is bad is one company winning the console war.

Specifically, all games under one umbrella will have to adhere to those policies. It could lead to homogenization, lack of innovation and lack of motivation to innovate. Diversity is a strength of the gaming industry, and sadly we often don't know what we had until it is gone. I simply want options, and I want everyone else to have them too.

That said, once again, who knows if this move will lead to that homogenization or lack of innovation. We have no choice but to wait and see.

The console war was when they all fought for the same land. But then Nintendo decided to fly to space and find a new frontier with hybrid model. Then Sony abandoned handhelds and shifted focus on quality native home console experience + VR. Microsoft shifted towards making their games available in multiple ways on multiple devices, rather than just a console. This is no longer a console war, but a console divergence.

But those three divergences are leading to three new wars brewing, just none of the Big 3 with each other. Nintendo is now challenged by Valve, PlayStation/Sony is challenged by Meta, and Microsoft by Google/Amazon.