By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Microsoft Discussion - Microsoft to buy Activision Blizzard for 69 billion $

jenpol said:
EpicRandy said:

Well if we apply the same logic than we can only conclude that the deal wasn't to remove IP from the competition as exclusivity deal would also have cost only a small fraction of the acquisition.

Take market share (by removing IP from the competition). Financial don't make sense otherwise. Exclusivity deal cost more because you need to pay for the lost of sales on the competing platform + pay for the gamepass loss of revenues (for the game company). 

It does make sense Financially, else Sony wouldn't be doing it all the time. If the goal was only to remove IP from the competition Microsoft would also go the timed exclusive / full exclusive deal route, it would be far cheaper this way. That's what they did during the first half of the 360 life.






Around the Network
jenpol said:
EpicRandy said:

Well if we apply the same logic than we can only conclude that the deal wasn't to remove IP from the competition as exclusivity deal would also have cost only a small fraction of the acquisition.

Take market share (by removing IP from the competition). Financial don't make sense otherwise. Exclusivity deal cost more because you need to pay for the lost of sales on the competing platform + pay for the gamepass loss of revenues (for the game company). 

No business thinks like that... Nobody is doing anything to "remove" marketshare from someone else. (well... at least successful business do not).

Everything is always forward thinking and aimed to grow THEIR own marketshare.

Obviously, the side effect of that is that the competition will most likely lose some marketshare but at the root, the idea/goal is to grow your own business.
When Microsoft is buying Bethesda/Activision, they do not care about the impact (or the extend of it) of removing this from the other plastic box out there, they care about how much value it will bring to their own offering and how this will make GamePass and their platform more attractive to customers, which is in return grow their gaming business.

I understand that those 2 are very similar :) But at the heart, it is quite different imo, and it drives several decisions a bit differently.



I really don't think this will hurt Sony nearly as much as some are making it out to be. COD: Warzone will still be supported on PS and that makes more revenue than the mainline CoD games. We still don't know exactly what will be exclusive or not going forward. With Bethesda it was easier to predict since they predominantly make single player games. MS may take a different approach with Activision.
For those saying, this ruins the competition, I think it's the opposite. This will actually make Xbox competitive with PS. Xbox is still getting their ass kicked by PS. Not nearly as bad as last gen, but still losing. As long as Sony keeps making the games they make and doing what they're best at, they'll be fine.

Activision was looking for a buyer one way or the other. I would rather it be MS than Tencent, Google, or FB.



smroadkill15 said:

I really don't think this will hurt Sony nearly as much as some are making it out to be. COD: Warzone will still be supported on PS and that makes more revenue than the mainline CoD games. We still don't know exactly what will be exclusive or not going forward. With Bethesda it was easier to predict since they predominantly make single player games. MS may take a different approach with Activision.
For those saying, this ruins the competition, I think it's the opposite. This will actually make Xbox competitive with PS. Xbox is still getting their ass kicked by PS. Not nearly as bad as last gen, but still losing. As long as Sony keeps making the games they make and doing what they're best at, they'll be fine.

Activision was looking for a buyer one way or the other. I would rather it be MS than Tencent, Google, or FB.

Bolded that's good to hear Warzone is bigger than Mainline Call of Duty , I'm guessing Main Line went back to Story and Multiplayer while Warzone is entirely multiplayer?



Cute and honest Sega Saturn fan, also noone should buy Sega grrrr, Sega for life.

SegaHeart said:
smroadkill15 said:

I really don't think this will hurt Sony nearly as much as some are making it out to be. COD: Warzone will still be supported on PS and that makes more revenue than the mainline CoD games. We still don't know exactly what will be exclusive or not going forward. With Bethesda it was easier to predict since they predominantly make single player games. MS may take a different approach with Activision.
For those saying, this ruins the competition, I think it's the opposite. This will actually make Xbox competitive with PS. Xbox is still getting their ass kicked by PS. Not nearly as bad as last gen, but still losing. As long as Sony keeps making the games they make and doing what they're best at, they'll be fine.

Activision was looking for a buyer one way or the other. I would rather it be MS than Tencent, Google, or FB.

Bolded that's good to hear Warzone is bigger than Mainline Call of Duty , I'm guessing Main Line went back to Story and Multiplayer while Warzone is entirely multiplayer?

Yeah, Warzone is the battle royale. I can’t even imagine how much they rake in with microtransactions. 



Around the Network
smroadkill15 said:

I really don't think this will hurt Sony nearly as much as some are making it out to be. COD: Warzone will still be supported on PS and that makes more revenue than the mainline CoD games. We still don't know exactly what will be exclusive or not going forward. With Bethesda it was easier to predict since they predominantly make single player games. MS may take a different approach with Activision.
For those saying, this ruins the competition, I think it's the opposite. This will actually make Xbox competitive with PS. Xbox is still getting their ass kicked by PS. Not nearly as bad as last gen, but still losing. As long as Sony keeps making the games they make and doing what they're best at, they'll be fine.

Activision was looking for a buyer one way or the other. I would rather it be MS than Tencent, Google, or FB.

You hit the nail in the head. The bolded part is especially true in Europe, I don't think it's good for consumers that Playstation is de facto console amongst more casual gamers. They buy Playstation without even knowing what Xbox is or what kind of games & service it has to offer. If Xbox was more competitive many would choose it for better value and games for their liking. And Sony would have to up their game.



KiigelHeart said:
smroadkill15 said:

I really don't think this will hurt Sony nearly as much as some are making it out to be. COD: Warzone will still be supported on PS and that makes more revenue than the mainline CoD games. We still don't know exactly what will be exclusive or not going forward. With Bethesda it was easier to predict since they predominantly make single player games. MS may take a different approach with Activision.
For those saying, this ruins the competition, I think it's the opposite. This will actually make Xbox competitive with PS. Xbox is still getting their ass kicked by PS. Not nearly as bad as last gen, but still losing. As long as Sony keeps making the games they make and doing what they're best at, they'll be fine.

Activision was looking for a buyer one way or the other. I would rather it be MS than Tencent, Google, or FB.

You hit the nail in the head. The bolded part is especially true in Europe, I don't think it's good for consumers that Playstation is de facto console amongst more casual gamers. They buy Playstation without even knowing what Xbox is or what kind of games & service it has to offer. If Xbox was more competitive many would choose it for better value and games for their liking. And Sony would have to up their game.

does remind me of Apple in the US



 "I think people should define the word crap" - Kirby007

Join the Prediction League http://www.vgchartz.com/predictions

Instead of seeking to convince others, we can be open to changing our own minds, and seek out information that contradicts our own steadfast point of view. Maybe it’ll turn out that those who disagree with you actually have a solid grasp of the facts. There’s a slight possibility that, after all, you’re the one who’s wrong.

EpicRandy said:

If the goal was only to remove IP from the competition

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



 "I think people should define the word crap" - Kirby007

Join the Prediction League http://www.vgchartz.com/predictions

Instead of seeking to convince others, we can be open to changing our own minds, and seek out information that contradicts our own steadfast point of view. Maybe it’ll turn out that those who disagree with you actually have a solid grasp of the facts. There’s a slight possibility that, after all, you’re the one who’s wrong.

kirby007 said:

so how is xbox becoming competitive not good for the market?

I mean this was kind of my point:

kirby007 said:

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

MS's competitors might not exist.

Google, Amazon, Apple, Meta are pretty much the big companies that can throw around this kind of cash.

Google has seemingly backed out of their gaming push. Google has a short attention span.

Remains to be seen if Amazon continues pushing forward. But they don't seem to understand how the industry works.

Apple and Meta so far don't seem to be pushing into the same space as Microsoft is.