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 $

the-pi-guy said:
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.

Might be a little more difficult for Meta... As they -only- usually have 50-60~ billion dollars cash in the war chest... Which makes buying a $70 billion dollar company a little more difficult as shareholders would be looking at the bottom line and need to sign off on it as they would need to go into debt and/or dilute shares.

Microsoft on the other hand usually sits on $130-$140 billion in cash... So for them it's just using spare cash sitting in the bank and thus do not need to do a share exchange/share dilute/financing some loans.
Just a straight payment.

Same thing for Amazon as their war-chest is $90 Billion, $70 billion is a fair whack.


Apple on the other hand is sitting on a $200 billion dollar stockpile, Alphabet $165 billion so a purchase for them of this size wouldn't be much of an issue.

Apple and Alphabet is Microsoft's main competitors, rather than the other companies... As those two engage Microsoft in every market almost.

Dulfite said:

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.

Keep in mind the Steam Deck runs SteamOS and not Windows... You *could* possible run xCloud... Or just Install Windows and grab the Gamepass/Xbox app.



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

Around the Network

As a PC gamer I'm worried, maybe more than console gamers. Google and Apple should worry too, not just Sony. Sony will be hit, but it's not MS' main target: Spencer and Nadella finally show they understood (they understood it immediately, but they didn't show it until they were ready) what Ballmer and Mattrick didn't, that the true important target is the mobile market (gaming is important, and potentially very lucrative, but mobile, including its gaming part, brings money and a LOT of power) and that MS' most dangerous competitor isn't Sony, Google and Apple are.



Stwike him, Centuwion. Stwike him vewy wuffly! (Pontius Pilate, "Life of Brian")
A fart without stink is like a sky without stars.
TGS, Third Grade Shooter: brand new genre invented by Kevin Butler exclusively for Natal WiiToo Kinect. PEW! PEW-PEW-PEW! 
 


Alby_da_Wolf said:

As a PC gamer I'm worried, maybe more than console gamers. Google and Apple should worry too, not just Sony. Sony will be hit, but it's not MS' main target: Spencer and Nadella finally show they understood (they understood it immediately, but they didn't show it until they were ready) what Ballmer and Mattrick didn't, that the true important target is the mobile market (gaming is important, and potentially very lucrative, but mobile, including its gaming part, brings money and a LOT of power) and that MS' most dangerous competitor isn't Sony, Google and Apple are.

As PC gamer you should be happy it.

Why worried and why are you saying that console gamer are worried too. Can you ellaborate on that?

I'm a PC and console gamer and I'm anything but worried (well, obviously if you are only playing on Sony's console, yah, those are worried and for good reason, no debate there, but you said you are PC gamer, so I assume that's not the case).

GamePass is probably the best thing that happen to PC Gamers since a while. Diablo, Starcraft, COD, Overwatch are all going to be day one on GamePass and in the same ecosystem than other games. As a console gamer I also have more hope to finally have a true "play anywhere" for games like Diablo 4 or Overwatch 2.

I get that some people are worried for different reason, but you are talking like this is a general consensus. I do not think so :) And looking at the reaction on Reddit and other places (even Blizzard specific ones, people are happy about this in general). Microsoft is a way better place to be for those games/franchises/studios than the current standalone Activision/Blizzard. 

Heck, I also hope Microsoft will split Blizzard from Activision and bring it right under the Xbox Studios at the same level than Bethesda and the other studios instead of being a subsidiary of Activision.

So why are you worried?

Last edited by Imaginedvl - on 23 January 2022

Imma just put this here



Imaginedvl said:
Alby_da_Wolf said:

As a PC gamer I'm worried, maybe more than console gamers. Google and Apple should worry too, not just Sony. Sony will be hit, but it's not MS' main target: Spencer and Nadella finally show they understood (they understood it immediately, but they didn't show it until they were ready) what Ballmer and Mattrick didn't, that the true important target is the mobile market (gaming is important, and potentially very lucrative, but mobile, including its gaming part, brings money and a LOT of power) and that MS' most dangerous competitor isn't Sony, Google and Apple are.

As PC gamer you should be happy it.

Why worried and why are you saying that console gamer are worried too. Can you ellaborate on that?

I'm a PC and console gamer and I'm anything but worried (well, obviously if you are only playing on Sony's console, yah, those are worried and for good reason, no debate there, but you said you are PC gamer, so I assume that's not the case).

GamePass is probably the best thing that happen to PC Gamers since a while. Diablo, Starcraft, COD, Overwatch are all going to be day one on GamePass and in the same ecosystem than other games. As a console gamer I also have more hope to finally have a true "play anywhere" for games like Diablo 4 or Overwatch 2.

I get that some people are worried for different reason, but you are talking like this is a general consensus. I do not think so :) And looking at the reaction on Reddit and other places (even Blizzard specific ones, people are happy about this in general). Microsoft is a way better place to be for those games/franchises/studios than the current standalone Activision/Blizzard. 

Heck, I also hope Microsoft will split Blizzard from Activision and bring it right under the Xbox Studios at the same level than Bethesda and the other studios instead of being a subsidiary of Activision.

So why are you worried?

PC main advantages are wide freedom of HW, SW and services choice, OS only is ruled  by a near-monopoly (Office is the strongest office suite, but many users can replace it with alternatives), but MS always tried to extend its power on the platform and to push users from periodic licence purchases, typically together with new HW or major upgrades, to a lifetime rent.
That the owner of the only monopoly on PC tries to expand its power too much in other parts of PC market isn't good for competition, even less that it tries to turn Game Pass into a de facto mandatory service. Yes, Activision acquisition can be very good for Game Pass users, it isn't for everybody else. Neither it will be for GP users, if MS will raise the fee.

It isn't for 3rd parties willing to be on GP either, unless MS grants that their share of the fees won't be touched by the overwhelming increase of 1st party games weight Bethesda and Activision brought.



Stwike him, Centuwion. Stwike him vewy wuffly! (Pontius Pilate, "Life of Brian")
A fart without stink is like a sky without stars.
TGS, Third Grade Shooter: brand new genre invented by Kevin Butler exclusively for Natal WiiToo Kinect. PEW! PEW-PEW-PEW! 
 


Around the Network

People are saying Activision came to MS for this deal. Makes sense, and should ease some peoples worry. MS making this deal is way better than anyone else doing it, especially Apple or Google. At least with MS owning them, you know existing games will still be supported everywhere, and you won’t have to buy an Xbox or sign up for some subscription to play the games, they’ll all be on PC and maybe even other consoles.



Alby_da_Wolf said:
Imaginedvl said:

As PC gamer you should be happy it.

Why worried and why are you saying that console gamer are worried too. Can you ellaborate on that?

I'm a PC and console gamer and I'm anything but worried (well, obviously if you are only playing on Sony's console, yah, those are worried and for good reason, no debate there, but you said you are PC gamer, so I assume that's not the case).

GamePass is probably the best thing that happen to PC Gamers since a while. Diablo, Starcraft, COD, Overwatch are all going to be day one on GamePass and in the same ecosystem than other games. As a console gamer I also have more hope to finally have a true "play anywhere" for games like Diablo 4 or Overwatch 2.

I get that some people are worried for different reason, but you are talking like this is a general consensus. I do not think so :) And looking at the reaction on Reddit and other places (even Blizzard specific ones, people are happy about this in general). Microsoft is a way better place to be for those games/franchises/studios than the current standalone Activision/Blizzard. 

Heck, I also hope Microsoft will split Blizzard from Activision and bring it right under the Xbox Studios at the same level than Bethesda and the other studios instead of being a subsidiary of Activision.

So why are you worried?

PC main advantages are wide freedom of HW, SW and services choice, OS only is ruled  by a near-monopoly (Office is the strongest office suite, but many users can replace it with alternatives), but MS always tried to extend its power on the platform and to push users from periodic licence purchases, typically together with new HW or major upgrades, to a lifetime rent.
That the owner of the only monopoly on PC tries to expand its power too much in other parts of PC market isn't good for competition, even less that it tries to turn Game Pass into a de facto mandatory service. Yes, Activision acquisition can be very good for Game Pass users, it isn't for everybody else. Neither it will be for GP users, if MS will raise the fee.

It isn't for 3rd parties willing to be on GP either, unless MS grants that their share of the fees won't be touched by the overwhelming increase of 1st party games weight Bethesda and Activision brought.

That the owner of the only monopoly on PC tries 

Even if Windows have the lion share of OS market share, it ain't a monopoly per say, MacOS is still competitive enough so to keep Microsoft in check from any malpractice or abuse. So no monopoly there. Also funny how you label it as the only monopoly on PC when Nvidia actually have more share of the discrete GPU market share than Windows have of the OS market share.

to expand its power too much in other parts of PC market isn't good for competition

It's actually good for competition, steam has about 75% of the pc market share https://comparecamp.com/steam-statistics/ which conveniently enough is about the same as Windows OS Market share, the one you refer to has being a Monopoly. Microsoft Bolstering is distribution on PC through GamePass should therefore simulate reaction from competition and we as gamers stand to gain.

even less that it tries to turn Game Pass into a de facto mandatory service.

We have no indication whatsoever this is the case, in fact indications tends to point the other way, even if Microsoft actually does win the looming subscription based game distribution services war they always benefits from also distributing all their titles in standalone format.

Yes, Activision acquisition can be very good for Game Pass users, it isn't for everybody else.

For me that's more akin to fear mongering, else you would have to define more who you're referring to by 'everybody else'. For me, this acquisition as great potential to be good for everybody that:

- want to see newer addition in franchise practically abandoned by current Activision blizzard such as Starcraft.

- want to see a true and profound culture change at Activivision Blizzard workplace.

- Is tired of yearly CoD

- Wants Activision Blizzard to even dare innovate.

Neither it will be for GP users, if MS will raise the fee

Inevitable but if Xbox Live is any indication (and by all mean, it is the best indication we can look upon ) raise in fee will be scarce, far apart and won't even raise to the effect of compounded inflation. Also competition is looming for GamePass so Microsoft would want to keep GamePass competitive and attractive. So I have absolutely no worry here.

It isn't for 3rd parties willing to be on GP either, unless MS grants that their share of the fees won't be touched by the overwhelming increase of 1st party games weight Bethesda and Activision brought.

If the user base grow sufficiently enough than it will still be. Also the idea that Microsoft just gives share of the monthly subscription fee as always been kind of oversimplification to me. It is way more likely that EA get a predetermined amount every month based on metrics and formula of some sorts. Maybe something like:

A = Amount, P = Total GP profit for a particular time frame(likely month), M = Microsoft cut's in % ex: 0.3 for 30%, TP total time played by gamer during the time frame, TT total time spent on a particular title and or collection 

A = P * (1 - M) * (TT / TP)

With this simple formula Every one with a title/collection of title on GP could get the fare share of the revenue. Of course Microsoft probably don't conclude deal with a formula like this, but I'll bet something similar is used when deciding whether it is worth it to keep or not titles/services on GP

Last edited by EpicRandy - on 24 January 2022



LudicrousSpeed said:

People are saying Activision came to MS for this deal. Makes sense, and should ease some peoples worry. MS making this deal is way better than anyone else doing it, especially Apple or Google. At least with MS owning them, you know existing games will still be supported everywhere, and you won’t have to buy an Xbox or sign up for some subscription to play the games, they’ll all be on PC and maybe even other consoles.

In that case, I suppose Bobby found the perfect way to get out of his situation.