Activision so mad they blew a gasket started attacking FTC and those those against it, I think I should zip myself if Activision saw those opposing/against it get more angry. Angry Activision they made up their mind before all of us nuetral and opposing/against. Activision sleeping with agree'ers and Microsoft.

I mean to post to comment here, have both threads open any way here, it is 69 billion is like 30 + years of activision being around and Microsoft overpaid Activision since Activ blizzard had too work 30+ years to be worth 59 billion I think? of hard work and hair turning grey over 50 year olds grand dads, And Microsoft in 1 day 69 billion > vs 59 billion + 30 years in the business?

Well yeah, Activision WANTS to be bought by Microsoft. It's not like Microsoft is holding a gun to the heads of the leaders at Activision and forcing them to sell.

The way you just projectile vomited in this thread is crazy.

Paying to win the industry? Yes companies are buying studios, funding games, making consoles, providing services. All of this takes money, even whichever plastic is your favorite. Just admit you're salty that MS has more resources to do it on a larger scale (which fair enough if you're against that but the reasoning isn't making sense). Saying they lack creativity is just insulting to developers and just factually incorrect when you look at the new IPs being released under xbox. Hell even in this historically dry year the 2 games that came from Xbox first party (Grounded and Pentiment) are both new IPs that wouldn't even have released if it wasn't for Gamepass taking out the risk. (Not to mention the slew of New IPs already announced).

Bottlenecking where? I thought this was disproven by looking at the average steam CP build, developers are already working with different powers. And once again all the console makers have different price points to try to lure in as many consumers as possible, why this is only a knock to MS is quite baffling.

But don't you think it's hypocritical to say that SONY can make their Bethesda-like evergreen IPs from scratch to counter act the acquisition, yet in the same breath, say that MS will have to wait decades to make it happen?

The "you can't wake up one day and say, let me build a game studio" mentality has always been my biggest pet peeve with MS, they just don't innovate and don't add nearly as much as they should to the tech industry despite their endless pockets and dominance. It's almost always "wait and copy or buy what works" approach. Microsoft didn't retreat from being a consumer company, consumers have rejected them as one due to lack of innovation and investments in original ideas and content. Reactionary products is all we get from MS. You like your iPod? here is your Zune, you like your iPad? here is Windows 8. You like your arm-based Mac mini? we have one too. Not enough? Surface EarPods are here for you too. 

Even when they succeed, like they have with Teams, it's because they copied Slack and Zoom and used Office dominance to make it the default standard, the fact that they had Skype sitting in a corner after buying it for billions of dollars didn't matter. It's not just they lack innovation on the hardware front, but also on the software front. Even when it comes to the latest consoles, you have SONY trying new things with the Dual sense, with the SSD, and with VR. When SONY looks an innovative consumer company against you, you clearly have a problem. Just to put out there, I don't view SONY as an innovative company either. 

I mean, you're going against what MS has repeatedly said in the past about future acquisitions just to prove you're right. You start by saying "LOGIC TELLS ME". But non of this is logical at all. I never said this deal should be blocked because MS may do another one in the future,  they've already done that and said they would do it again, your opinion on why it's not going to happen flies in the face of MS publicly stated intents, and flies in the face of how positive reinforcement works. It's not a logical opinion, not at all, it's an opinion you use to dismiss valid concerns about where this is heading towards. 

I hope you have had a good holiday. 

In my defence, you also have said things like "as bad as the FTC arguments are, yours are even worse" when my argument is completely derived from MS publicly stated intent to consolidate more of the gaming business, in return, you are asking me to take what you think is going to happen more seriously that MS is saying and accept it as logic, which is... odd, ain't it?

I come across these examples all the time, especially in the politics threads. No, I am not going to explain to anyone why letting China be the manufacturer of the world can be considered a security and an economical threat, that's like asking me to spoon-feed the basics, which I refuse to do, and once it comes down to that, I tend to retreat from the discussion because it's not genuine anymore and it's about proving myself "right". I don't know how else to perceive this. 

I will take your feedback to heart and avoid this sort of language in threads like this one. I'll stick to labelling arguments that I don't understand as "odd" from now on. 

This does not seems to refer to what you have quoted so I'm a bit confused here. My quote was about creating and building studios not IPs. Studios takes time to build and grow and it's true for every actor. MS is making a $70B investment here if they were to do the same investment by only growing organically it would take many years to materialize (more than likely 10-15years+) and the same would be true for Sony or Nintendo.

I'll just say I disagree here. All big tech have done their fare share of copying others but don't see how this relates to the topic.

Never said MS would be done with acquisition afterward just don't believe any would be on the same scale. and my logic is:

• MS is doing this acquisition because of GamePass. 
• The number of studios MS would gain out of the transaction will significantly rise their production capacity (36 studios many with more than 1 team and Xbox games studios doing many 2nd party deals (probably 50+ projects in parallel))
• Considering development time MS may expect 8-10+ AAA/year
• There's a point where you will hit diminishing returns on your investment for service like GamePass
  • The point where most literally don't need any more reason to subscribe 
  • The point where you can already churn out AAA on a regular basis
  • The point were you already cover all types

I don't think it is illogical to think MS cannot expect linear or near-linear growth out of GamePass from another $70B investment so will more than likely resort to smaller and more targeted acquisition. How is this not logical?

"your opinion on why it's not going to happen flies in the face of MS publicly stated intents" can you quote MS saying they would do another $70B deal in the future?

I didn't, here's the actual quote :"But if I'm wrong, well Microsoft may try I guess, but this deal cannot be blocked because MS may do another in the future, that's not a valid argument. As bad as the FTC arguments are, even them ain't arguing as such." 

So I was not targeting you but the argument that is along the lines of "This deal should be blocked because MS might do another one" which is not a legally valid argument.

Also my argument is not at odds with MS publicly stated intent.

• Do MS stated they want to do more acquisition -> yes.
• Do MS stated they want to do other acquisitions of the same scale of ABK-> no, not to my knowledge.
• Can MS do another acquisition on the scale of ABK -> yes. 
• Would it make sense -> Maybe but more likely not.
• is it relevant to the ABK acquisition -> Not at all.

I know just enough about M&A law to know that I don't know shit about M&A law. Super complex area, so I'm not sure anyone here is really qualifies to comment. At least I'm not.

As a gamer, it doesn't really affect me that much. I haven't played an Activision game in years. I generally see the gobbling up of third parties as a bad thing, particularly as I'm primarily a Nintendo fan, and they don't really have the money to compete in that way. So, it's a no for me dawg.

I'm a PC gamer, so I should get the games anyway, but I'm against as I don't trust MS. Since the beginiing, MS only owned one part of the x86 PC, the OS, but it always tried to behave as if it owned the whole platform, and I'm against this.

If they want to be brought, let them.

Alby_da_Wolf said:

I'm a PC gamer, so I should get the games anyway, but I'm against as I don't trust MS. Since the beginiing, MS only owned one part of the x86 PC, the OS, but it always tried to behave as if it owned the whole platform, and I'm against this.

Ill assume you don't game on Windows than. Would be an odd relationship if you did.