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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Where do you stand on Microsoft buying Activision/Blizzard?

 

For or against the acquisition?

For 58 41.43%
 
Against 54 38.57%
 
Neutral 28 20.00%
 
Total:140
SvennoJ said:
EpicRandy said:

Using Sony and other big tech isn't about blaming them for anything it's about asserting context.

So far I have referred to Sony as being the most vocal complainant to the deal, which it clearly is, and contextualize regulatory bodies findings which the OP invited US to discuss.

I also referred to Sony as being about the sole actor on the losing end of the deal (though not without mitigation), which I don't believe is unfair or a blame of some sort or unjustified by the context of the thread.

I also referred to Sony and every other big tech when substantiating my claim that the behavior MS were tried for are tolerated today and is used by pretty much all said big tech including Sony. This is not blaming Sony this is simply putting the 20 years old court case in context and asserting that I don't believe it is of any relevance to the deal.

If you believe that I or other referred to Sony or any other actor in an unjustified or innaprotiate way, by all mean quote it directly, explain why the reference was unjustified.

Also you say It's about relying on GoG / Gamepass for reputation / cash flow instead of making sure to pump out quality, bug free, complete games on day 1. and However the whole day one on gamepass has become an excuse for shoddy releases. It's alright, it's 'free' on gamepass. It's early access!

I don't understand it to be the case, MS isn't taking quality lightly by using GP reputation as said reputation is dependant on the quality of it content and there's literally no incentive from GP's perspective of rushing a game out, sure mishaps happen but I have played many day 1 title on GP without any major issues.

No games are bug free and completeness is only a matter of point of view. Games like Grounded add new features and content every patch, does that mean the game will never be considered complete or that each and every version can be considered a slightly different complete game? A game like Destiny uses extension through DLC does that mean the game isn't complete at launch or the fact that you have to pay for extension mean it was complete?

All in all, as I understand it, Xbox titles are not handled in any different ways than prior to GP and is certainly not unlike the overall industry. I don't blame anyone here except when the game has been clearly rushed out (GTA trilogy remaster, CP2077) which I don't believe is a major concern with MS and Xbox. Of course, MS isn't perfect either and can get better but the situation problematic overall.

So the answer still is, but others do it too / are just as bad or worse, so it's ok?
I guess that's an answer to how is the solution to objectionable practices is an even bigger objectionable practice?
No solution needed, just keep one upping until there's nothing left to one up with.

All in all, as I understand it, Xbox titles are not handled in any different ways than prior to GP
Where are they though, XBox had more (AAA) games coming out before gamepass...
Also they are much more life service now instead of complete day 1, that's different since GP.
Both last end year's AAA XBox releases have/had problems as I said, not a good track record.

Anyway enough whataboutism, this escalation of buying up bigger and bigger studios / publishers needs to stop. My 'fear' is that if this gets green lit, what's Google/Amazon/Apple/Sony going to gobble up next...

MS did not have any AAA games last year only Grounded and Pentiment.  As for your assumption that GP is the reason for games stalling from MS, I believe you are jumping to conclusion and just picking anything to blame instead it just could be that none of MS games were actually ready to ship because they were not complete or Phil held them for extra polish.  Who really knows but based on just the developer direct, MS stands a chance of releasing way more AAA games in 2023 than in 2022.  Also not sure what problems MS had with the games that did release last year since they all scored pretty decently unless you are talking about the amount.

The thing is, the market is all about gaining content from Sony, Tencent, Amazon, MS you name it.  Your fear is to late because its already been green lit.  Each company is trying to gain an advantage and they will continue to either add it by purchasing it or suppress it by using tactics that lockout the other competition.  You fear MS grabbing ABK/Blizz but probably do not really care that much about Sony locking out MS on AAA games.  Fans of different systems from my perspective only really care about their main needs but the way I see it, I need MS to stay as competitive as possible because I know where Sony will go if they dominate to much.

I like Sony after the PS3 and I like MS after the Xbox 1.  I noticed when both get to far ahead, we as gamers suffer but when each is striving for my dollar, I get Series X and GP and PS5 and that wonderful controller.



Around the Network
EpicRandy said:

So the answer still is, but others do it too / are just as bad or worse, so it's ok?

No, where in my reply do you get this, it is not my point.

I guess that's an answer to how is the solution to objectionable practices is an even bigger objectionable practice?
No solution needed, just keep one upping until there's nothing left to one up with.

It's not my point either, my answer to this specific question is that the question in itself is biased it's a leading question that try to get a specific answer and you can see why that is through my previous thread posts.

Where are they though, XBox had more (AAA) games coming out before gamepass...

Really when? and also handling more /less release does not make handling them differently. 

Also they are much more life service now instead of complete day 1, that's different since GP.

Games have followed that trend for more than 2 decades now and I don't see how it is related to GamePass at all.

Both last end year's AAA XBox releases have/had problems as I said, not a good track record.

Unless you specify those games an issues it's hard to discuss, High on life for instance had release issue for some but it wasn't related to the quality of the title and were fix pretty quickly hardly noteworthy.

Anyway enough whataboutism, this escalation of buying up bigger and bigger studios / publishers needs to stop.

Well I can agree to that but that's politics, we needs laws that apply to every industry and clear context as to when an acquisition can be greenlit and not. Right now MS is simply playing by the rules set by the current context.

My 'fear' is that if this gets green lit, what's Google/Amazon/Apple/Sony going to gobble up next...

As I said many time, yes this is a valid fear but this deal cannot be blocked because some other actor might do one of it's own afterward, that's not legally valid argument.

Yet it seems to be a valid legal argument, or at least the leading argument in this thread, that other companies do it to, do it worse, so the deal can go through.
That's the same as "this deal cannot be blocked because some other actor might do one of it's own afterward" This thread has turned into, this deal cannot be blocked because others did the same.

Anyway you choose not to answer the OP's question "my answer to this specific question is that the question in itself is biased it's a leading question that try to get a specific answer and you can see why that is through my previous thread posts." Attacking the question instead of giving an opinion on the matter.

(I had issues with Halo Infinite and Forza Horizon 5, played both on PC. Halo Infinite had a really short campaign, bad performance outside and no split-screen co-op (which wasn't promised for release but was promised to come shortly after)
Forza Horizon 5 had online issues, missing traffic in open world (really boring driving without any traffic, yet start a race and suddenly traffic is everywhere) and AI that had some severe issues)

You don't see how life service games are related to subscription services? They started as subscription based games... Life service is as old as mmorpgs, subscription required. The whole point of subscriptions is to keep people subscribed, life service is married to that. Hence the drip feed content to GT7 for example, got to keep people signed up to ps+ to check out the monthly updates, which means they must be relevant mostly to the online part. And yep, broken split-screen mode has been ignored since release in GT7, still broken.



@Machiavellian You replied to my post that begun with "There's a lot of hypocrisy in the console wars. When 'your' side does crappy stuff on their platform, it's all fine, just business. Or never as bad as a competing business. You can never discuss MS, Sony or Nintendo alone, and if that's not enough, drag Google Amazon and Apple into it as well." with "Edge integration into Windows is no different then Safari within Mac OS".

"You fear MS grabbing ABK/Blizz but probably do not really care that much about Sony locking out MS on AAA games."
I already said, my fear is more and more acquisitions until there is nothing left. Amazon and Google jumping in to gobble up publishers to make another Stadia, this time backed with a big portfolio of established studios.

And no I do think Sony buying Bungie was not a good move either. Helping upcoming studios, or buying studios that have been exclusively working for the system already, I don't see that as a big problem. If the studios want the extra financial security, access and help in trade of staying independent, that's their choice. Buying up publishers of multiple studios, that's completely different.


@Zero "No where did anyone say 1 thing makes another right." Then what's up with all the, X did this, that, etc. Is it because your favorite company is now under the loop for making the biggest buyout in gaming history?

Anyway, I don't know him. I simply agree with the point that this discussion is not going anywhere as long as people keep attacking the question and derailing the thread by bringing up other companies' skeletons.


Maybe try it in a different way. Would you all be fine if it was Tencent buying up Acti/Blizz/King? Or NetEase, or Electronic Arts and Take Two merging and buying up Acti/Blizz/King in the merger.


A common complaint about Sony first party games is, that they all feel kinda similar in formula. I tend to agree with that. Is that because all their studios think that's what the audience wants or maybe they do all lose some of their identity by integrind Aating together. Do we want a world where we just have Sony, MS and Nintendo AAA games, or get more variety, warts and all, from independent studios. Fyi, I didn't find Activision and Blizzard Entertainment merging a good idea either.



zero129 said:
SvennoJ said:

So the answer still is, but others do it too / are just as bad or worse, so it's ok?
I guess that's an answer to how is the solution to objectionable practices is an even bigger objectionable practice?
No solution needed, just keep one upping until there's nothing left to one up with.

All in all, as I understand it, Xbox titles are not handled in any different ways than prior to GP
Where are they though, XBox had more (AAA) games coming out before gamepass...
Also they are much more life service now instead of complete day 1, that's different since GP.
Both last end year's AAA XBox releases have/had problems as I said, not a good track record.

Anyway enough whataboutism, this escalation of buying up bigger and bigger studios / publishers needs to stop. My 'fear' is that if this gets green lit, what's Google/Amazon/Apple/Sony going to gobble up next...

I dont care if i get banned for this but your making yourself sound like a Fan ya know. No where did anyone say 1 thing makes another right. But when you have a clear Sony fan in here bringing up shit from years ago to try proof his point clearly its going to be pointed back to him even if he ignores his fav company doing the same or worse when it comes to gaming. Now really cop on. By taking up his point your just making yourself look bad...

I can't remember the last time I heard Phil Spencer bash Sony. He even loves the TLOU tv series. He must be a Sony fan.

Does this make him look bad? Does it make MS look bad?



SvennoJ said:

Yet it seems to be a valid legal argument, or at least the leading argument in this thread, that other companies do it to, do it worse, so the deal can go through.
That's the same as "this deal cannot be blocked because some other actor might do one of it's own afterward" This thread has turned into, this deal cannot be blocked because others did the same.

No those things doesn't equate to each other. Saying other already make aquisition is only setting the context that acquisitions are allowed, it's in the rule of the game every actor plays with. Saying you should disallow X to make an acquisition so others wouldn't do what they are already allowed to do is only wishful thinking, even if this deal does/does not succeed, nothing prevents other actors from making acquisitions of their own and each would and should be scrutinized independently

If your position is that you are against each and every acquisition that's a perfectly valid political position but it isn't reflected in the current context and laws.

SvennoJ said:

Anyway you choose not to answer the OP's question "my answer to this specific question is that the question in itself is biased it's a leading question that try to get a specific answer and you can see why that is through my previous thread posts." Attacking the question instead of giving an opinion on the matter.

I answered the op's question: acquisitions are not objectionable practices. Nor do I think money-hatted time exclusives are. Maybe the practice of paying to specifically exclude 1 competitor is but I haven't thought this through since only rumors of this practice exists as of now.

SvennoJ said:

(I had issues with Halo Infinite and Forza Horizon 5, played both on PC. Halo Infinite had a really short campaign, bad performance outside and no split-screen co-op (which wasn't promised for release but was promised to come shortly after)
Forza Horizon 5 had online issues, missing traffic in open world (really boring driving without any traffic, yet start a race and suddenly traffic is everywhere) and AI that had some severe issues)

I just don't see how those issue is related to GP at all. MCC had a way worse release than infinite and was release prior to GP. Halo Infinite campaign length ain't different from previous entry and I even found it to be even longer than most. Both Infinite and GH5 were released to critical acclaim from both critics and gamers despite few issues here and there so it is clear both title qualities were high overall. So no those were not using GP reputation to get away with their flaws.

SvennoJ said:

You don't see how life service games are related to subscription services? They started as subscription based games... Life service is as old as mmorpgs, subscription required. The whole point of subscriptions is to keep people subscribed, life service is married to that. Hence the drip feed content to GT7 for example, got to keep people signed up to ps+ to check out the monthly updates, which means they must be relevant mostly to the online part. And yep, broken split-screen mode has been ignored since release in GT7, still broken.

Many games are also life service and are not related to subscriptions at all (diablo, PUBG, Fortnite +thousands of others). Games have followed that trend of becoming more and more life service for more than 2 decades some even used this approach in the 90s. I just don't see how Gamepass somehow has an influence on this. In fact, you can even argue to the contrary, service games tend to attract gamers that will sometimes play them for thousands of hours, so for them buying the game outright and ditching game subscription service may be the better choice.  

Last edited by EpicRandy - on 30 January 2023

EpicRandy said:
SvennoJ said:

Yet it seems to be a valid legal argument, or at least the leading argument in this thread, that other companies do it to, do it worse, so the deal can go through.
That's the same as "this deal cannot be blocked because some other actor might do one of it's own afterward" This thread has turned into, this deal cannot be blocked because others did the same.

No those things doesn't equate to each other. Saying other already make aquisition is only setting the context that acquisitions are allowed, it's in the rule of the game every actor plays with. Saying you should disallow X to make an acquisition so others wouldn't do what they are already allowed to do is only wishful thinking, even if this deal does/does not succeed, nothing prevents other actors from making acquisitions of their own and each would and should be scrutinized independently

If your position is that you are against each and every acquisition that's a perfectly valid political position but it isn't reflected in the current context and laws.

SvennoJ said:

Anyway you choose not to answer the OP's question "my answer to this specific question is that the question in itself is biased it's a leading question that try to get a specific answer and you can see why that is through my previous thread posts." Attacking the question instead of giving an opinion on the matter.

I answered the op's question: acquisitions are not objectionable practices. Nor do I think money-hatted time exclusives are. Maybe the practice of paying to specifically exclude 1 competitor is but I haven't thought this through since only rumors of this practice exists as of now.

SvennoJ said:

(I had issues with Halo Infinite and Forza Horizon 5, played both on PC. Halo Infinite had a really short campaign, bad performance outside and no split-screen co-op (which wasn't promised for release but was promised to come shortly after)
Forza Horizon 5 had online issues, missing traffic in open world (really boring driving without any traffic, yet start a race and suddenly traffic is everywhere) and AI that had some severe issues)

I just don't see how those issue is related to GP at all. MCC had a way worse release than infinite and was release prior to GP. Halo Infinite campaign length ain't different from previous entry and I even found it to be even longer than most. Both Infinite and GH5 were released to critical acclaim from both critics and gamers despite few issues here and there so it is clear both title qualities were high overall. So no those were not using GP reputation to get away with their flaws.

SvennoJ said:

You don't see how life service games are related to subscription services? They started as subscription based games... Life service is as old as mmorpgs, subscription required. The whole point of subscriptions is to keep people subscribed, life service is married to that. Hence the drip feed content to GT7 for example, got to keep people signed up to ps+ to check out the monthly updates, which means they must be relevant mostly to the online part. And yep, broken split-screen mode has been ignored since release in GT7, still broken.

Many games are also life service and are not related to subscriptions at all (diablo, PUBG, Fortnite +thousands of others). Games have followed that trend of becoming more and more life service for more than 2 decades some even used this approach in the 90s. I just don't see how Gamepass somehow has an influence on this. In fact, you can even argue to the contrary, service games tend to attract gamers that will sometimes play them for thousands of hours, so for them buying the game outright and ditching game subscription service may be the better choice.  

I see season passes as practically the same as a subscription. Subscription service is just another cash flow next to DLC, MTX and season passes. The goal of all is to keep players engaged longer. As I don't like the former 3 influencing how games are / have been built, naturally I'm also not fond of subscription services which have the same goal after all.

It's not that keeping players engaged longer is a bad thing, yet there are very few games that do it like No Man's Sky's no strings attached approach. Which led to huge updates, really expanding on the game. Not just another season pass with more trinkets, higher max level, some other changes.

I have seen the excuses for Halo Infinite's short single biome campaign which were mostly, "doesn't matter I played it on gamepass", that on the Steam message boards. Countering complaints from full price paying customers with, you should have just played it on gamepass... Anyway you can see enough complaints about Halo Infinite's lackluster campaign on plenty gaming sites. The grapple hook 'saved' it from becoming too repetitive, yet was way too OP at the same time. In the end it was more Spiderman than Halo, I hardly bothered with the weapons anymore lol. Grapple punch through the second half of the game.

And why I put the finger on gamepass, it's more that I put the finger on shifting the focus more and more way from the campaign to ways to keep people engaged in multiplayer. Which is what gamepass needs. And yep, split screen multiplayer is there, split-screen co-op is cancelled. It's clear where the priorities are and that will only be further cemented by subscription services.

Anyway, you don't see an issue with acquisitions. I do with major mergers and large buyouts. Even smaller studios are better off by themselves in my opinion, but it's a cutthroat industry where one bad release can easily sink a smaller studio. So i get it that they want to be part of a bigger publisher to fall back on. I do think they lose a part of their identity by such a move.



Around the Network
EpicRandy said:

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 think it applies for both IPs and studios really, SONY can't wake up one day and ask Santa Monica to make a successful Call of Duty or mutliplayer game, that's not what the studio was built for. Although I feel like I have probably missed the point you're trying to make here as I don't have the time to lurk around here as much anymore. 

EpicRandy said:

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.

True, there are big tech companies that copy from each other.... and there is MS. 

EpicRandy said:

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?

No, I can't quote MS saying they would do another $70B deal in the future, this is silly. A made up metric you came up with to dismiss valid arguments. 

Even if I accept your made up metric and assume MS will only buy smaller companies from now on; this doesn't lessen the effect of these buyouts because cumulative and snowball effects are important factors in how the world works. You are refusing to see that buying companies that are, 10 times smaller than AKB, would cause another shift in the market. MS can buy easily buy Ubisoft next on top of what they have, a company that's tenth the size of AKB, and that will lead to a much bigger effect of Ubisoft was the only company they ended buying. The whole can always be greater than the sum of the parts, and it often is in business. Your made up rules on what count and what doesn't are frankly meaningless. 

EpicRandy said:

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.

Ignoring how you actually want to convince me that MS won't buy another big publisher, buying smaller publishers on top of Bethesda and AKB doesn't invalidate my arguments. 

"the whole is greater than the sum of the parts" is the driving force behind many business practices.  I don't see how you can agree that MS will buy more companies in the future consolidate more of the market under their wing and say those future buyouts aren't relevant, because again, what you are arguing flies in the face of how established business practices work.  

And again, even if we accept your made up business plans and made up rules, MS can still spend another $70b buying multiple smaller studios and I end up being validated, because you can buy 10 more smaller studios instead of a massive one and achieve a similar outcome.

  • Can MS buy 10 studios for 70B dollars -> yes
  • Would it make sense -> maybe but more likely not 
  • are they relevant -> not at all. 

I am being sarcastic, obviously. 



RolStoppable said:
LurkerJ said:

Has everyone missed announcements like the outer world 2, Redfall, Hellblade 2, Starfield, Avowed? Phil's all but confirming the elder scroll 6 as xbox exclusive? the fact that Microsoft initially promised Call of Duty would remain on PS for three years before stretching it to 10? 

If you don't want to engage with my question because you think I don't have enough proof that MS will weaponise these acquisitions, then that's fine. But to ask me a question in return that we already know is based on a false premise is a bit odd, ain't it? 

These announcements aren't any different to how Sony has handled things. I fail to see how what Microsoft is doing is worse than anything Sony has done.

It's just that we've been coming off a period where the funding had been cut for the Xbox division and the vast majority of third party deals had been made by Sony, and now that the playing field has been leveled, it's somehow worse.

The current trajectory is that both PS and Xbox will become redundant consoles, because both console manufacturers will put their games on the PC. Microsoft all of them day 1, Sony with delays of varying degrees. That's why I don't see a real problem for gamers here. The weaponising you speak of would first and foremost be against Sony, but not so much gamers.

What are the negative consequences you see for gamers?

Consolidation is bad. I can lay out 100 scenarios in which MS gobbling up gaming studios will lead to bad things, non of those scenarios may happen in the immediate future for us to realise because we already know that consolidation is bad. 

It's like when I was being asked how allowing China to be the manufacturing mother of the world is a bad thing when "everybody benefits in the end", I lay out few hypothetical scenarios and I get accused me of being conspiratorial. Eventually, It went wrong in ways worse than imagined; a pandemic that enslaved us to the whims of a dictator, shutting down economies with crazy zero-covid19 policies, shortages, inflation, the chips fiasco, and a hypersonic missile going around the world undetected, spying balloons in broad daylight, single handedly neutralising all Russian sanctions, blatantly empowering gulf states to back stab the USA, so on and so forth! Now Biden is left the repercussions of the idiotic policies that gave China all the power. 

Back to gaming, no future competitor can enter the ring if big third party games seize to exist because MS bought the biggest of them. The PS3 was a shit-show and proved SONY games don't sell SONY consoles (this is changing), but it survived on the back of third party games. Similarly, Xbox one would've completely lost in all markets if it weren't for third party games keeping it alive and the brand would've been stopped in its tracks. 

I am not disillusioned by neither MS nor SONY. They both like to pretend they're gaming companies but the truth of the matter is that their consoles could've not survived without third parties. The barrier of entry for potential competitors is already high as it is, why should those potential future competitors be deprived of the same forces (third parties) that allowed both MS and SONY to survive? 

Of course, MS is much too happy to allow COD on Playstation and Nintendo, their market position at present doesn't allow them to overplay their hand currently, especially that they're under the microscope by regulators. But who's to say their attitude will change once they're inevitably in a better position to compete after the swallowed the biggest publishers in the market?

In addition, forget about any support Amazon, Google, *insert any tech company* or any new start up that have any intentions to partake in the "gaming as a service" model, no one will enter the space to begin with, knowing that the vast majority of PSN and Xbox live subs come from games like COD. 

It's not out of the realm of possibilities that SONY takes a misstep and gets eliminated from the gaming space entirely, especially with less big third party games to rely on. We could definitely be left with MS as the only gaming alternative for Nintendo in the foreseeable future. Of the three companies, only MS can release dud after dud and continue to be a big player in the market, very few companies can afford the number of mishaps MS can. We have very recent examples of all three companies messing up in an unimaginable ways; the PS3, the Wii U and the Xbox one. Non of them are infallible, any of them can make even bigger mistakes.  

You speak of MS goodwill game, this is the same company that is taking the opportunity the good PR gamepass is buying them at the moment to completely botch their games with gold offerings (which negatively impacts the xbox user base, unironically). The same MS that introduced a paywall to play online with no real benefits in return, Games with Gold only happened because competitors had better offerings (and is now being botched).

MS, just very recently, introduced the most anti-consumer practices with Xbox One the minute they edged out SONY with the X360. Who's to say they won't try again once their market position allow them to do so? Who's to say the current MS CEO or the "gamer friendly" Phil won't be replaced by overreaching executives? What if, for any reason, MS as a company find themselves struggling in the Office and the desktop Operating System space that drives them to lean heavily on gaming for profits? Ads In games? higher Sub fees? Offer base game on the service and ask for more money to play the rest of the game? I can go on forever with these hypothetical possibilities. Everyone is fixated on how things are being run now, but very few are looking ahead when MS inevitable claims a leading position in the gaming space. 

How can you confidently say MS won't be weaponising these acquisitions against gamers but only against SONY when we have very recent example of them doing just that with the Xbox One just after the X360 did relatively well?

Ironically, The Xbox One was being weaponised exclusively against gamers, and not against SONY.

Speaking of MS intent to bring more games to more platforms, I wouldn't be surprised if this eventually happens exclusively through third party app/game stores that they openly advocate for (and yes, that includes third party stores on PS and Switch). I fail to see why, in a realistically potential scenario, MS gets to reap 100% of the profits of games sold on a console like the Switch when they played no part in its success or survival. 

Finally, despite all of the possible scenarios I laid out above, I can't predict the future. Non of the above may happen any time soon, it may get better before it gets worse, we shouldn't be ok with handing MS or anyone that sort of power in the first place. With that said, I believe all of these acquisitions and more will be green lit, and gamers will end up grappling with the repercussions in the future. 

Last edited by LurkerJ - on 05 February 2023

LurkerJ said:
RolStoppable said:

These announcements aren't any different to how Sony has handled things. I fail to see how what Microsoft is doing is worse than anything Sony has done.

It's just that we've been coming off a period where the funding had been cut for the Xbox division and the vast majority of third party deals had been made by Sony, and now that the playing field has been leveled, it's somehow worse.

The current trajectory is that both PS and Xbox will become redundant consoles, because both console manufacturers will put their games on the PC. Microsoft all of them day 1, Sony with delays of varying degrees. That's why I don't see a real problem for gamers here. The weaponising you speak of would first and foremost be against Sony, but not so much gamers.

What are the negative consequences you see for gamers?

Consolidation is bad. I can lay out 100 scenarios in which MS gobbling up gaming studios will lead to bad things, non of those scenarios may happen in the immediate future for us to realise because we already know that consolidation is bad. 

It's like when I was being asked how allowing China to be the manufacturing mother of the world is a bad thing when "everybody benefits in the end", I lay out few hypothetical scenarios and I get accused me of being conspiratorial. Eventually, It went wrong in ways worse than imagined; a pandemic that enslaved us to the whims of a dictator, shutting down economies with crazy zero-covid19 policies, shortages, inflation, the chips fiasco, and a hypersonic missile going around the world undetected, spying balloons in broad daylight, single handedly neutralising all Russian sanctions, blatantly empowering gulf states to back stab the USA, so on and so forth! Now Biden is left the repercussions of the idiotic policies that gave China all the power. 

Back to gaming, no future competitor can enter the ring if big third party games seize to exist because MS bought the biggest of them. The PS3 was a shit-show and proved SONY games don't sell SONY consoles (this is changing), but it survived on the back of third party games. Similarly, Xbox one would've completely lost in all markets if it weren't for third party games keeping it alive and the brand would've been stopped in its tracks. 

I am not disillusioned by neither MS nor SONY. They both like to pretend they're gaming companies but the truth of the matter is that their consoles could've not survived without third parties. The barrier of entry for potential competitors is already high as it is, why should those potential future competitors be deprived of the same forces (third parties) that allowed both MS and SONY to survive? 

Of course, MS is much too happy to allow COD on Playstation and Nintendo, their market position at present doesn't allow them to overplay their hand currently, especially that they're under the microscope by regulators. But who's to say their attitude will change once they're inevitably in a better position to compete after the swallowed the biggest publishers in the market?

In addition, forget about any support Amazon, Google, *insert any tech company* or any new start up that have any intentions to partake in the "gaming as a service" model, no one will enter the space to begin with, knowing that the vast majority of PSN and Xbox live subs come from games like COD. 

It's not out of the realm of possibilities that SONY takes a misstep and gets eliminated from the gaming space entirely, especially with less big third party games to rely on. We could definitely be left with MS as the only gaming alternative for Nintendo in the foreseeable future. Of the three companies, only MS can release dud after dud and continue to be a big player in the market, very few companies can afford the number of mishaps MS can. We have very recent examples of all three companies messing up in an unimaginable ways; the PS3, the Wii U and the Xbox one. Non of them are infallible, any of them can make even bigger mistakes.  

You speak of MS goodwill game, this is the same company that is taking the opportunity the good PR gamepass is buying them at the moment to completely botch their games with gold offerings (which negatively impacts the xbox user base, unironically). The same MS that introduced a paywall to play online with no real benefits in return, Games with Gold only happened because competitors had better offerings (and is now being botched).

MS, just very recently, introduced the most anti-consumer practices with Xbox One the minute they edged out SONY with the X360. Who's to say they won't try again once their market position allow them to do so? Who's to say the current MS CEO or the "gamer friendly" Phil won't be replaced by overreaching executives? What if, for any reason, MS as a company find themselves struggling in the Office and the desktop Operating System space that drives them to lean heavily on gaming for profits? Ads In games? higher Sub fees? Offer base game on the service and ask for more money to play the rest of the game? I can go on forever with these hypothetical possibilities. Everyone is fixated on how things are being run now, but very few are looking ahead when MS inevitable claims a leading position in the gaming space. 

How can you confidently say MS won't be weaponising these acquisitions against gamers but only against SONY when we have very recent example of them doing just that with the Xbox One just after the X360 did relatively well?

Ironically, The Xbox One was being weaponised exclusively against gamers, and not against SONY.

Speaking of MS intent to bring more games to more platforms, I wouldn't be surprised if this eventually happens exclusively through third party app/game stores that they openly advocate for (and yes, that includes third party stores on PS and Switch). I fail to see why, in a realistically potential scenario, MS gets to reap 100% of the profits of games sold on a console like the Switch when they played no part in its success or survival. 

Finally, despite all of the possible scenarios I laid out above, I can't predict the future. Non of the above may happen any time soon, it may get better before it gets worse, we shouldn't be ok with handing MS or anyone that sort of power in the first place. With that said, I believe all of these acquisitions and more will be green lit, and gamers will end up grappling with the repercussions in the future. 

You're right, you can't predict the future. Using words like "weaponizing" is pretty funny. If Xbox decides to pull some anti-consumer moves like they tried with Xbox One, guess what? People will do what they did with Xbox One and jump ship. This deal doesn't make Xbox invincible and if they mess up again, then the people will vote with their wallet like they always have. Xbox knows this more than you are giving them credit for. Sony knows this and so does Nintendo because they have all made mistakes at some point. 

We can play the 'what if' game all day. I personally believe there is a better chance of Xbox leaving consoles and becoming a 3rd party publisher before they 'force' Sony and Nintendo out of console gaming. See, I can do it too. It's not a good way to make points.  

Thanks for sharing your opinion though!

Last edited by smroadkill15 - on 06 February 2023

LurkerJ said:

I think it applies for both IPs and studios really, SONY can't wake up one day and ask Santa Monica to make a successful Call of Duty or mutliplayer game, that's not what the studio was built for. Although I feel like I have probably missed the point you're trying to make here as I don't have the time to lurk around here as much anymore.

With talent, vision, budget and luck any actor can pull the next "Call of Duty". But if you need to build from the ground up you first need to acquire those talents, build a coherent vision which can be an exercise in patience. With acquisition, you only jump-start the process by attaching a monetary value to this growing pain and skipping it altogether. 

LurkerJ said:
EpicRandy said:

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?

No, I can't quote MS saying they would do another $70B deal in the future, this is silly. A made up metric you came up with to dismiss valid arguments. 

Even if I accept your made up metric and assume MS will only buy smaller companies from now on; this doesn't lessen the effect of these buyouts because cumulative and snowball effects are important factors in how the world works. You are refusing to see that buying companies that are, 10 times smaller than AKB, would cause another shift in the market. MS can buy easily buy Ubisoft next on top of what they have, a company that's tenth the size of AKB, and that will lead to a much bigger effect of Ubisoft was the only company they ended buying. The whole can always be greater than the sum of the parts, and it often is in business. Your made up rules on what count and what doesn't are frankly meaningless. 

First I didn't make some metrics ups nor did I make up some rules, don't know where you see those here. I have only stated why, the way I understand things, MS won't try another acquisition on that scale. You're the one trying to somehow tie this opinion and logic to something else it doesn't apply to like smaller acquisitions.

The more I read you, the more that, despite the fact you made this thread specific to the MS/activision deals your argument are more akin to "I'm against all acquisitions" and "consolidations is bad altogether". This is a perfectly valid political position but it isn't the actual context, in the current context acquisition are allowed provided they aren't detrimental to the industry they happen into and their consumers.

This transaction is neither of those and the "but if they do another acquisition it might be" argument has no value as this new acquisition will still be subject to regulatory bodies oversight. You also have to take into consideration that regulatory bodies don't need an acquisition to intervene. It's not like if they allow the acquisition to proceed MS can do whatever it wants. If MS actually succeeds in creating a monopoly, transactions or not, regulatory bodies will challenged them and may force them to split. 

LurkerJ said:

Ignoring how you actually want to convince me that MS won't buy another big publisher, buying smaller publishers on top of Bethesda and AKB doesn't invalidate my arguments. 

I'm not trying to convince you of anything here, I just explained my understanding of the situation and even stated MS might try to go for another publisher, so don't know how I'm supposed to be trying to convince you of the contrary here.

LurkerJ said:

"the whole is greater than the sum of the parts" is the driving force behind many business practices.  I don't see how you can agree that MS will buy more companies in the future consolidate more of the market under their wing and say those future buyouts aren't relevant, because again, what you are arguing flies in the face of how established business practices work.  

Futur buyouts are not set in stone, and this transaction's success/failure does not make them less or more likely, using this as an argument is literally using a slippery slope/fear-mongering logical fallacy even when you think the probabilities for such are high.

If you want me to accept this as a valid argument to block this deal you would have to prove me without doubt that:

  1. This transaction's success will inevitably lead to other acquisitions.
  2. Those others transactions would not have happened in case of this transaction failure.
  3. Those others transactions would lead MS to have total dominance over the industry.
  4. Other actors and/or consumers would suffer from those other transactions (and no choosing Xbox over Playsation does not count as consumer suffering, being force to choose a more expensive Xbox over cheaper alternatives would).
  5. That regulatory bodies would be toothless to prevent it upon those others transactions.  
  6. That regulatory bodies would be toothless to adjudicate a monopoly situation would one arise.
LurkerJ said:

And again, even if we accept your made up business plans and made up rules, MS can still spend another $70b buying multiple smaller studios and I end up being validated, because you can buy 10 more smaller studios instead of a massive one and achieve a similar outcome.

  • Can MS buy 10 studios for 70B dollars -> yes
  • Would it make sense -> maybe but more likely not 
  • are they relevant -> not at all. 

I am being sarcastic, obviously. 

Yes they can but that doesn't change a thing to my understanding of the situation and current policy context regarding acquisitions in general. 

Last edited by EpicRandy - on 06 February 2023

LurkerJ said:

Consolidation is bad. I can lay out 100 scenarios in which MS gobbling up gaming studios will lead to bad things, non of those scenarios may happen in the immediate future for us to realise because we already know that consolidation is bad. 

It's like when I was being asked how allowing China to be the manufacturing mother of the world is a bad thing when "everybody benefits in the end", I lay out few hypothetical scenarios and I get accused me of being conspiratorial. Eventually, It went wrong in ways worse than imagined; a pandemic that enslaved us to the whims of a dictator, shutting down economies with crazy zero-covid19 policies, shortages, inflation, the chips fiasco, and a hypersonic missile going around the world undetected, spying balloons in broad daylight, single handedly neutralising all Russian sanctions, blatantly empowering gulf states to back stab the USA, so on and so forth! Now Biden is left the repercussions of the idiotic policies that gave China all the power. 

Back to gaming, no future competitor can enter the ring if big third party games seize to exist because MS bought the biggest of them. The PS3 was a shit-show and proved SONY games don't sell SONY consoles (this is changing), but it survived on the back of third party games. Similarly, Xbox one would've completely lost in all markets if it weren't for third party games keeping it alive and the brand would've been stopped in its tracks. 

I am not disillusioned by neither MS nor SONY. They both like to pretend they're gaming companies but the truth of the matter is that their consoles could've not survived without third parties. The barrier of entry for potential competitors is already high as it is, why should those potential future competitors be deprived of the same forces (third parties) that allowed both MS and SONY to survive? 

Of course, MS is much too happy to allow COD on Playstation and Nintendo, their market position at present doesn't allow them to overplay their hand currently, especially that they're under the microscope by regulators. But who's to say their attitude will change once they're inevitably in a better position to compete after the swallowed the biggest publishers in the market?

In addition, forget about any support Amazon, Google, *insert any tech company* or any new start up that have any intentions to partake in the "gaming as a service" model, no one will enter the space to begin with, knowing that the vast majority of PSN and Xbox live subs come from games like COD. 

It's not out of the realm of possibilities that SONY takes a misstep and gets eliminated from the gaming space entirely, especially with less big third party games to rely on. We could definitely be left with MS as the only gaming alternative for Nintendo in the foreseeable future. Of the three companies, only MS can release dud after dud and continue to be a big player in the market, very few companies can afford the number of mishaps MS can. We have very recent examples of all three companies messing up in an unimaginable ways; the PS3, the Wii U and the Xbox one. Non of them are infallible, any of them can make even bigger mistakes.  

You speak of MS goodwill game, this is the same company that is taking the opportunity the good PR gamepass is buying them at the moment to completely botch their games with gold offerings (which negatively impacts the xbox user base, unironically). The same MS that introduced a paywall to play online with no real benefits in return, Games with Gold only happened because competitors had better offerings (and is now being botched).

MS, just very recently, introduced the most anti-consumer practices with Xbox One the minute they edged out SONY with the X360. Who's to say they won't try again once their market position allow them to do so? Who's to say the current MS CEO or the "gamer friendly" Phil won't be replaced by overreaching executives? What if, for any reason, MS as a company find themselves struggling in the Office and the desktop Operating System space that drives them to lean heavily on gaming for profits? Ads In games? higher Sub fees? Offer base game on the service and ask for more money to play the rest of the game? I can go on forever with these hypothetical possibilities. Everyone is fixated on how things are being run now, but very few are looking ahead when MS inevitable claims a leading position in the gaming space. 

How can you confidently say MS won't be weaponising these acquisitions against gamers but only against SONY when we have very recent example of them doing just that with the Xbox One just after the X360 did relatively well?

Ironically, The Xbox One was being weaponised exclusively against gamers, and not against SONY.

Speaking of MS intent to bring more games to more platforms, I wouldn't be surprised if this eventually happens exclusively through third party app/game stores that they openly advocate for (and yes, that includes third party stores on PS and Switch). I fail to see why, in a realistically potential scenario, MS gets to reap 100% of the profits of games sold on a console like the Switch when they played no part in its success or survival. 

Finally, despite all of the possible scenarios I laid out above, I can't predict the future. Non of the above may happen any time soon, it may get better before it gets worse, we shouldn't be ok with handing MS or anyone that sort of power in the first place. With that said, I believe all of these acquisitions and more will be green lit, and gamers will end up grappling with the repercussions in the future. 

1. Consolidation is bad, sure. But in the gaming industry, the big third party publishers are already bad in the first place, so on the particular topic of Activision, you'd have to pretend that Activision's independence and freedom is something worth keeping around. This isn't a situation like Amazon destroying thousands of small businesses with its loss-leading strategy.

2. China and the political leaders' decision to give them ever more power isn't an equivalent to the topic at hand here. So while I agree that dependence on China in any shape or form should be avoided, it doesn't matter one bit here.

3. We already have the situation that there can't be any entrant in the console business anymore (or the alternative of a service instead of a console), thanks to first Sony spending the big bucks, followed by Microsoft doing the same. You can name any of the biggest tech companies (Google, Amazon, Apple etc.), but none of them have a realistic chance to get into this market. This ship has sailed long ago, hence why acquisition or no acquisition doesn't matter anymore.

4. It's already hard enough for Microsoft to get this Activision acquisition approved, so it would only get harder with each subsequent acquisition. It's unrealistic that Microsoft will ever own up to half of the big third party publishers, let alone all of them.

5. Subscription fees for online play make it much less likely, actually impossible, for Sony to get into a PS3-like situation again.

6. Games with Gold is as important as PS+ games. Sony had a prolonged streak of bad offers and it means little at the end. Any gamer who pays for Gold or PS+ should know that the "free" games are like the cat in the bag. There's no guarantee that you'll get something good.

7. Your expectation that Xbox could possibly become market leader is laughable. It only gets more ridiculous when you suggest that Microsoft as a company could eventually have to rely on gaming as their major source for profit.

8. Regarding the Xbox One, I hope you remember that it was exclusively weaponised against Xbox gamers, so there was still a choice to buy another console. Just like in the generation before when Sony wanted to take advantage of PS gamers in order to push their Blu-ray format.

9. Third party storefronts on consoles aren't going to happen.

10. The problem with your post is that it's filled with scenarios that are either not going to happen or are already reality in a slightly different shape. If that's all you managed to think of during the past several weeks (because my post you replied to is old), then that's not much.

The bottom line is that while I do hate Sony, I am not delusional enough to believe that Sony sucks so much ass that Microsoft could ever take over. If the PS3 couldn't make that happen - and if you analyze the PS3 from a business point of view it was a giant load of bullshit - then nothing can do it. Papa Phil has scored a lot of PR points, but when you look at the fruits of his work, he doesn't have much tangible to show for it. He didn't mess up the fourth Xbox like Mattrick messed up the third one, but not shitting your own pants is not something that I will give an adult man credit for.



Legend11 correctly predicted that GTA IV will outsell Super Smash Bros. Brawl. I was wrong.