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 57 43.85%
 
Against 46 35.38%
 
Neutral 27 20.77%
 
Total:130

I'm all for it. I think its silly that just because this deal cost so much that its even being compared to mergers and buyouts from other companys that allowed them to have a much bigger market share. Its not as if Activision is the only big publisher in the world or the only one that can make AAA games. As we have seen with the video game market new publishers devs come up all the time.
Only people i have seen against this deal is a few Sony fans. Almost everyone else dont give a shit and the rest want it to pass.
Like others have said id be much more happy if Ms went after Sega/Atlus and some smaller companys like that. But for people acting like this deal is the wrost thing in the world as if Activision is the only publisher/developer in the world is just silly to me. I mean on console/pc they currently only work on like 3 IP's with the left of their ips being rest in the dump or just getting some small side games. So like i said id be much more happy if they went after Sega/Atlus who have many more active IP's and some more smaller companys.

Last edited by zero129 - on 15 December 2022

Around the Network
LurkerJ said:
EpicRandy said:

I'm for it, I'm yet to see a compelling fact-based argument as to why it should be blocked.

The resulting entity would be 3rd by revenue behind Tencent Game and Playstation.
As for the number of employees I believe they would be 2nd behind Tencent games but found limited data on this, let me know if you have better info.

CMA issues with the deals only revolve around CoD. Still, Minecraft has already shown MS was not going to take away CoD from the competition and they have more than enough shown their flexibility in regards to that franchise. Steam and Nintendo user stand also benefits from the deal in regards to Cod.

As gtotheunit91 pointed out the issue regarding unions the FTC used is blatantly false.

The prevailing argument I see against this deal from other users is that you never saw Sony doing it on this level so Microsoft should not either. But here is the thing, Microsoft's possibilities are not limited and should not be limited by what Sony has or has not done.

Let's not forget that Nintendo and steam only benefited from this deal AFTER the backlash MS got and after they became less confident about their previous vulgar approach to the merger. The mere scrutiny ALONE of this deal got MS to make legally binding promises that were not on the table weeks ago. I do believe MS will make games Multiplatform when it suits them, and withhold games when it doesn't. To suggest that MS will selfishly abstain from taking full advantage of the power that these acquisitions provide them with is not realistic in my opinion. They have already said in the past it will not be the case, and they will contemplate the matter on "case-by-case" basis. Make of that what you will.  

Using the number of employees each company has to argue for the acquisition is looking away from the bigger picture and using a single metric in isolation to get a favourable outcome. Just like portraying CoD as the only issue with this merger. These acquisitions come with legacy ever-green IPs, you can do a lot more damage to the competition with much less number of employees by simply relying on this legacy. 

As for the prevailing argument you see from the other side, I have not made this argument myself, and I have already stated SONY has indulged in objectionable practices repeatedly and continue to do so. Microsoft possibilities shouldn't be limited by what SONY has or hasn't done, but it 100% should be limited by regulation that seek to prevent monopoly over the industry. 

Why MS made the legally binding deals is irrelevant to those who will benefit from it. Also, MS stated prior to the backlash they were not going to remove CoD from the competition. No company will try to purchase another and offer legally binding concessions before they are/appear to be a necessity. So yeah MS made those as a result of the challenge they face but it is all but normal and expected.

"Using the number of employees each company has to argue for the acquisition is looking away from the bigger picture and using a single metric in isolation to get a favourable outcome"

well, if you isolate that argument from the others and than argue it's a single metric in isolation it's disingenuous, I have not isolated this argument but completed it with the rest of my argumentation.

"Just like portraying CoD as the only issue with this merger"

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/634536048fa8f5153767e533/MSFT.ABK_phase_1_decision_-_1.09.2022.pdf

  • Consumer is mentioned 14 times
  • Sony is mentioned 70 times
  • Call of Duty also abbreviated as CoD is mentioned 156 times

While it is not their only argument it revolves predominantly around it and it is by far their main one.

"These acquisitions come with legacy ever-green IPs, you can do a lot more damage to the competition with much less number of employees by simply relying on this legacy."

Yeah but MS offered assurance it won't, offered legally binding one at that. If that was the concern, Sony would sit with them and try to make Microsoft offer the same kind of deal from Diablo, Wow, Overwatch ... but all they give is silence apparently.

"As for the prevailing argument you see from the other side, I have not made this argument myself, and I have already stated SONY has indulged in objectionable practices repeatedly and continue to do so. Microsoft possibilities shouldn't be limited by what SONY has or hasn't done, but it 100% should be limited by regulation that seek to prevent monopoly over the industry. "

And I agree 100%. Though one would hope a decision on this would be devoid of political interference and factually based which is completely contrary to what we've seen with the FTC decision and reasons.

Last edited by EpicRandy - on 15 December 2022

Ode to a masterpiece

2023 so much great game to play, somehow I know I must walk that alley, but don't you feel in disarray, I'll always come back to you Stardew Valley.

I'm not going to go into the legal side or the business side of things here. My personal opinion, however, is very strongly against the acquisition. Consolidation of the industry is probably not a beneficial thing for competition, period. This might have some short-term benefits e.g. in the form of strengthening GamePass, but in the long term, I'm more worried. The worst-case scenario is that this swings the balance in a way that's unrecovarable for Sony. I don't think this is going to go that far, especially if MIcrosoft does keep Call of Duty on Sony's consoles for a long time, but it's still worrying.



To further my opinion on a more personal note rather than a legal one
I believe this deal is good for

  • Microsoft/Xbox
  • Activision Blizzard
  • Workers at Activision Blizzard
  • Union advocate
  • Gamepass
  • Gamapass Users
  • Switch and future next Nintendo system owner
  • Steam User
  • Anyone who wants the Acti-Blizz management/work culture to change
  • Anyone who hopes for a possibility of Activision Blizzard studios to even consider being creative again
  • Playstation plus user (Only if Sony accepts the deal and benefits from CoD on PlayStation plus day 1 as Ms offered)

It is neutral for

  • Any third party as Take two made clear
  • Anyone who doesn't subscribe/wants to subscribe to GamePass (as all the games will still be available for purchase)

It is bad for:

  • Sony*


But even then it is only bad for their ability to sell ps5+ with limited competition from the Xbox series+ system and their ability to grow their margin profits unchallenged.
Even if the deal goes through it won't:

  • Make Uncharted, God of War, Horizon, Ghost of Tsushima, and Last of Us ... fans disappear
  • inhibit the ability for Sony to create and release new games for their system and/or PC
  • prevent Sony from making other acquisitions and they've made quite a few this year and will continue to do so by their statement
  • prevent Sony from bolstering its offering (PlayStation + wise as well as a standard sale) 
  • Remove CoD from their offering
  • Make Xbox anywhere near the point of a monopoly 

Also, the impact on Sony is already mitigated by:

  • The fact they are the one who benefits from a dominant position as of now.
  • The fact that many Acti-Blizz projects are already announced for Ps5 and MS will respect all of those (ex: Diablo 4)
  • The impact of this won't be felt for many years and won't come all at once

If Sony were to fight for their user here and not for their margins IMO they would try to strike a deal with MS not only for CoD but most of Acti-Blizz's existing franchises (Diablo, overwatch, Crash...) and I believe MS would agree to all these. The fact that Sony remains silent on those and focuses only on CoD makes me believe they themselves don't believe MS would make any of those exclusive after the deal goes through. 

Last edited by EpicRandy - on 15 December 2022

Ode to a masterpiece

2023 so much great game to play, somehow I know I must walk that alley, but don't you feel in disarray, I'll always come back to you Stardew Valley.

Not in favor of big companies monopolizing the industry.



Bite my shiny metal cockpit!

Around the Network

I'm all for it as it means Nintendo systems will get COD now an Sony finally gets a kick in the balls and realises they no more invincible to loosing game than Nintendo was when PlayStation come on the scene.



 

 

I waver between netural and against it. First of all, it's naive if not disingenuous to say it's only bad for Sony:

1. An acquisition of this magnitide is guaranteed to push Sony (and others) to step up their acquisition plans, which could affect Nintendo consoles in addition to Xbox and to some extent PC. Sony is more traditional than Microsoft and is more likely to make exclusives.

2. Unless the above happens and Sony gobbles up a publisher or two, it will be harder for MS to acquire a large number of smaller developers and publishers.

3. This "nice" Microsoft is temporary and directly tied to their "only 30% marketshare, next to Sony's 70%!!!". GamePass as I and many others predicted will increase in price, and lots of the future games people assume will be there on day 1 in fact won't be. And to any GamePass user who isn't a fan of CoD and AB games, a GamePass price hike caused by inclusion of CoD is definitely a negative. A higher entry price is worse value to a segment of people.

The deal has some obvious positives though:

1. GamePass day 1 is a good thing. The future, no matter how evil I think Microsoft are, is guesswork after all.

2. It hints to a positive change in the toxic workplace.

3. Promises support for Nintendo platforms.

4. Makes Sony less reliant on videos games I consider garbage, and hopefully forces them to innovate and diversify their 1st party lineup.

Last edited by Kyuu - on 15 December 2022

It'll benefit me a tad but I still lean against it since I'm not a fan of this sort of consolidation. At this point though I hope whatever happens does happen by mid 2023 since it's already been almost a full year since it was announced.



deep pockets never make for better games, so I am completely against it. MS can start managing their IPs and the studios they have already, they dont have to fk up more



Zkuq said:

I'm not going to go into the legal side or the business side of things here. My personal opinion, however, is very strongly against the acquisition. Consolidation of the industry is probably not a beneficial thing for competition, period. This might have some short-term benefits e.g. in the form of strengthening GamePass, but in the long term, I'm more worried. The worst-case scenario is that this swings the balance in a way that's unrecovarable for Sony. I don't think this is going to go that far, especially if MIcrosoft does keep Call of Duty on Sony's consoles for a long time, but it's still worrying.

So pretty much your only worried about this deal because of PlayStation. Well Sony didnt care about Nintendo or Sega when they entered the console market and Ms has said they will use CoD like Minecraft. No harm in that. Sony would never allow such a thing when they where trying to wipe out Nintendo in the past. This deal is good for workers, its good for the staff that work at actiblizzard only person who this deal is not good for is Sony as its going to give them competition something they hate as they are used to being the "Rich" Company in the video game market.