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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Why Do People View the MS Acquisition of ABK as a "Good Thing?"

Tagged games:

Doctor_MG on 12 July 2023

I think what people are failing to take into consideration is that it does not matter if MS puts their games on other streaming services. Or allows for the option. Because MS will OWN those IPs AND they have the second largest cloud infrastructure of any company (with only Amazon being ahead of them).

If they take a fee for call of duty being on a cloud service that's already less money that cloud service gets. In addition, the cloud service will not have the same competitive capacity as MS due to having less servers overall.

Therefore, MS can undercut all of these cloud gaming companies (as well as any gamepass like subscription models) by the pure fact that they now own (artificially) one of the most popular IPs on the planet. If a service needs 19.99 a month to survive, MS can do it for 17.99. Because they don't have to pay a fee to have access to Call of Duty.

Mark my words, in ten to fifteen years time we are going to see that gaming has become yet another oligopolistic structure, where nothing but the biggest fish can compete.



Around the Network
EpicRandy on 12 July 2023
Doctor_MG said:

I think what people are failing to take into consideration is that it does not matter if MS puts their games on other streaming services. Or allows for the option. Because MS will OWN those IPs AND they have the second largest cloud infrastructure of any company (with only Amazon being ahead of them).

If they take a fee for call of duty being on a cloud service that's already less money that cloud service gets. In addition, the cloud service will not have the same competitive capacity as MS due to having less servers overall.

Therefore, MS can undercut all of these cloud gaming companies (as well as any gamepass like subscription models) by the pure fact that they now own (artificially) one of the most popular IPs on the planet. If a service needs 19.99 a month to survive, MS can do it for 17.99. Because they don't have to pay a fee to have access to Call of Duty.

Mark my words, in ten to fifteen years time we are going to see that gaming has become yet another oligopolistic structure, where nothing but the biggest fish can compete.

With current accepted EU remedies, MS can't add fees on streaming games for at least 10 years. 

Ten years should be enough for the cloud to precise itself, after that, I don't see how ABK Ips can give Xbox more of a dominant than the one judged insufficient in the console market space today even without consideration for Sony deals and the Nintendo ones like pretty much all the regulatory bodies have ruled on this.



NintendoPie on 12 July 2023
RolStoppable said:

It was about ten years ago that Microsoft bought the Minecraft IP. Back then I thought the logical plan was to make it exclusive to Xbox. When Microsoft kept porting to more platforms, I thought their endgame was to have the first Minecraft everywhere in order to create much greater demand for an Xbox-exclusive sequel. This didn't happen either. Instead Minecraft itself got more and more updates that were available everywhere, plus spinoffs that went everywhere too.

Microsoft's strategy for consoles clearly differs from what Sony and Nintendo would have done with a monster IP like Minecraft, if they had gotten such a hold of it. But I don't think it's so much because Microsoft has a broader vision than console hardware, rather it's because they have opposing forces within the company and that results in no clear direction and the lack of consistence in their decision-making for their gaming department (and the sorry state of their first party output that has lasted for many years). The necessary contracts to even make the A-B acquisition happen secure CoD for at least ten years on PS anyway.

Making predictions for two generations ahead is incredibly tough, but right now it's looking unlikely that Microsoft will return to a strategy of selling as many Xboxes as possible. They used to do this and it came at the expense of the PC, but since subscriptions are basically the only thing that made Microsoft consistently money in gaming, they'll stick to that. So once the ten year CoD deal expires, it's improbable that CoD will be taken off PS. At that point it's more probable that Sony will have to suck it up in a deal where Microsoft either can plant their own subscription service on PS or get a cut from Sony's PS+ money. But all this is speculation. It may as well amount to not more than gamers having to use Xbox Live accounts to be able to play CoD online, without having to Microsoft a cent.

Sony does not have the money lying around to keep retaliating against Microsoft, so chances are high that Sony won't seek out a grand acquisition in the first place. Nevermind all the hurdles Microsoft already has to take with A-B. So it's not reasonable to fear that this entire affair will spiral out of control where everything gets consolidated, both because of the legality and the money. Nintendo won't acquire any entire publisher anyway. Any player from China, namely Tencent, will be out of luck by virtue of the West tightening things up against Chinese companies in general. So while I do think that China has the money, I doubt that they'll be allowed to buy.

My comment about taking sides was a general one.

this is true in regards to microsoft, i conceded that in prior conversation with someone else. for the most part, i don't really care how fair or not microsoft will be/is in regards to the sharing of their games, rather that they are owning a larger piece of the pie in general. i wouldn't like any company profiteering off of an acquisition that cuts down publishers in the industry. however, that is almost a completely different argument and is more chalked up to me not enjoying corporations getting too large in general.

also, i didn't even think about your last point about sony not having enough money to pull the same move. that is also quite true. in some part, i guess my next concern would be an outside-industry source acquiring developers/publisher within the industry. that has been mentioned by a few people in here.

Ryuu96 said:

In addition to all the above, thanks to the European Commission who unlike the FTC didn't fuck around for a year building a weak ass case, instead actually sat down with Microsoft to formulate pro-competition, pro-consumer deals. As a result, the EC told Microsoft their initial contract wasn't good enough, so they worked together on a better one, now it is a free license to Cloud Gaming Providers in the EEA to stream any Activision-Blizzard titles, a contract which is available to anyone who asks for it.

The moment Microsoft doesn't honour this contract, the EC will come down on them like a ton of bricks.

The CMA/FTC could have spent their time doing something similar, ensuring pro-competitive, pro-consumer benefits, which Microsoft was willing to do, such as the Sony 10 year offer, but they didn't and instead tried to block it based on weak grounds because "big tech bad" and now we're in a situation where both the FTC and CMA look like clowns and the EC looks like the best regulator, once again.

Movie Industry

This comparison fails at the start because this is a vertical merger, Disney acquiring Fox was a horizontal merger, it would be a horizontal merger if Microsoft were acquiring Nintendo, horizontal and vertical mergers are looked at through different lenses, Microsoft is not acquiring a direct competitor in the market, thus it is vertical.

Also, I don't really think it holds as a comparison even outside of that, I would argue that the film industry is far more condensed than the gaming industry. In the film industry at the time of Disney acquiring Fox there was like 5-6 notable players (Universal, Paramount, Warner Bros, Disney, Sony and Fox). In the gaming industry, there is currently Sony, Nintendo, Tencent, EA, Bandai Namco, Take-Two, Ubisoft, Square Enix, Epic Games, Capcom, NetEase, Embracer Group, etc. All who have major highly successful IPs under their belt.

Embracer Group came out of nowhere to become (temporarily) one of the largest videogame publishers even with an over $10bn market valuation, overtaking Ubisoft.

In addition, I would argue the barrier to entry in the videogame industry is lower than the film industry, if you can't get into cinemas then you're basically screwed and the cinema industry is largely dominated by the big players hogging the theatre seats. The gaming industry does not have this problem, there is no "physical" limit to your capacity, in the gaming industry you can publish your title to numerous digital stores without having to sign up to a major publisher (even so, there are a lot of them). As a result, indie companies very often have huge successes on console platforms, PC platforms, etc.

In the past 10 years, over 50+ gaming studios have been established, many of them being AAA. Multiple have received dozens or even hundreds of millions in investor funding simply for having a known name at the studio. This has happened since the beginning of the gaming industry, a company is acquired, a few veterans leave, they go on to set up a new studio and publishers or investors come running to throw cash at them based on their name alone. You'll see people leave ABK when the acquisition is complete and do the same, hell, it is already happening, multiple studios are being formed by former Blizzard employees in the past few years, being an indie in the videogame industry is a lot easier than the film industry.

There is plenty of AAAs to go around still, there is plenty of popular IPs to go around, Sony will be fine, the industry will be fine. People were acquiring no matter what but whilst people are acquiring, new studios are constantly being formed from the people leaving the acquired studios, the cycle continues. Activision-Blizzard will be replaced by EA as the largest publisher and another publisher will fill the gap of one major publisher "leaving" if you can even call it that since ABK will still act largely independently and not much will change for platform holders.

King is irrelevant to take into account for console owners and absolutely nothing will change for them. Activision is largely focused on COD and the occasional Spyro or Crash, WoW situation is irrelevant for console owners, Blizzard is largely focused on Overwatch and Diablo (both already on PlayStation) Microsoft is barely going to get any exclusives out of this in the short-mid term at least. The gaming industry is far too large and diverse to be worried about one publisher.

A hypothetical (extreme) future of 3 companies owning every publisher wouldn't be Microsoft's fault because it would happen regardless if that would come to pass, which I don't think it will, for all the reasons I've stated above and after how damn hard it was to get ABK through, I doubt Microsoft will be acquiring another publisher anytime soon, if they're even allowed. Tencent might be blocked simply on political grounds of them being a Chinese company, Lol (The frigging US National Security Panel investigated Tencent's acquisition of Sumo Digital even and required "measures" to approve it). Sony is already a dominant leader so they'll also go through tough scrutiny.

great explanation. it actually does lighten my concern a little bit. i also didn't read into the EC's conversations with MS over the acquisition, so that's actually awesome news to me. (not surprised the EC works better than the FTC, really.)

though, i do want to say that yes, obviously the gaming industry is much more diversified in its number of players right now. however, the film industry wasn't always as conjoined. of course, and this is almost a tangent, there was the time of the big studios in the "golden age" of hollywood, which was certainly way worse than now in terms of massive monopolies/oligopolies. if i'm not mistaken though, that was a case where the industry got too consolidated and the court actually founded them in the wrong in regards to the anti-trust act. and yet now, here we are again with the industry increasingly becoming very consolidated and frightfully in an even more pro-big-business environment than back in the '40s. 

again, i've heard from some that this comparison is fear mongering but, the gaming industry is much younger than the film industry and we haven't had enough time to see how these decisions will play out. clearly, the film industry is repeating history.

i guess i also should mention that despite the fact that this is a vertical merger and i understand how that's different than a true monopolization, i still personally feel that even vertical mergers can tend to slide into scary levels of "big corporatocracy" vibes. all the players you listed out could, in theory, buy each other in some way or another. i don't think ubisoft owning take-two is a good thing as much as i don't think nintendo owning take-two is a good thing or microsoft owning playstation is a good thing. (obviously, all for-instance, not that i think these would 100% happen.) in the end though, i think that's a philosophical and political difference between how i view these things, so i understand how that's different than what you were originally saying.

overall, now that it's been said by you lol, i'm a little more concerned about outside actors such as amazon, apple, google, and the like meddling in the business. obviously, this hasn't happened but, they've certainly had eyes on the industry. again, that's another topic but, it illustrates even more the slippery slope i alluded to in my past posts.

i also do want to point out that i don't think the FTC was necessarily in the right; their case was basically bullshit and they did a terrible job. i'm certainly not trying to side with them, rather from completely my own POV outside of any company "allegiances" or the like. 

Last edited by NintendoPie - on 12 July 2023

CGI-Quality on 12 July 2023

In regards to publisher "need", none of the console manufacts need them. But, this is business. That's how acquisitions happen and will continue to. Yes, Sony will likely end up with a few more pubs as well.

Or, listen to Terminator: the future is not set... but I will say this — in 10-15 years, the best systems to own will be a Gaming Rig and a Nintendo Platform. 



                                                                                                                                                           

NintendoPie on 12 July 2023
Kakadu18 said:
ClassicGamingWizzz said:

Problem is in you probably 

Says the least self aware user on this forum.

Obviously fully convincing me that the acquisition is bad isn't possible since my oppinion on it has been steadfast from the get go.

But I kind of hoped for there to be at least one argument that makes me think that there might be any meaningful long or short term negative effects that will actually negatively impact the consumers, the industry, game quality, sub service quality, range of offerings, anything really.

I've been kinda disappointed. So maybe you're right, I shouldn't have had any expectations to begin with.

not to agree with classicgamingwizzz as that'd be an unfortunate look but, if outside of this thread (and even this case of MS/ABK) you largely support corporatization and big-business, i don't think there'd be anything anyone could convince you of to change your mind about this one case.

i started off with a basis of being against big-business and for legal safeguards in the economy to prevent them getting too large. that's why i came with this question as i was wondering why this one case was getting much more praise than other acquisitions in recent memory. largely, i'm starting to understand now why it's not as bad as i first thought. even so, that doesn't change the fact that i'm still mainly against this type of practice and am ultimately disappointed with capitalism and its tools in general. just like how you seem to be very pro-capitalism and its tools, from what i can tell.

Last edited by NintendoPie - on 12 July 2023

Around the Network
Qwark on 12 July 2023
RolStoppable said:
NintendoPie said:

i think, for once, you are more optimistic than me.

if you look at the other industries, i think you'd find that these acquisitions have already gone too far. the FTC doesn't seem to act in defense of the consumer or the equal market, this is even reflected in their own case against this very acquisition of ABK. i think that the judge allowing this to go through will mean that it will be easier for other companies to do the very same, i.e. Sony or Nintendo acquiring other large developers (regardless of how realistic Nintendo shelling out huge bucks for lackluster companies is, just a for-instance.) this could very well happen on the basis of stare decisis.

i think i mostly agree and understand your points made but, i don't think they will completely hold considering the slippery slope this decision has allowed. yes, i agree that consumers did not buy into XB's anti-consumer idiocies in the XBO generation thankfully, whether their decision to go for PS4 was correct or not. however, that is a different case where the consumers actually had the choice. the consumer does not have the choice in whether companies are allowed to swallow up other companies, that's where the government and law step in and as we see here, to no avail.

my fear also isn't that microsoft will gobble up more companies but that the industry in general will become more fragmented with everyone gobbling up each other. that's what happened in the entertainment industry, a sort of retaliation. i've seen several people in here say that's fear mongering but, it's only businesses business-ing. that type of behavior is nothing new.

i also do agree that the gaming industry does seem to somehow be able to reinvent itself better than other industries over time. if MS acquiring studios and somehow degrading them to the point of irrelevancy continues to happen, i do believe other actors will step in and take the place of those IPs. though, that will only become more and more difficult to replicate the more everything is consolidated.

i'm also not siding with sony on any basis whatsoever, i thought i clarified that enough in my OP. though, idk if that comment was directed at me or just in general!

It was about ten years ago that Microsoft bought the Minecraft IP. Back then I thought the logical plan was to make it exclusive to Xbox. When Microsoft kept porting to more platforms, I thought their endgame was to have the first Minecraft everywhere in order to create much greater demand for an Xbox-exclusive sequel. This didn't happen either. Instead Minecraft itself got more and more updates that were available everywhere, plus spinoffs that went everywhere too.

Microsoft's strategy for consoles clearly differs from what Sony and Nintendo would have done with a monster IP like Minecraft, if they had gotten such a hold of it. But I don't think it's so much because Microsoft has a broader vision than console hardware, rather it's because they have opposing forces within the company and that results in no clear direction and the lack of consistence in their decision-making for their gaming department (and the sorry state of their first party output that has lasted for many years). The necessary contracts to even make the A-B acquisition happen secure CoD for at least ten years on PS anyway.

Making predictions for two generations ahead is incredibly tough, but right now it's looking unlikely that Microsoft will return to a strategy of selling as many Xboxes as possible. They used to do this and it came at the expense of the PC, but since subscriptions are basically the only thing that made Microsoft consistently money in gaming, they'll stick to that. So once the ten year CoD deal expires, it's improbable that CoD will be taken off PS. At that point it's more probable that Sony will have to suck it up in a deal where Microsoft either can plant their own subscription service on PS or get a cut from Sony's PS+ money. But all this is speculation. It may as well amount to not more than gamers having to use Xbox Live accounts to be able to play CoD online, without having to Microsoft a cent.

Sony does not have the money lying around to keep retaliating against Microsoft, so chances are high that Sony won't seek out a grand acquisition in the first place. Nevermind all the hurdles Microsoft already has to take with A-B. So it's not reasonable to fear that this entire affair will spiral out of control where everything gets consolidated, both because of the legality and the money. Nintendo won't acquire any entire publisher anyway. Any player from China, namely Tencent, will be out of luck by virtue of the West tightening things up against Chinese companies in general. So while I do think that China has the money, I doubt that they'll be allowed to buy.

My comment about taking sides was a general one.

China is only really being hold back by the US though. Europe tends to be very happy to deal with China and can't RISC a trade dispute. Unlike USA, Europe doesn't have many rare metals/minerals and even if they have them, the countries don't have the will to mine them. I can see CD project Red and Ubisoft becoming Chinese owned.



Please excuse my (probally) poor grammar

Ryuu96 on 12 July 2023
Doctor_MG said:

I think what people are failing to take into consideration is that it does not matter if MS puts their games on other streaming services. Or allows for the option. Because MS will OWN those IPs AND they have the second largest cloud infrastructure of any company (with only Amazon being ahead of them).

If they take a fee for call of duty being on a cloud service that's already less money that cloud service gets. In addition, the cloud service will not have the same competitive capacity as MS due to having less servers overall.

Therefore, MS can undercut all of these cloud gaming companies (as well as any gamepass like subscription models) by the pure fact that they now own (artificially) one of the most popular IPs on the planet. If a service needs 19.99 a month to survive, MS can do it for 17.99. Because they don't have to pay a fee to have access to Call of Duty.

Mark my words, in ten to fifteen years time we are going to see that gaming has become yet another oligopolistic structure, where nothing but the biggest fish can compete.

It kinda does matter, at least, it matters to Nvidia, Boosteroid, Ubitus, etc. They would not have signed these contracts and supported the acquisition if they didn't think they were good for their business even 10 years into the future. These deals give them a very large leg-up to focus on other aspects of growing their business and when that growth happens over 10 years, they will be in better positions to negotiate for other large IP. We've taken it into consideration but these companies still support the acquisition when they could have scuttled it, they aren't all stupid companies that have fallen for Microsoft's dastardly scheme, Lol.

Fact is as well, a Microsoft guarantee for 10 years is better than the current status quo which was Activision saying that have no interest in Cloud Gaming, Activision ripping their titles from Geforce Now, a "guarantee" commitment is better than a "maybe, who knows, make us an offer and we'll see" an offer which Ubitus and Boosteroid and other smaller services would be unlikely to afford.

ABK as an independent entity had no interest in this market and expressed that multiple times, but if they did suddenly become interested, what would stop Activision from simply selling COD licensing rights to the highest bidder? Absolutely nothing and given it's a scummy dude like Bobby, I'd say a high possibility.

Microsoft does have the 2nd largest Cloud infrastructure but that doesn't tell the full picture in this scenario because xCloud doesn't run off Azure, it runs off Xbox Hardware hosted in Azure datacentres, they need to physically place Xbox Hardware in all these data centres, as a result of this slow process, we can use an example of UK, in the UK, xCloud has a max capacity of 5,000 concurrent users...That is pathetic, Lol.

You can also say that Nvidia has an advantage because they actually build some of the components needed directly. GeForce Now has more titles available than xCloud. It has better latency than xCloud. It has better resolution and framerate than xCloud. It has better input lag than xCloud. So Microsoft's 2nd largest Cloud dominance ain't doing much for them here. Stadia was better than xCloud too, technically.

The Cloud Agreement between Microsoft and the European Commission is free: A corresponding free license to cloud game streaming service providers to allow EEA-based gamers to stream any Activision Blizzard's PC and console games.

The only money they'd make is from people buying the titles to stream them (GeForce Now, Boosteroid requires you to own a game first before streaming it, via digital stores such as Steam). GeForce's business model is a sub service.

See above for the "less servers" comment, less servers doesn't matter because it runs on Xbox hardware, GeForce Now and Stadia ran better than xCloud. While these streaming services have huge IPs from XGS/Zenimax/Activision-Blizzard they can also focus on upgrading their servers overtime and spreading further.

Right now, nobody but the biggest fish can compete in Cloud Gaming, at least the 10 year offer gives them a chance, Lol. We saw Google, a trillion dollar company, dip out because it was too expensive. We're seeing Amazon, a trillion dollar company, barely trying and likely to dip out next.

We've evidence from Microsoft through this trial that xCloud has been a failure, it is making a loss, it isn't reaching the numbers they wanted, Fortnite on Mobile through xCloud has been a disappoint for them internally (numbers wise). Phil spoke via email that nobody is interested in playing xCloud on their Mobile devices, they want native Mobile experiences. xCloud is hurting Xbox hardware stock, xCloud requires a ton of Xbox hardware and for all that only has a capacity of 5,000 concurrent users in UK. xCloud is still one of the worst performing Cloud streaming services precisely because they use Xbox hardware. Data from Microsoft shows that the vast majority use xCloud only to play a game while it's downloading on native hardware, Lol.

If this deal was blocked based on xCloud then Microsoft might as well have followed Google and closed it down.

If these trillion dollar companies are struggling, then what makes people think these smaller companies have such a great shot? Again, now they're getting ABK/XGS/Zenimax for free, so they have a fighting chance to turn the market into something viable because right now, it isn't, and if it does actually turn into something viable, then they'll be at the forefront of the competition.

Last edited by Ryuu96 - on 12 July 2023

LurkerJ on 12 July 2023
NintendoPie said:
Kakadu18 said:

Says the least self aware user on this forum.

Obviously fully convincing me that the acquisition is bad isn't possible since my oppinion on it has been steadfast from the get go.

But I kind of hoped for there to be at least one argument that makes me think that there might be any meaningful long or short term negative effects that will actually negatively impact the consumers, the industry, game quality, sub service quality, range of offerings, anything really.

I've been kinda disappointed. So maybe you're right, I shouldn't have had any expectations to begin with.

not to agree with classicgamingwizzz as that'd be an unfortunate look but, if outside of this thread (and even this case of MS/ABK) you largely support corporatization and big-business, i don't think there'd be anything anyone could convince you of to change your mind about this one case.

i started off with a basis of being against big-business and for legal safeguards in the economy to prevent them getting too large. that's why i came with this question as i was wondering why this one case was getting much more praise than other acquisitions in recent memory. largely, i'm starting to understand now why it's not as bad as i first thought. even so, that doesn't change the fact that i'm still mainly against this type of practice and am ultimately disappointed with capitalism and its tools in general. just like how you seem to be very pro-capitalism and its tools, from what i can tell.

It's important to remember that the COD offer to SONY was limited to 3 years, this increased to 5, then to 10 and eventually to "as long as the playstation exists". A lot of these commitments were born because the acquisition was challenged and scrutinised. 

To suggest the camp that opposed the acquisition the day it was announced had no good reason or rationale to object to it is disingenuous, the EC actually shares the CMA concerns over the deal, they disagree on what they think are acceptable concessions. The EC has got further concessions from MS and the CMA seems to be in the process of doing so as well. 



Kakadu18 on 12 July 2023
NintendoPie said:
Kakadu18 said:

Says the least self aware user on this forum.

Obviously fully convincing me that the acquisition is bad isn't possible since my oppinion on it has been steadfast from the get go.

But I kind of hoped for there to be at least one argument that makes me think that there might be any meaningful long or short term negative effects that will actually negatively impact the consumers, the industry, game quality, sub service quality, range of offerings, anything really.

I've been kinda disappointed. So maybe you're right, I shouldn't have had any expectations to begin with.

not to agree with classicgamingwizzz as that'd be an unfortunate look but, if outside of this thread (and even this case of MS/ABK) you largely support corporatization and big-business, i don't think there'd be anything anyone could convince you of to change your mind about this one case.

i started off with a basis of being against big-business and for legal safeguards in the economy to prevent them getting too large. that's why i came with this question as i was wondering why this one case was getting much more praise than other acquisitions in recent memory. largely, i'm starting to understand now why it's not as bad as i first thought. even so, that doesn't change the fact that i'm still mainly against this type of practice and am ultimately disappointed with capitalism and its tools in general. just like how you seem to be very pro-capitalism and its tools, from what i can tell.

Those are some big assumptions about me here. You started with the basis of basically generalizing all big acquisitions as automatically bad. I never did that, I tried my best to look at the details. Many of the points that Ryuu has brought up in his long post further up in the thread are mirroring my thoughts. I'm just not that good at bringing them across that well so I don't.

If anyone else was trying to buy ABK I would have been very likely against it.



Ryuu96 on 12 July 2023
Qwark said:
RolStoppable said:

It was about ten years ago that Microsoft bought the Minecraft IP. Back then I thought the logical plan was to make it exclusive to Xbox. When Microsoft kept porting to more platforms, I thought their endgame was to have the first Minecraft everywhere in order to create much greater demand for an Xbox-exclusive sequel. This didn't happen either. Instead Minecraft itself got more and more updates that were available everywhere, plus spinoffs that went everywhere too.

Microsoft's strategy for consoles clearly differs from what Sony and Nintendo would have done with a monster IP like Minecraft, if they had gotten such a hold of it. But I don't think it's so much because Microsoft has a broader vision than console hardware, rather it's because they have opposing forces within the company and that results in no clear direction and the lack of consistence in their decision-making for their gaming department (and the sorry state of their first party output that has lasted for many years). The necessary contracts to even make the A-B acquisition happen secure CoD for at least ten years on PS anyway.

Making predictions for two generations ahead is incredibly tough, but right now it's looking unlikely that Microsoft will return to a strategy of selling as many Xboxes as possible. They used to do this and it came at the expense of the PC, but since subscriptions are basically the only thing that made Microsoft consistently money in gaming, they'll stick to that. So once the ten year CoD deal expires, it's improbable that CoD will be taken off PS. At that point it's more probable that Sony will have to suck it up in a deal where Microsoft either can plant their own subscription service on PS or get a cut from Sony's PS+ money. But all this is speculation. It may as well amount to not more than gamers having to use Xbox Live accounts to be able to play CoD online, without having to Microsoft a cent.

Sony does not have the money lying around to keep retaliating against Microsoft, so chances are high that Sony won't seek out a grand acquisition in the first place. Nevermind all the hurdles Microsoft already has to take with A-B. So it's not reasonable to fear that this entire affair will spiral out of control where everything gets consolidated, both because of the legality and the money. Nintendo won't acquire any entire publisher anyway. Any player from China, namely Tencent, will be out of luck by virtue of the West tightening things up against Chinese companies in general. So while I do think that China has the money, I doubt that they'll be allowed to buy.

My comment about taking sides was a general one.

China is only really being hold back by the US though. Europe tends to be very happy to deal with China and can't RISC a trade dispute. Unlike USA, Europe doesn't have many rare metals/minerals and even if they have them, the countries don't have the will to mine them. I can see CD project Red and Ubisoft becoming Chinese owned.

They perform business in America so America still gets a say and could block a deal.

As I mentioned earlier, when Sumo Digital was acquired (a UK company) the USA investigated it for "potential risks against US national security" Lol. Ultimately it was cleared but on "measures to mitigate risks" which were never publicly disclosed.

Sumo Digital having a security review is pretty crazy considering their size.

Maybe it could still pass but the USA/China relationship is sour right now and full of paranoia between each other.

Honestly though from what I've seen, Yves is doing everything in his power to NOT sell Ubisoft, he has made some very obviously protective moves lately to ensure he remains the owner and CEO of Ubisoft...Maybe he'll be forced to eventually but Ubisoft is a family business and his partnerships with Tencent have been for the specific purpose of preventing buyouts.

Last edited by Ryuu96 - on 12 July 2023