• Light/Dark

Is there a possibility that the Activision deal only comes through, if MS commits to not make their games exclusive? Article inside

plow

plow

Member
Oct 28, 2017
4,686
I hope people read the OP before they comment:

As of yesterday, i was 100% sure the all future Activision Blizzard games ( apart from some service titles ) will be Xbox/Gamepass Only. Today i read an article that made me rethink that, at least for a bit. I still pretty much think that the games will be exclusive, all of them, but this could get interesting.

So Berenberg, a privat bank in germany, focusses ( of course ) on investment banking etc. Yesterday after the deal was announced, they immediately provided a analysis. The article states ( Note, it's google translate ):

The Berenberg expert left the rating for Activision Blizzard shares at "Buy" with a price target of 100 US dollars. This is based on their valuation model for the stock and is therefore five dollars above the price by Microsoft. Since some investors apparently doubt that the deal will come about or expect concessions to the competition authorities, the price of the Activision Blizzard paper was around $82 a little more than a quarter above the close on Monday, but also around 14 percent below the Microsoft offer.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

The analysis of the Berenberg experts states:

According to the private bank Berenberg, the planned takeover of the computer games provider Activision Blizzard should be closely analysed by the cartel authorities. The big question is whether the regulators will intervene, wrote Berenberg analyst Sarah Simon in a study published on Tuesday. She reckons it's a deal regulators will analyze closely - especially if Microsoft would only make Activision Blizzard's games exclusive to the company's Xbox console.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I'm no expert in this matter so i'm still pretty kean on the "Games will be Xbox/Gamepass only" side, but i think this could get interesting in the following months.
 

Deleted member 68874

Account closed at user request
Banned
May 10, 2020
10,441
Xbox and PC will be enough.

With cloud the games will be playable on basically any device with a screen, sure you'll need a Game Pass sub, but it's a far cry from being exclusive to Xbox consoles.
 
Asator

Asator

Member
Oct 27, 2017
943
They didn't spend 68 billion dollars just for exclusive marketing rights.

Also, it'll be on multiple devices. It just won't be on Sony's and Nintendo hardware.
 
neon_pirate

neon_pirate

Member
Nov 1, 2017
28
With Xcloud and the upcoming launch of an Xbox streaming stick - the games are going to be more accessible than ever. All you need is a screen and a Game Pass Sub and as others have pointed out they are still no where near being number 1 even with this deal.
 
P40L0

P40L0

Member
Jun 12, 2018
7,816
Italy
What is most probable is Microsoft following the Bethesda strategy also for them so: basically everything Activition-Blizzard will be Xbox/PC exclusive + on Game Pass at D1 minus some F2P/MMO exceptions (like Warzone for example).
 
DeadJoshWalking

DeadJoshWalking

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,454
Not only are all their games on PC, they are also on Steam so you don't even have to buy them from Microsoft, I'm sure the monopoly investigations will happen but in a world where Disney exists I don't see how anything can come of it.
 
DuvalDevil

DuvalDevil

Member
Nov 18, 2020
4,176
I see no reason why authoroties should block the acquisition tbh. Microsoft wasn't even in the first place and didn't cement the top seed even further. Even with Activision/Blizzard there's no Xbox market monopoly in sight.

Of course it will be heavily analyzed, tho.
 
Vintage

Vintage

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,309
Europe
MS can just say that the games will not be exclusive. After the deal is closed, they can do anything and no regulators would do anything. Saying that this can stop the deal sounds like a huge stretch.

But overall I don't see why would MS make mainline CoD and others exclusive:
1. They would lose a shitload of money in sales;
2. This would de-value these franchises as the fanbase and selling potential would be cut in half.
 
nsilvias

nsilvias

Member
Oct 25, 2017
24,740
like all these deals theyll agree to it for a littel awhile and then go back on their word when they think its ok to stop pretending. this is usually how these regulation deals happen.
 

Seganomics

Member
Oct 29, 2017
1,502
Yeah sure MS might find some roadblocks if they locked all this IP behind consoles, but they don't and they won't. So this speculation is totally pointless.
 
Ariakon44

Ariakon44

Prophet of Truth
Member
Nov 17, 2020
10,373
It's possible that will be a sticking point to the regulators. Although the game would still be available on a number of services, it would be removed from what is its primary platform as of now. Whether or not their objections would do anything would be another question entirely.
 
DukeBlueBall

DukeBlueBall

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
9,059
Seattle, WA
Ariakon44 said:
It's possible that will be a sticking point to the regulators. Although the game would still be available on a number of services, it would be removed from what is its primary platform as of now. Whether or not their objections would do anything would be another question entirely.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I don't think there is precedence for removal from a platform being a sticking point for anti-trust scrutinization yet.
 
Ariakon44

Ariakon44

Prophet of Truth
Member
Nov 17, 2020
10,373
DukeBlueBall said:
How is that more different than how exclusives worked traditionally.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I'm not saying it's entirely different, but no company has ever bought the largest 3rd-party publisher in the industry before, so this deal might get more scrutiny than the others and these things might become sticking points.

I'm not an expert on these things, I've just read multiple articles suggesting that this might be a point of contention in the regulatory process, and I conveyed that in my post.
 
Yahsper

Yahsper

Member
Oct 29, 2017
1,606
plow said:
All of these are Microsoft platforms though. That's where the regulation might kick in.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Steam isn't a Microsoft platform.
There are no regulation.

I swear today and yesterday are like endless deja vu of when Bethesda was bought. It's the exact same discourse over and over and over.

Microsoft isn't the biggest player in the space, so they're not close to a monopoly. Besides that, they don't even lock their games to their own hardware. It just won't be a thing and some German investment banker musing over whether or not it could be, doesn't change that.
 
Dragon Puncher

Dragon Puncher

Member
Oct 28, 2017
5,575
I think they would need to try and buy either Nintendo or Sony for any real anti-trust movement to happen. This is not going to be enough.
 
Yesterzine

Yesterzine

Member
Jan 5, 2022
8,372
Yahsper said:
Steam isn't a Microsoft platform.
There are no regulation.

I swear today and yesterday are like endless deja vu of when Bethesda was bought. It's the exact same discourse over and over and over.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Yeah, I was kinda hoping that when all the speculation over Bethesda was dead wrong we wouldn't have to litigate this one again.

The games will be on anything that supports XCloud, if there is anything antitrust they will simply say "We have continually offered Sony the chance to support XCloud on their machines and they say no".
 
Mr.Deadshot

Mr.Deadshot

Member
Oct 27, 2017
20,285
Yahsper said:
Steam isn't a Microsoft platform.
There are no regulation.

I swear today and yesterday are like endless deja vu of when Bethesda was bought. It's the exact same discourse over and over and over.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Of course it is because PlayStation only users lose tons of games because a Megacorp just buys whole publishers now.

Something on that scale never happened before in the videogame business. It's only natural that people hope for some of their games staying on their platform of choice. Especially when you just spend 500€ or probably even more for a new console.
 
Xando

Xando

Member
Oct 28, 2017
28,038
MS can easily kill any argument by pointing to steam or telling regulators they would allow games on other platforms if these platforms allowed gamepass on their platform.

Infact might aswell fuck over the industry leader sony and claim they behave anti competitive by blocking gamepass
 
OP
OP
plow

plow

Member
Oct 28, 2017
4,686
WriterInTheDark said:
I like how we're doing this again so soon after the Bethesda thing.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

This is completely different. Why do people come in in this thread with their Oneliners. There is an analysis in the OP, investors are obviously cautious because they expect some sort of regulation. This is no "What do you think will happen based on your guts". I wish people would stop coming here and posting that.
 
Tyche-42

Tyche-42

Member
Sep 29, 2021
1,807
Vintage said:
MS can just say that the games will not be exclusive. After the deal is closed, they can do anything and no regulators would do anything. Saying that this can stop the deal sounds like a huge stretch.

But overall I don't see why would MS make mainline CoD and others exclusive:
1. They would lose a shitload of money in sales;
2. This would de-value these franchises as the fanbase and selling potential would be cut in half.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Its funny how people think it would cut sales in half as if the CoD playerbase wont just straight move from PS to Xbox like they did X360 to PS4.

They dont give a shit about platform loyalty, if CoD is exclusive to xbox theyll all buy an Xbox.
 
Iztok

Iztok

Member
Oct 27, 2017
6,237
No.

Especially not based on some private bank's opinion? They sound like someone who's just today heard of the videogames industry and are already offering up "expert opinions".

By the way, I play COD regularly, and since it's been cross progression (PS,Xbox,PC) I've been playing on all platforms.
This makes anyone who plays COD even more likely to switch platforms, since they wouldn't lose any long-term (Warzone or cross-cod leveling) progress.
 
GhostTrick

GhostTrick

Member
Oct 25, 2017
11,546
It's going to be on Xbox, PC and cloud, so mobile, TVs and any computer.

Therefore it is multiplatform according to them.

But even then, I doubt it'd be a factor.
 
Dreamwriter

Dreamwriter

Member
Oct 27, 2017
7,461
The way the US government approves of these deals, is decide if the deal would risk creating or extending a monopoly. This deal would not give Microsoft a monopoly on video games, even if they made all the games exclusive to xbox. Nor would it shut out competition - MS owning ActiBliz doesn't make it hard to start a game development company nor to release games.

The actual wording of the law: "the effect of such acquisition may be substantially to lessen competition, or to tend to create a monopoly". So that's the standard that needs to be proven to disallow the purchase.
 
Last edited:
Arn

Arn

Prophet of Truth
Member
Oct 28, 2017
5,889
There'll be zero issues as Microsoft is allowing the IP on Xbox, PC, mobiles and tablets via streaming and of course any platform open to Game Pass, which could also include PlayStation and Nintendo consoles.
 

Seganomics

Member
Oct 29, 2017
1,502
plow said:
This is completely different. Why do people come in in this thread with their Oneliners. There is an analysis in the OP, investors are obviously cautious because they expect some sort of regulation. This is no "What do you think will happen based on your guts". I wish people would stop coming here and posting that.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

MS and AB have really good legal teams. Really, really good.
If this deal was going to face any serious roadblocks MS wouldn't already be printing t-shirts.
I get that you may find a potential deal breaker a possibility based on this article, but honestly this deal not going through because of this issue is borderline fantastical.
 
Galkinator

Galkinator

Chicken Chaser
Member
Oct 27, 2017
9,112
plow said:
This is completely different. Why do people come in in this thread with their Oneliners. There is an analysis in the OP, investors are obviously cautious because they expect some sort of regulation. This is no "What do you think will happen based on your guts". I wish people would stop coming here and posting that.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I don't see how what's in the OP is saying otherwise though.
It's not about guts, it's about logic - why would Microsoft spend $70b on an acquisition that doesn't benefit them?
It will be exactly like the Bethesda situation imo, and I would be shocked if somehow future titles end up on Nintendo/Sony platforms (perhaps for this year they will out of possible existing commitments or something but it certainly won't be that way sooner or later)
 
It’s Time To Go

It’s Time To Go

Member
Dec 2, 2017
20,779
plow said:
This is completely different. Why do people come in in this thread with their Oneliners. There is an analysis in the OP, investors are obviously cautious because they expect some sort of regulation. This is no "What do you think will happen based on your guts". I wish people would stop coming here and posting that.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I read the OP. There's nothing there to suggest Activision won't make yearly COD games exclusive to xbox and PC. We did the exact same song and dance when the Bethesda acquistion happened.
 
Shpeshal Nick

Shpeshal Nick

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
7,856
Melbourne, Australia
If they "didn't spend 7.5 billion just to keep status quo", then what do you reckon their intention is after spending 69 billion?

Once again I'd argue it would have been way cheaper to get CoD marketing back and get day one Game Pass deals as opposed to partaking in the biggest gaming acquisition in history while also wearing the cultural burden of taking on a PR and HR Disaster
 
OP
OP
plow

plow

Member
Oct 28, 2017
4,686
Xando said:
That's exactly what it is. This isn't a indepth analysis but inital thoughts of a analyst hours after the deal went public.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

There is a small difference between thoughts of a random person on ERA and a person that knows a market and gets payed to do these things. What knowledge to the poster here have, that she apparently doesn't? Why did she do this sort of analysis if it's as clear as days as people here are saying. Why are investors cautious and not buying?

I find it quite sad that there is no possibility to have some sort of normal discussion without resorting to oneliners or exageration.
 
Alek

Alek

Games User Researcher
Verified
Oct 28, 2017
8,564
I'm not sure it'll just be on PC and XBOX. The anti trust argument is that they own the OS which contributes to the monopoly. If anything an anti trust review is likely to view the PC situation as a negative not positive.

If the exclusivity were just for XBOX there would be less scrutiny. Their hardware is definitively third place, Microsoft's monopoly argument usually regards the windows OS, not their games consoles.
 
Garulon

Garulon

Member
Jul 22, 2020
868
So this means regulators can also force Sony to publish Last of Us on XBox as they have the majority console share?
 
cmdrshepard

cmdrshepard

The Fallen
Oct 30, 2017
1,557
I mean - there has already been indications that MS may plan to keep some titles open to other platforms. If this did become an issue with regulators, i am sure they will be at pains to point out that it will also release on PC and given their better relationship with Nintendo, may offer up family friendly IP such as Crash and Spyro being aimed to being released on Switch and possibly PS5. I also imagine they will state that COD will remain on PS for a period of time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.