-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
It's probably more regulators want to stop big tech than Sony being so powerful to be honest, along with the amount of money that is being spent. Sure Sony being massively against it will play on their mind and play up their fears but I think it's more about Microsoft and price.
I feel like this is a naive question, or setting up for a gotcha moment. You think from Microsoft's perspective, multiplatform releases are preferable? Or do you mean from a consumer's perspective?
I think as an Xbox only consumer, it doesn't necessarily matter to me if the games are exclusive or multiplatform. But what I want is for the Xbox platform to be strong and remain relevant, and to reach a situation where certain Japanese games aren't automatic skips for the platform (things like Atelier, Trails of, Final Fantasy, Octopath, other niche games).
Exclusives help strengthen a platform.
Oh no, I agree, I'm just saying that they have sway over the regulators due to their testimony.
Why would it not be worth it? They're games would sell well on Playstation, Steam, and possibly Nintendo Systems, on top of that every single game they release would drop on Game Pass Day 1. If you plan on buying Diablo 4 and MW2 this year, that's $140. Meanwhile you could easily just have Game Pass and get access to those, plus a lot more games, plus a crazy backlog.
On top of that, King is very valuable. Candy Crush alone makes over 1 Billion USD per year. Then there's other mobile games, like Diablo Immortal. and COD Mobile, and games like Warzone Mobile dropping soon.
It would still be a very valuable proposition for Microsoft, it would make Game Pass more appealing, it would give them a bigger footprint in the mobile and cloud gaming space, and it would also be great for owners who have a PS5 and are worried about not being able to play the next Activison Blizzard game.
It's not worth it. MS can't use the power of the fully armed and operational AKB to crush the enemies of Xbox.
Just piggybacking off of your comment for a moment as I agree with it.
We all keep referring to the price but shouldn't they be looking at the impact of the deal? Price ≠ Impact. This only impacts two companies materially on the surface. Microsoft and Sony. Going on and on about future prospects of things is disingenuous and foolish from regulators. I'm the controller of my company, I create the budget that we use for the next fiscal year. FY2023 is done, based on data available to me as of September 30, 2022. I don't dare attempt to look in my crystal ball to figure out FY2024. The simple idea of trying to project nascent industry trajectory and the power _______ can wield a decade down the road is impossible. It is just an impossible task. You can't do it for industries that are relatively static like healthcare, the industry I work in. Emerging technologies and industries is absurdly impossible. Nailing budgets/projections over that amount of time is impossible because then you are trying to understand and weigh variables that both exist and don't exist and that is an exercise in futility. Doing that, doing nothing or playing whack-a-mole with your junk will truthfully all elicit the same answer. Just by doing nothing, you save the time, effort and pain of the other options.
Like I've said before, this feels like grandstanding to show their populous that they are standing up to the 'man' for whatever reason.
I don't really think it's a naive question. For Microsoft's perspective they get higher revenue potential AND Game Pass growth via Call of Duty and other heavy hitters reaching the platform. It also makes sense for Microsoft as they intend on expanding CoD to Switch as well and have long campaigned for reducing barriers in gaming. Additionally, it would help assuage regulatory concerns as it would present Microsoft's intentions as less disruptive in the industry and more productive for the company as a whole. There's also, of course, the consumer benefit of not needing to join the Xbox ecosystem to play Activision-Blizzard games, or perhaps only needing to making an Xbox account or some adjacent account that acts as an auxilliary to Microsoft's platform. As someone who's looking at Microsoft's arguments and the pros and cons of the acquisition, having a 10-year licensing agreement to keep all games multiplatform would be not only beneficial to Microsoft, but also to the Xbox platform as, again, it strengthens Game Pass and further associates Call of Duty with the Xbox brand, luring more consumers to their platform that way.
At this point in time, it's probably mostly sunk cost fallacy and MS wanting King more than Activision or Blizzard.
As inflation decreases and interest rates raise, that 70 billion dollars is getting more and more valuable. Cash is no longer trash, and cash will be king in a year or so.
If Netflix can't be profitable in a period of high interest rates, game streaming is almost certainly going to be major financial loss.
There's also the soft power benefits Microsoft is losing with this deal. MS was able to help with a lot of the big tech regulation in US because it wasn't deemed to be as great a threat as Apple/Facebook/Amazon/Google. MS has burned bridges with the FTC with this merger.
Is Microsoft able to back out of the acquisition unilaterally? Because if so, I'm going to go full betting time. I'm going to bet that the most likely outcome is that regulatory agencies don't block the merger, but the merger gets swamped in courts. By 2023 to early 2024, US will have inflation down to 3% and interest rates will be around 5%. Tech will still be in a slump and streaming services will fail to demonstrate profitability in high interest rate environments. Microsoft then decides to withdraw from the merger and pay Activision the 3 billion dollar separation fee.
Profoundly different environments thanks to games still being purchasable and selling a ton (even first party stuff), and, of course, microtransactions. It's why Game Pass is already profitable.
They still have equity in the company which they still have the projected growth to exceed what the actual cost was so I don't really see what the issue is. I mean we're talking about Activision not Twitter here. :p
Probably playing on the fears of regulators of big tech so it wouldn't take much for them to be convinced, but yeah Sony seemingly did a good job on that part. I think Sony must've went hard and fast.
Yeah it is pretty crazy to be trying to predict such things so far out when next year a new game could come out that's like cod and everyone plays that instead. Not only that but the market they are trying to protect is entertainment and not something critical like a social media platform or something like chip making or medicine. I get all markets should be protected but some should be protected more than others and I don't thinking gaming is that important when it really comes down to it. Like let's say Microsoft turns bad and are extremely anti competitive and makes everything exclusive and pulls everything off all platforms, what is that really going to do for the industry, will companies suddenly close? I don't think so. Let's say they pull all 3rd party content off Xbox, will all those 3rd party companies close? Again I don't think so at all. What about if they increase all their products and services by 100%, I think people would just stop paying and playing their stuff as there is always a limit so all other companies will benefit from people jumping ship from Xbox.
In my mind if the deal is this thing where all future releases for ten years are multi with gamepass it's still an absolute win for MS, every ps sale will funnel back into the Xbox division funding more games and Des for gamepass growing the division overall
The biggest thing I want to see is the unlocking of the IP vaults, but my pessimistic side realises rare and Bethesda already have a might dragons horde of IPs doing nothing right now too
I don't think Sony can make a case that games like Crash or even Tony Hawks are inputs that can shut them down like CoD so I very much doubt MS have to show regulators that all ABK games should be multiplatform like CoD. Also think any suggestion that CoD can't be on GP is a non-starter for MS and nor do regulators expect that to be on the table. Just that CoD should be available and supported like they have done in the past . More likely MS are delving into the details of CoD (perhaps Overwatch 2 as well) and options for Sony to pay for PS+ inclusion.
Even if all Acti games remained multiplatform, the acquisition would still be worth it for the amount of money they'll be making on these games - plus having COD on GamePass will be a game changer for the service in terms of subs.
I will also say, though, still getting COD on PS (and possibly even some other Activision games, even though they're literally a drop in the water relative to COD) for 10 years and most likely having MS unable to purchase another major pub like EA or Take 2 moving forward might be the best scenario out of a bad situation for Sony. MS will definitely gain major market share (I expect them to become the main platform in the US and UK like in the 360 days) in the future, but Sony will still be able to compete.
If MS could have bought Activitison without any concessions and then went to buy EA, I genuinely think they would have dominated the market
I will also say, though, still getting COD on PS (and possibly even some other Activision games, even though they're literally a drop in the water relative to COD) for 10 years and most likely having MS unable to purchase another major pub like EA or Take 2 moving forward might be the best scenario out of a bad situation for Sony. MS will definitely gain major market share (I expect them to become the main platform in the US and UK like in the 360 days) in the future, but Sony will still be able to compete.
If MS could have bought Activitison without any concessions and then went to buy EA, I genuinely think they would have dominated the market
I don't think the things that make game pass profitable apply to streaming tho. There are huge tech barriers for most consumers on streaming. I have solid internet at home and pay $76+ a month and streaming is still hit or miss for me on games
Much less poorer nations and let alone lower-middle class Americans. There are unique and difficult barriers to streaming that game pass simply does not have to deal with at all.
I get why you don't agree with their Netflix argument, and yes they're wrong about it if it's solely if game pass is profitable, but the idea of game streaming only being profitable is still not happening anytime soon imo.
Netflix - game pass and - game streaming (be via game pass, Sony, nvidia or whoever) are different environments like you said. And while I don't completely agree with how they made their point, I do not think game streaming will take off the same way as music and movies have
Wait is there any indication they are considering their concession ?
What I wonder is if the deal fails what will happen with Activisions relationship with Sony. A lot of people will be out of a lot of money, there's no way they continue marketing and exclusive content at a discount. It would also cost Microsoft a lot of money too, can't imagine they will continue business as usual. It feels like Sony is picking a fight they shouldn't.
Ultimately business is business so if Sony throw money at them for marketing, Acti will take it. On the other hand, some businesses hold long term grudges, so it might impact the future. Who knows really. If it fails, I can just see MS being super aggressive and if Sony think CoD is so big, MS will push for the marketing.
OP
OP
Now that I have some free time, I'll answer questions:
Gamepass being considered its own market is already a great argument because MS is still denying that possibility. They believe that subcription services are just another means of payment, nothing more. But so far the CMA is more in favor of the market theory.
Casting doubt about what would happen without the acquisition with ABK in subscription services is also a good argument. MS says that nothing would change because according to internal documents, the scope and variety of games developed by ABK + economic incentives, ABK doesn't see a point in subscription services. But who knows if that info is only part of the story. Maybe they were thinking about creating their own subscription service like EA or Ubisoft and therefore MS is removing a future competitor with the acquisition.
Finally, reminding the CMA about the possibility of the content being exclusive to Gamepass is also a good point. It's an issue whose relevancy depends on the resolution of previous issues (the importance of ABK content, the market power of Gamepass, being its own market, the access to COD in the buy-to-play market post merger, etc), but it could become a pain point for MS too.
Regarding the Facebook/Giphy case, I think that MS makes a better use of it when comparing the structure of both markets and the potential input foreclosure. Sony is using it more like a reminder about the importance of nascent markets, that subscription services could be one of those markets and that in those cases classic assessment such as marketshares maybe aren't that useful.
Thanks!
Well, in theory it could happen but right now only MS would have to comply with something like that. After all, Sony is just a third party in the review process.
In any case, if one of the remedies is that MS has to create a version of Gamepass for Playstation (and MS agrees to that), my guess is that it would create such a seismic change in the industry that in a few years we could see similar moves from other services, including PS+.
But I think that it's unlikely that regulators will ask for something like that.
For remote play you have to own the game someway (bought or licensed), you have to download the game and you need specific hardware (the console). Two of the key attractions of cloud gaming are no specific hardware and no downloads.
Add to that that for MS cloud gaming is not even their own market, just another way to accessing games (and not very relevant for the next 3-5 years) and I guess that you could say something very similar about remote play: another way to access games that only a tiny proportion of gamers uses.
The Commission updates the companies regularly about the process. So my guess is that MS already had a pretty good idea about the issues and potential remedies during October.
The timeline of events during the last 30 days has been very interesting:
- MS rejected offering remedies to the European Commission (EC) on October 28th
- The EC opened Phase 2 on November 8th
- According to the NYT, on November 10th MS offered Sony the 10 year agreement
- On November 18th, the EC delays the deadline for Phase 2 fifteen days (that delay was requested by MS because it was done under article 10(3)2)
- On November 23rd, Politico says that the FTC will likely sue (although MS probably knew since mid October)
- On the weekend of November 26-27th, MS and Sony meet to talk about the 10 year agreement (according to DealReporter)
- On November 28th (the day after the meeting between MS and Sony), Reuters says that MS will offer the 10 year remedy to the EC
So, is the timeline saying that MS and Sony reached an agreement and they just want to it make official (through remedies) or that the negotiation failed and MS is going directly to regulators with the same offer? 🤔
It's hard to say for sure, but my guess is that there could be an agreement and that's why MS is offering a 10 year remedy. If there was no agreement, why would you offer something so specific?
It could also fit with what I said the other day about fast tracking an approval with the EC (one that includes the OK from the most belligerent third party) to pressure the CMA and FTC.
The SAMR is kind of their own beast on this subject:
- They are more favorable to behavioural remedies than the majority of regulators
- They are slow and a bit unpredictable regarding timing (the have even a Phase 3)
- Competition AND policy issues are relevant, because the government intervenes more regularly in mergers
- They give more importance to what different stakeholders say, for example regulators from other jurisdictions (I guess that's why they could wait for the EC)
- Sometimes they impose very specific remedies just for the Chinese market, even when the majority of regulators are appoving the deal without concessions
Anyway, Xbox being small in China, COD having less influence there and other games from ABK disappearing from the Chinese market by the end of January, makes me think that China shouldn't be a big problem. Although they are going to take their time.
Brexit is the main reason. Without it, this deal wouldn't have been reviewed by the CMA.
But now that UK is out of the European Union, they are also independent on competition law and can review any merger (big or small) that could affect the UK market (obviously, an important one).
ABK has more assets in China than in Japan, I guess that's why the SAMR is one of the Big4 for this case.
That would be an incredible "World premiere" :p xD
The Bureau of Competition (one part of the FTC) has 4 "merger shops" organised by industry (they are called Mergers I, II, III and IV; probably I or II are reviewing the ABK case).
Each "merger shop" has 3-5 assistant directors + lawyers, economists, data scientists, etc
All the members of each "merger shop" are called Staff. They are the ones who mainly do the review process. Once they are done, they give a recommendation about the case (clearance with/without remedies or lawsuit). That recommendation will be analysed and voted first by the
Bureau of directors and finally the 5 Commissioners.
So, in mid December the Staff will recommend what to do with the ABK case (likely a lawsuit). In January the Bureau of directors and specially the 5 Commissioners will vote if they overrule the recommendation or not.
Gamepass being considered its own market is already a great argument because MS is still denying that possibility. They believe that subcription services are just another means of payment, nothing more. But so far the CMA is more in favor of the market theory.
Casting doubt about what would happen without the acquisition with ABK in subscription services is also a good argument. MS says that nothing would change because according to internal documents, the scope and variety of games developed by ABK + economic incentives, ABK doesn't see a point in subscription services. But who knows if that info is only part of the story. Maybe they were thinking about creating their own subscription service like EA or Ubisoft and therefore MS is removing a future competitor with the acquisition.
Finally, reminding the CMA about the possibility of the content being exclusive to Gamepass is also a good point. It's an issue whose relevancy depends on the resolution of previous issues (the importance of ABK content, the market power of Gamepass, being its own market, the access to COD in the buy-to-play market post merger, etc), but it could become a pain point for MS too.
Regarding the Facebook/Giphy case, I think that MS makes a better use of it when comparing the structure of both markets and the potential input foreclosure. Sony is using it more like a reminder about the importance of nascent markets, that subscription services could be one of those markets and that in those cases classic assessment such as marketshares maybe aren't that useful.
Thanks!
Well, in theory it could happen but right now only MS would have to comply with something like that. After all, Sony is just a third party in the review process.
In any case, if one of the remedies is that MS has to create a version of Gamepass for Playstation (and MS agrees to that), my guess is that it would create such a seismic change in the industry that in a few years we could see similar moves from other services, including PS+.
But I think that it's unlikely that regulators will ask for something like that.
For remote play you have to own the game someway (bought or licensed), you have to download the game and you need specific hardware (the console). Two of the key attractions of cloud gaming are no specific hardware and no downloads.
Add to that that for MS cloud gaming is not even their own market, just another way to accessing games (and not very relevant for the next 3-5 years) and I guess that you could say something very similar about remote play: another way to access games that only a tiny proportion of gamers uses.
The Commission updates the companies regularly about the process. So my guess is that MS already had a pretty good idea about the issues and potential remedies during October.
The timeline of events during the last 30 days has been very interesting:
- MS rejected offering remedies to the European Commission (EC) on October 28th
- The EC opened Phase 2 on November 8th
- According to the NYT, on November 10th MS offered Sony the 10 year agreement
- On November 18th, the EC delays the deadline for Phase 2 fifteen days (that delay was requested by MS because it was done under article 10(3)2)
- On November 23rd, Politico says that the FTC will likely sue (although MS probably knew since mid October)
- On the weekend of November 26-27th, MS and Sony meet to talk about the 10 year agreement (according to DealReporter)
- On November 28th (the day after the meeting between MS and Sony), Reuters says that MS will offer the 10 year remedy to the EC
So, is the timeline saying that MS and Sony reached an agreement and they just want to it make official (through remedies) or that the negotiation failed and MS is going directly to regulators with the same offer? 🤔
It's hard to say for sure, but my guess is that there could be an agreement and that's why MS is offering a 10 year remedy. If there was no agreement, why would you offer something so specific?
It could also fit with what I said the other day about fast tracking an approval with the EC (one that includes the OK from the most belligerent third party) to pressure the CMA and FTC.
The SAMR is kind of their own beast on this subject:
- They are more favorable to behavioural remedies than the majority of regulators
- They are slow and a bit unpredictable regarding timing (the have even a Phase 3)
- Competition AND policy issues are relevant, because the government intervenes more regularly in mergers
- They give more importance to what different stakeholders say, for example regulators from other jurisdictions (I guess that's why they could wait for the EC)
- Sometimes they impose very specific remedies just for the Chinese market, even when the majority of regulators are appoving the deal without concessions
Anyway, Xbox being small in China, COD having less influence there and other games from ABK disappearing from the Chinese market by the end of January, makes me think that China shouldn't be a big problem. Although they are going to take their time.
Brexit is the main reason. Without it, this deal wouldn't have been reviewed by the CMA.
But now that UK is out of the European Union, they are also independent on competition law and can review any merger (big or small) that could affect the UK market (obviously, an important one).
ABK has more assets in China than in Japan, I guess that's why the SAMR is one of the Big4 for this case.
That would be an incredible "World premiere" :p xD
The Bureau of Competition (one part of the FTC) has 4 "merger shops" organised by industry (they are called Mergers I, II, III and IV; probably I or II are reviewing the ABK case).
Each "merger shop" has 3-5 assistant directors + lawyers, economists, data scientists, etc
All the members of each "merger shop" are called Staff. They are the ones who mainly do the review process. Once they are done, they give a recommendation about the case (clearance with/without remedies or lawsuit). That recommendation will be analysed and voted first by the
Bureau of directors and finally the 5 Commissioners.
So, in mid December the Staff will recommend what to do with the ABK case (likely a lawsuit). In January the Bureau of directors and specially the 5 Commissioners will vote if they overrule the recommendation or not.
Last edited:
Idas if Sony and Microsoft had weekend meetings and came to an agreement on terms for the 10 years, what realistic basis would the government have to block it? Obviously, they are separate and have the "final say" more or less, but if for example the Union is ok with it, shareholders are ok, the major vocal competitor is now ok, and other governments have approved so far, does that just weaken the CMAs/FTCs arguments against the deal if they are?
Hmm, with Twitter drama not just blowing up but clearly coming toward confrontations with regulators (not necessarily the same ones.. but also not necessarily NOT the same ones, either), I wonder if this increases the heat on the deal in terms of reining in big tech or whether it sucks the oxygen out of the room for anything that isn't as big, flashy, and pressing as Twitter implosion. If the primary impetus of going after MS hard was to show toughness on big tech, you've got a much easier (easier? maybe not) or at least much more visible and obnoxious target now. Though, perhaps that's the exact reason they'd rather go hard on a softer and less politically charged target like MS as a prelude instead.
Who knows with politics haha. That said, they obviously do believe they have something with the cases that each regulator has laid out, so it's not like I'm expecting them to just abandon them. But.. I also wouldn't be surprised if Phase 2 ended up being far less thorny than we've all been expecting. [Though, if EC accepts the 10 year concession quickly, it may not even matter that much.]
Also, I see FTC taking a page out of Blizzard "Team 4" and Square Enix "Creative Business Unit II" naming lol
Who knows with politics haha. That said, they obviously do believe they have something with the cases that each regulator has laid out, so it's not like I'm expecting them to just abandon them. But.. I also wouldn't be surprised if Phase 2 ended up being far less thorny than we've all been expecting. [Though, if EC accepts the 10 year concession quickly, it may not even matter that much.]
Thanks as always Idas! Your answers are corrective and helpful haha.
Also, I see FTC taking a page out of Blizzard "Team 4" and Square Enix "Creative Business Unit II" naming lol
Some leaks from the Sony and MS deal:
Sony guaranteed Playstation Advantage for 10 years for AKB games. After 10 years, MS negotiates with Sony for parity on a case by case basis.
AKB titles day and date with PS Plus. Gamepass day and date too but 23 hours and 58 minutes after PS Plus.
Sony gets 50% reduction from market rate for AKB on PS plus and 50% of AKB DLC proceeds on Xbox.
All Xcloud button prompts to be replaced with Playstation button prompts.
Jim Ryan get first dibs on Phil's lunch. Jim eats first. Then Phil eats after Jim leaves the building. Phil cannot eat while Jim is in the building.
Sony guaranteed Playstation Advantage for 10 years for AKB games. After 10 years, MS negotiates with Sony for parity on a case by case basis.
AKB titles day and date with PS Plus. Gamepass day and date too but 23 hours and 58 minutes after PS Plus.
Sony gets 50% reduction from market rate for AKB on PS plus and 50% of AKB DLC proceeds on Xbox.
All Xcloud button prompts to be replaced with Playstation button prompts.
Jim Ryan get first dibs on Phil's lunch. Jim eats first. Then Phil eats after Jim leaves the building. Phil cannot eat while Jim is in the building.
And people said insiders were unreliable. Shows what they know.
I heard that Phil Spencer said they would release CoD on PlayStation forever if Sony remakes Bloodborne. They don't even need to release it on Xbox, Phil just really wants to play it on anything. Jim Ryan head butted him and left.
Pretty despicable. Like who headbutts.
So I have another question. How important to regulators would it be for Microsoft to figure things out and getting Sony to agree to a deal, versus Microsoft making a deal with Regulators directly? If Microsoft was to get Sony to agree to a deal, does that put less pressure on the Regulators to require additional concessions, or make them more likely to approve it?
And this really can't be understated. Even if Microsoft has to maintaint the status quo for 10 years. They own that status quo and its successes become their successes. Microsoft is basically trading 68.7 Billion dollars as a one time purchase for 8.803 Billion dollars added to their revenue. Which assuming absolutely nothing changed in revenues, would net them ~88.03 Billion dollars in extra revenue just from the status quo... before we try to add on increases to Game Pass Subs and other knockoff effects of owning Activision.
And yes, Revenue isn't profit. But in this case its an easy metric to use to compare.
Last edited:
"This deal is still inadequate on many levels." - Jim Ryan
Inflation will not go away in a year or two. Not unless the Federal Reserve pulls out dollars from circulation. They won't to the degree required, so they are raising rates and hoping that it does not tank the economy that is used to cheap leverage.
This is what bank stress tests are about in addition to the constant talk of how the rate hikes wont break the economy.
Raising rates have an effect worldwide because of dollar denominated debt, and this always means things like more taxation elsewhere, less spending and all that. As cheap money dries, so too does money that inflated stocks. This is why you see Activision saying they will fight to save this deal. This is likely going to be the best offer they get for quite some time with their stock price unlikely to hit 95 for years.
This deal not going through would most likely tank their stock, and it is a hard climb from there.
There has never been a great time for companies to invest. We are also in a recession environment where stocks are down, why would a company not invest? Why not do so when the prospects of growth inrthe gaming market, especially mobile are this good with this deal? Why not invest in one of the biggest properties, then bring that to Game Pass?
The comparison with Netflix is neither here nor there. Netflix would be more profitable if they could monetize their content to a greater degree as happens with games, or if their expansion was not debt driven.
Microsoft has the possibility of being more competitive in console and mobile segments. That is a far greater bet than sitting on cash praying against everything that inflation is transitory.
Gaming and cameras were Sony's biggest businesses that guaranteed earnings. Sony is seeing competition in cameras, and they are trying to stave off competition in gaming.
Nintendo did not go away despite Sony almost killing the GameCube, and trying their best to put Nintendo handhelds out of business.
Microsoft is not going away either, and increased investment this generation is going to give them the platform they need to better compete in the next generation beyond just consoles.
Sony is resisting change, and in hindsight, this was maybe to be expected. Microsoft has built a western RPG juggernaut, and is going to be the home of FPS with this deal. There are also multiplier effects of getting some of the biggest properties in house and how that will translate to more sales, and more time on Microsoft's ecosystem.
Sony is burning a lot of bridges, but it might be worth it in the short to medium term.
OP
OP
CNBC's David Faber (this is the guy who killed the rumor of Amazon buying Electronic Arts in 30 seconds) says that he doesn't believe the story from Politico:
On the other hand, Wedbush (Michael Pachter) believes that it's "highly" likely that the deal will be completed within the next six months:
One way or another, it really feels like we are at the beginning of the end.
Activision stock gains as report downplays Politico item on potential FTC challenge
Activision (ATVI) quickly rose 1% after CNBCs David Faber appeared to throw some cold water on a Politico report from last Wednesday that the Federal Trade Commission is likely to...seekingalpha.com
On the other hand, Wedbush (Michael Pachter) believes that it's "highly" likely that the deal will be completed within the next six months:
Activision added to Wedbush Best Ideas list deal or no deal (NASDAQ:ATVI)
Activision Blizzard (ATVI) was added to Wedbush's Best Ideas List with the firm expecting the game makers $69 billion sale to Microsoft (MSFT) highly likely to be completed
One way or another, it really feels like we are at the beginning of the end.
So much this. Just get it done either way so we can get on with gaming. 😂
Microsoft is going to do everything they can to make sure the deal goes through. If it's terminated for any reason, they'll need to pay Activision 2.5-3 billion dollars. I imagine the concessions will ultimately please regulators. Sony only cares about COD, but I can see the concession allowing all Activision games Playstation release parity for 10 years.
The PS Plus stuff is something that Sony and regulators are talking so much about, but it's not terribly interesting to me. I don't know what will happen there, but so long as it's not day and date, I don't really see why Microsoft would turn down free money to put their old games on PS Plus.
The PS Plus stuff is something that Sony and regulators are talking so much about, but it's not terribly interesting to me. I don't know what will happen there, but so long as it's not day and date, I don't really see why Microsoft would turn down free money to put their old games on PS Plus.
Yeah even if there's anything related to needing to have COD on PS Plus on day 1 it sure as shit won't be free and I don't see Sony paying
Did someone say the beginning of the end?
View: https://giphy.com/gifs/starwars-star-wars-episode-3-xTiIzJSKB4l7xTouE8
View: https://giphy.com/gifs/starwars-star-wars-episode-3-xTiIzJSKB4l7xTouE8
Michael Pachter? Oh no, now it's gonna go past six months for sure.
If Michael Pachter says highly likely, then we're going the opposite way and saying highly unlikely then.
This David Faber is credible then? How would he kill the Amazon buying EA rumor if he wasn't I assume?
And thats the thing. Its such an easy concession for Microsoft to say. "We'll guarentee all Activision Games are also available on Playstation and other platforms for 10 years. We'll also allow them to pay the exact same price per unit we pay for putting it on Game Pass, so that they can put it on their service. If its worth it to Sony, they can decide to pay for it"
I hope it is all AB games on Sony too. No reason to stop releasing them to paying customers and eat your cake with game pass subs too. Games will sell great at $70 on other platforms and do well on game pass too imo
Lol, the OP title currently reads "cleared unconditionally in Serbia". I'm from Serbia and honestly, I didn't think legal institutions here even heard of Xbox (or any technology beyond 19th century, honestly) but hey, good news!
Of course Exclusives help strengthen a platform. But they're not the only thing that matters. If you're Microsoft and you're seeing the EU about to crack open the entire Mobile App Store Market with a sludgehammer. You are planning for a future in game streaming. And your earning enough of profit that the business isn't being a drain on the overall corporate structure. Then you can take a hit on 10 years of Activision Exclusitivity because what that gains you in 10 years is a whole slew of exclusive titles with fans on PlayStation titles that you can suddenly pull from Sony's systems after their fanbases are well established.
You can take that hit on 10 year console exclusitivity because you know that in 1.5 years the EU is going to absolutely go to town on your major competitiors on one of the most important Computing sectors that you have absolutely zero foothold in. And you will be able to leverage Activisions assets to massively pump up Mobile Game Development and use it as a wedge to force your way in.
So exclusives help a platform sure. But the platform isn't consoles. The platform is Microsoft. Consoles are just a medium.
View: https://twitter.com/theeconomist/status/1598358275866632193?s=46&t=b6D1wAD8V2BZy6e9UT7n_Q
Cant get around paywall but interesting
How would it harm consumers? How would a 2T company not getting AB hurt people? I'm fine with it going through but wouldn't AB staying fairly independent (or being owned by someone who wouldn't force platform exclusives) be best for consumers since theyd have more options?
But on the rumor of AB games going to Ps for 10 years as part of the deal, good. All games should be as multiplatform as possible. Hopefully it happens. Now Sony and Xbox need to open up and allow some releases on each others systems by the end of the decade.
Get your sales in your product and then a year or so later sell on the other or whatever. Disney prioritizes Disney plus but puts movies on everything for a price. Meet consumers where they are
Well for starters it would hurt people as game pass customers because they would never have access to ABK games on game pass and this is the only way. It would hurt competition between Xbox and Playstation which could lead to things that Sony has already done as clear market leader like increase prices on almost everything. It would hurt options that people can pick how and where they can play, being under Microsoft means that all ABK games will eventually be available on pretty much any device with a internet browser. It would weaken the push for Microsoft to tackle the duopoly of the App store and Google Play store as Microsoft wants to use ABK titles and their own to create a new universal store on these two platforms and it would be much more dificult without ABK content.
Just a few ways it could harm customers if it doesn't go through off the top of my head.