• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Microsoft / Activision Deal Approval Watch |OT| (MS/ABK close)

Do you believe the deal will be approved?

  • Yes, will be approved without changes.

    Votes: 221 24.9%

  • Yes, will be approved but with structural changes to ABK.

    Votes: 102 11.5%

  • Yes, will be approved but only with behavioral concessions.

    Votes: 262 29.6%

  • No, will not be approved.

    Votes: 301 34.0%
  • Total voters
    886
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
adamsapple

adamsapple

Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Topher said:
Except Microsoft wants to own two thirds by obtaining Nintendo. I damn sure rather have independent Nintendo than a Microsoft that factually is not just satisfied with ABK, but has eyes on Nintendo and Valve as well.

That's not the "third party" we "need"
Click to expand...

I doubt MS will be doing that in any way, even their ValueAct play only as 2% shares, the Saudi government by comparison owns 8% of Nintendo shares.

But I digress, I don't believe having them bow out would be good for competition at all, not that I see that happening in the first place.
 
GHG

GHG

Gold Member
HeisenbergFX4 said:
I doubt Sony really wants healthy competition either they are just doing it the right way pumping out great games keeping their mouths shut and winning in the process
Click to expand...

If you are secure and confident in what you're doing then you welcome competition.

Nobody with any drive about them wants it too easy. Sport and business are similar in this respect, a rising tide lifts all boats and the tide doesn't rise unless everyone is pushing each other to be at their very best.

Microsoft are insecure, hence all they know is to constantly obsess over what the competition are doing and seek to extinguish them through acquisitions (whether directly via mothballing or indirectly via acquiring industry property deemed as important for their competitors survival). That's literally what their history has been about across all the business areas they've ever got involved in, it's their company ethos.
 
Last edited:
DeepEnigma

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
GHG said:
Microsoft are insecure, hence all they know is to constantly obsess over what the competition are doing and seek to extinguish them through acquisitions (whether directly via mothballing or indirectly via acquiring industry property deemed as important for their competitors survival). That's literally what their history has been about across all the business areas they've ever got involved in, it's their company ethos.
Click to expand...
Hence this thread. Unique position of thought experiments™
 
Last edited:
HeisenbergFX4

HeisenbergFX4

Gold Member
GHG said:
The better question is what "healthy competition" are Microsoft bringing to the table?

I ask the same question regarding AMD's purpose in the GPU space.

These are businesses who should be competing in their respective spaces (given their resources and history) but for a number of reasons they aren't currently. If they aren't going to bother to effectively compete then it's better for the consumer for them to vacate the space and leave room for a new entrants.

It's important to remember that when Sega vacated the console space Microsoft stepped in. I'm certain that someone else would step in if Microsoft were to leave. Sony also effectively (albeit indirectly) replaced Atari.

It's not Microsoft or nothing as far as "competition" goes.
Click to expand...
Just my opinion the best thing MS is bringing to table is at least an option of another console to buy to keep one player in check from charging $700 for a console

GHG said:
If you are secure and confident in what you're doing then you welcome competition.

Nobody with any drive about them wants it too easy. Sport and business are similar in this respect, a rising tide lifts all boats and the tide doesn't rise unless everyone is pushing each other to be at their very best.

Microsoft are insecure, hence all they know is to constantly obsess over what the competition are doing and seek to extinguish them through acquisitions (whether directly via mothballing or indirectly via acquiring industry property deemed as important for their competitors survival). That's literally what their history has been about across all the business areas they've ever got involved in, it's their company ethos.
Click to expand...
And owners of sports teams want to win every single year and if there was not a luxury tax or caps you would have the mega wealthy owners winning every year like the old Steinbrenner Yankees (like what MS is trying to do)
 
D

Darsxx82

Member
Sure, because we all know that only being creative can any company enter the console business and be successful compared to Playstation or Nintendo...

The reality is different, the console business has not been healthy for decades and that is the reason why no new participants have appeared, quite the opposite. The only way to get in is by spending a lot of money and acquiring content. Otherwise your product will never have any chance and even less so if along the way Sony monopolizes 3rd party exclusives that limit the competition by taking advantage of its brand power and market leader status.

The reality is that entry into the console market today would only be limited to large companies (Apple, Google, Amazon...) and they would do so by purchasing content so that their product was viable. Billons $, not "creativiti", because the current console market is neither healthy nor open.
 
adamsapple

adamsapple

Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
The Pleasure said:
NO DLC
NO microtransactions
No patch culture on console games.
No adorably all digital
Click to expand...

feels game of thrones GIF
 
Last edited:
Topher

Topher

Identifies as young
HeisenbergFX4 said:
I doubt Sony really wants healthy competition either they are just doing it the right way pumping out great games keeping their mouths shut and winning in the process
Click to expand...

Sony doesn't have the means to do anything but make great games and small exclusivity deals. Buying up ABK, Valve and Nintendo are not options for them. They are for Microsoft and they will if they can.

adamsapple said:
I doubt MS will be doing that in any way, even their ValueAct play only as 2% shares, the Saudi government by comparison owns 8% of Nintendo shares.

But I digress, I don't believe having them bow out would be good for competition at all, not that I see that happening in the first place.
Click to expand...

You doubt Microsoft would buy Valve and Nintendo? Microsoft's Board of Directors gave Phil Spencer the green light to pursue acquiring both companies if the opportunity arose. Phil said they are playing the "long game" in acquiring Nintendo. I mean.....I'm not making any of this up. It is factually documented.

I've always been in favor of Xbox in the industry, but someone needs to put a leash on Microsoft. Hopefully regulators will wake up.
 
Last edited:
adamsapple

adamsapple

Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Topher said:
You doubt Microsoft would buy Valve and Nintendo? Microsoft's Board of Directors gave Phil Spencer the green light to pursue acquiring both Valve and Nintendo if the opportunity arose. Phil said they are playing the "long game" in acquiring Nintendo. I mean.....I'm not making any of this up. It is factually documented.

I've always been in favor of Xbox in the industry, but someone needs to put a leash on Microsoft. Hopefully regulators will wake up.
Click to expand...

I doubt they will be able to, not that they financially couldn't.

Not to "SonyToo" but if they had that kind of capital, they wouldn't bat an eye over buying Zenimax or Activision. Reportedly, when Zenimax was up for Sale, Sony was in the running as well.


The Pleasure said:
Back then, we had expansion packs and they gave SUBSTANTIAL content at 20-30 bucks. Not a map pack that is four maps for 20 dollars.
Click to expand...

You are very precious if you think not having an X360 would've changed things, when SOCOM 2 on PS2 had paid map pack DLCs before that.
 
NickFire

NickFire

Member
HeisenbergFX4 said:
Just my opinion the best thing MS is bringing to table is at least an option of another console to buy to keep one player in check from charging $700 for a console


And owners of sports teams want to win every single year and if there was not a luxury tax or caps you would have the mega wealthy owners winning every year like the old Steinbrenner Yankees (like what MS is trying to do)
Click to expand...
MS lost me as a customer during the Xbox One reveal after a couple generations of being Xbox only (after OG Xbox was released). And the last generation was pathetic output from them compared to expectations leading into it. But I do not want to see Xbox go away at all. It would absolutely turn PS into a quasi-monopoly and let them rake us over the financial coals even more. Just look at their decision to charge more for online access. Only reason they are doing it is because MS has been shitting the bed again this generation.

But that said, if MS wants to play the "we own everything or jump ship" card, then screw that and they can eat the red herring they caught instead of the general gaming audience. I'd much rather take the middle road where MS spins off Xbox to a company with actual passion for gaming. MS bankroll is only vital for GP to reach MS internal goals. There are plenty of people / companies who could be very happy with a profitable Xbox that doesn't need to own the industry just to "compete."
 
HeisenbergFX4

HeisenbergFX4

Gold Member
NickFire said:
MS lost me as a customer during the Xbox One reveal after a couple generations of being Xbox only (after OG Xbox was released). And the last generation was pathetic output from them compared to expectations leading into it. But I do not want to see Xbox go away at all. It would absolutely turn PS into a quasi-monopoly and let them rake us over the financial coals even more. Just look at their decision to charge more for online access. Only reason they are doing it is because MS has been shitting the bed again this generation.

But that said, if MS wants to play the "we own everything or jump ship" card, then screw that and they can eat the red herring they caught instead of the general gaming audience. I'd much rather take the middle road where MS spins off Xbox to a company with actual passion for gaming. MS bankroll is only vital for GP to reach MS internal goals. There are plenty of people / companies who could be very happy with a profitable Xbox that doesn't need to own the industry just to "compete."
Click to expand...
Trust me I am not defending MS in how they want to go about "winning" but it should scare people a future with only Sony making the high end consoles
 
NickFire

NickFire

Member
HeisenbergFX4 said:
Trust me I am not defending MS in how they want to go about "winning" but it should scare people a future with only Sony making the high end consoles
Click to expand...
I knew what you were saying. And I agree with it. I just don't think Xbox is going anywhere even if MS pulls out. I think MS (and Disney, etc.) is one of those mega corps that scoff at "profitable." They want to mega profits or move on to the next investment.
 
NickFire

NickFire

Member
DeepEnigma said:
I still think there would be a new player if that should happen. Either Amazon and/or Apple. And we would probably be in the same "buy the largest publishers" boat by them as well.
Click to expand...
Realistically, if either company (or both) made a serious play they would be able to outbid anyone. But I'd like to see a handful of top creators / business side people with investor backing. Someone who comes in hot with a focus on adding monetization to high quality games, instead of building games on top of high quality monetization.

No chance they'd outbid one of the mega corps, but the mega corps might not be overly interested. They want those earth shattering ROI's too and might stand back. If they do, MS would have plenty of incentive to sell below what they think Xbox is worth. The last thing they want to do is wind down the entire operation on their dime without any return.
 
Horseganador

Horseganador

Member
Speaking of "competition" when a company wants to spend 80,000 million to buy entire publishers and take them from the rival to keep the entire pie in the future xDD and be careful, it wants to buy more Nintendo, Valve, etc... all very healthy and healthy For the market of course, and the people on top of that defend these monopolistic movements, I'm amazed.
 
Topher

Topher

Identifies as young
adamsapple said:
I doubt they will be able to, not that they financially couldn't.

Not to "SonyToo" but if they had that kind of capital, they wouldn't bat an eye over buying Zenimax or Activision. Reportedly, when Zenimax was up for Sale, Sony was in the running as well.
Click to expand...

Of course not and that would be equally detrimental to the industry. I just don't think we as gamers should be championing any of it, regardless which company it is.
 
NickFire

NickFire

Member
jm89 said:
The other thing i can also think of is there are accusations of CMA bending to political pressure, and this may also be politicians attempt to distance them selves from that by showing they agreed with the CMA all along. Crooks.
Click to expand...
Same boat, different side: I could envision politicians were bending to pressure and leaning on CMA to approve it early summer, who have since read the tea leaves (domestic sales charts and some of the leaks from FTC case) and decided to cancel the pressure they were putting on the CMA.
 
PaintTinJr

PaintTinJr

Member
DeepEnigma said:
I still think there would be a new player if that should happen. Either Amazon and/or Apple. And we would probably be in the same "buy the largest publishers" boat by them as well.
Click to expand...
Given how small by market cap both Nintendo and Sony are, a third place space in the market might see a flurry of companies trying to launch thinking they could do well a third or bring real pressure. The Samsung and Apple battle in the smart space would look entirely different if both entered the console market IMO. Samsung, like a Panasonic, Toshiba or Sony would be bringing real hardware expertise, and even companies like HP, Lenovo and Dell would bring their own advantages, as would Intel, ARM or even Nvidia.
 
D

Deleted member 848825

Unconfirmed Member
jm89 said:
The other thing i can also think of is there are accusations of CMA bending to political pressure, and this may also be politicians attempt to distance them selves from that by showing they agreed with the CMA all along. Crooks.
Click to expand...
Without heading off into political debate. I dont think my government care about that perception. My and many others impression of the current government is very much one of extreme self interest. It wouldn't surprise me in the least to learn in a few years time that Badenbollock had a vested interest in a MS competitor. They're certainly the party of pro business - its just frequently its been found to be pro their own personal business interests.

So who knows the real motivation behind what's been said. But I am glad its not in tune with Brad tosser chops Smiths rant. So theres that, which is good.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sanepar

Sanepar

Member
HeisenbergFX4 said:
I don't understand people wanting MS out of the business but wanting healthy competition

Where does the healthy competition come from if MS bows out?
Click to expand...
With a better player that wants to compete. Ms doesn't want to compete they want to buy enough to force gamepass and cloud model. That is it. If they were on this to compete I'm sure with 23 studios they have enough for that.

Buying the biggest publisher to take content from other platforms besides Cod for 10 years, it is not competition, it is a monopolizing strategy.
 
XesqueVara

XesqueVara

Member
Sanepar said:
With a better player that wants to compete. Ms doesn't want to compete they want to buy enough to force gamepass and cloud model. That is it. If they were on this to compete I'm sure with 23 studios they have enough for that.

Buying the biggest publisher to take content from other platforms besides Cod for 10 years, it is not competition, it is a monopolizing strategy.
Click to expand...
ABK don't have so much other than COD honestly, besides the new Blizzard Survival Game it's hard to know what they have in the pipeline.
 
Banjo64

Banjo64

cumsessed
HeisenbergFX4 said:
Image how arrogant Sony would be if no one pushed them or even a threat of being pushed
Click to expand...
Sure, but if they overshot their hand people would just go with mobile, Nintendo and PC/handheld PCs.

PS pretty much have to keep prices in line with third party studios no matter what.

Hardware, if they try and charge too much the value proposition against PC won’t add up any longer and people will migrate. They’d also run the risk of losing the next generation (kids) as parents would stick with tablets/Nintendo products.

Game devs would follow the consumers to their chosen platform.

So in my opinion there would still be some motivation for Sony to offer an attractive price point.
 
Sanepar

Sanepar

Member
XesqueVara said:
ABK don't have so much other than COD honestly, besides the new Blizzard Survival Game it's hard to know what they have in the pipeline.
Click to expand...
Blizzard games are relevant, they take long to release but having a new Diablo exclusive to your platform by the side of Cod is really strong and MS will not stop on ABK.
 
DrFigs

DrFigs

Member
The Pleasure said:
Back then, we had expansion packs and they gave SUBSTANTIAL content at 20-30 bucks. Not a map pack that is four maps for 20 dollars.
Click to expand...
when i was a kid, they would charge 15 dollars for 4 maps and no new weapons in COD. now all of that is free and afaik mostly unlockable by just playing the game. different generations, but i think we're much better off now than 10-15 years ago.
 
Last edited:
Ginzeen

Ginzeen

Banned
PaintTinJr said:
It isn't the same as a standalone new acquisition preliminary decision. though. The block of the original merger was final, along with the order stating Microsoft couldn't attempt to acquire directly or by proxy an interest in ATVI without express permission by the CMA, so this new Ex-Cloud phase 1 is an extension of the blocked merger - and its decision as evidence as a starting point for consideration - so a decision to block this deal too has far less latitude to be appealed.
Click to expand...
You said a whole lot of nothing.
 
Ginzeen

Ginzeen

Banned
GHG said:
The better question is what "healthy competition" are Microsoft bringing to the table?

I ask the same question regarding AMD's purpose in the GPU space.

These are businesses who should be competing in their respective spaces (given their resources and history) but for a number of reasons they aren't currently. If they aren't going to bother to effectively compete then it's better for the consumer for them to vacate the space and leave room for a new entrants.

It's important to remember that when Sega vacated the console space Microsoft stepped in. I'm certain that someone else would step in if Microsoft were to leave. Sony also effectively (albeit indirectly) replaced Atari.


It's not Microsoft or nothing as far as "competition" goes.
Click to expand...
The gaming market is way more different then it was in the very early 2000s. Apples to oranges. Any big player trying to enter the console market now will likely flop. Very risky to enter the console business now.
 
A

azertydu91

Hard to Kill
Ginzeen said:
The gaming market is way more different then it was in the very early 2000s. Apples to oranges. Any big player trying to enter the console market now will likely flop. Very risky to enter the console business now.
Click to expand...
Of all the one that seems capable enough is Valve, maybe not willing to but they could pull it of.I wasn't sure about that but the steamdecck convinced me.
By the way HeisenbergFX4 HeisenbergFX4 I hesitated about a dualsense edge but ultimately got a steamdeck and you were right you do get used to those back pedals easily.
 
Sanepar

Sanepar

Member
HeisenbergFX4 said:
I doubt Sony really wants healthy competition either they are just doing it the right way pumping out great games keeping their mouths shut and winning in the process
Click to expand...
But this is a consumer choice. If Microsoft stop with the hype machine and focus to pump great games too. Maybe they will be able to compete. They don't need to buy whole industry for that.

MS background on all tech segments they monopolize show us this would be a disaster in gaming.

They would charge us $70 per month on gamepass and we wouldn't have an option.
 
Last edited:
Schmick

Schmick

Member
azertydu91 said:
Of all the one that seems capable enough is Valve, maybe not willing to but they could pull it of.I wasn't sure about that but the steamdecck convinced me.
By the way HeisenbergFX4 HeisenbergFX4 I hesitated about a dualsense edge but ultimately got a steamdeck and you were right you do get used to those back pedals easily.
Click to expand...
The Steam Box didn't fare well though. Steamdeck offers something different to a conventional console and PC which Valve have managed to take advantage of, and deservedly so.
 
bitbydeath

bitbydeath

Member
The Pleasure said:
NO DLC
NO microtransactions
No paid online
No patch culture on console games.
No kinect
No redfall
No astroturfing
No power of the cloud
No adorably all digital
No trying to buy Nintendo

Balanced as all things should be.
Click to expand...
I don’t know about 1,2, 4 and Redfall. But the others wouldn’t have happened. Paid online would have died with Xbox if 360 never happened.
 
A

azertydu91

Hard to Kill
Schmick said:
The Steam Box didn't fare well though. Steamdeck offers something different to a conventional console and PC which Valve have managed to take advantage of, and deservedly so.
Click to expand...
Yeah the steambox were weird but I'd argue that the deck is close to a switch and nobody here would argue that Nintendo is not part of the 3 constructor so Valve might be a great contendor.
They have the eans thje know how (considering the deck) and the infrastructure is already in place ...Steam for the maybe one person in gaf that wouldn't know that.(I didn't mean you of course I realise that might sounded antagonising)
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Microsoft has Closed the Activision Blizzard King Deal
22 23 24 25 26
1K
94K
MasterCornholio replied
Microsoft now says the CMA was ‘tough and fair’ over Activision Blizzard deal
Opinion Business Game Dev
17
3K
SportsFan581 replied
FTC appeals to block already-completed Microsoft-Activision deal
2
63
7K
Mythoclast replied
  • Locked
UK minister defends CMA's decision to block MS/ABK
News
0
1K
Daniel_Mallorca1985 replied
  • Locked
Microsoft to sell off Activision cloud gaming rights to Ubisoft in bid for UK approval
News Business 2 3 4
154
17K
Spyxos replied
Top Bottom