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

[BassForever]

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.

Click to shrink...

I think some things will be on Nintendo's hardware, but yeah Sony is gonna be SOL unless they agree to allow "gamepass on Playstation" to be a thing with the mindset that a cut of CoD (and other AB/Bethesda games) gamepass revenue on PS5 is better then all revenue being 100% controlled by Microsoft.

 

[B.C.]

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 shrink...

It applies here too, though. It's not different. The only difference is the amount of money involved. If Microsoft is keeping Bethesda games as console exclusives - worth $7 billion - you really believe they are suddenly going to share Ip's from publisher worth 10x that amount? This isnt a "gut feeling". It's just the nature of the business. My take..

 

[Mukrab]

Well we know they are not gonna be exclusive to the xbox consoles so..

 

[kimbo99]

I think this is wishful. However, I believe any games slated or announced for this year will release. Warzone and other online communities will still be supported. Outside of that, doesn't make sense for Xbox to bring any content to other consoles.

 

[Soap]

You don't spend $69 billion just to let everyone have access to your library.

 

[cyrribrae]

If the games are not ALL exclusive to Xbox/PC (vast majority undoubtedly will be), it will not be because of regulatory pressure. It will be because of business and brand considerations.

That said, 'cartel authorities' is a great term and I may have to find ways to use it in everyday life.

 

[isahn]

I bet the MS legal department has already all those things sorted out. You don't do a 70 Billion acquisition with a "lets see what happens" attitude

 

[Jobbs]

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 shrink...

with respect to point number 1, I never understand this logic. "They have to have it on Playstation or they'll lose sales". Why isn't this logic applied to other things then? Keeping Halo off of Playstation is costing them sales. Put Halo and Gears on Playstation! They aren't doing that because they are trying to promote their own platforms over Sony. So you tell me they acquire a huge flagship game like COD and they're going to give it to the competitor's platform? I just don't believe it. Elder Scrolls/Fallout in the future won't come to Playstation and neither will COD after the deal is done and whatever existing obligations have been delivered

 

[Prine]

Phil & his team have this all worked out, nothing stops this train.

Mobile/PC/TV/Console support, plus Steam.

 

[Mindwipe]

with respect to point number 1, I never understand this logic. "They have to have it on Playstation or they'll lose sales". Why isn't this logic applied to other things then? Put Halo on Playstation to get more sales. They aren't doing that because they are trying to promote their own platforms over Sony. So you tell me they acquire a huge flagship game like COD and they're going to give it to the competitor's platform? I just don't believe it. Elder Scrolls/Fallout in the future won't come to Playstation and neither will COD after the deal is done and whatever existing obligations have been delivered

Click to shrink...

Because they didn't pay $70 billion dollars for a business unit to acquire Halo, which they will have to write down as an asset value if it no longer generates the same amount of revenue.

Even Microsoft's shareholders might baulk slightly at that strategy.

Same reason why people in general think that Apple or Netflix should buy a film studio to get the rights for a load of films, which also never, ever happens because that doesn't make any sense from an asset write down perspective..

 

[ShapeDePapa]

I could see CODWarzone staying on Playstation. It's a bit like Minecraft at this point I think. Everything else will be Xbox/PC/Game Pass.

 

[Beef Supreme]

If only there were an instance where Microsoft bought another huge publisher and what the result of that was.

Don't do this to yourself. Acceptance is your word of the day.

 

[Duxxy3]

There's zero chance they'll end up on Sony platforms. They wouldn't have bought the company if the games still ended up on Playstation.

 

[werezompire]

Xbox is not Microsoft's goal. They're making these purchases because they want Game Pass to be the Netflix of Videogames and the more companies they own, the more guaranteed content they can get for their service without having to deal with licensing. Their end goal is to have Game Pass on every device, including Sony & Nintendo's consoles. Ultimately, they won't care where you're using Game Pass as long as they get their subscription fee. And they're not going to shoot themselves in the foot by paying huge amounts of money for popular multiplatform IPs and then making them exclusive to their own hardware.

Microsoft isn't playing console wars, they're playing an entirely different game. That's also why it doesn't make any sense for Nintendo or Sony to "retaliate" and start buying up companies. Nintendo's hardware & software is selling like crazy already and despite Microsoft's numerous acquisitions, they have very little software that directly competes against Nintendo's big hitters - Minecraft's pretty much it and they get Minecraft on the Switch without owning it. Likewise, Playstation is doing just fine and though there's signs that Sony may try to compete more directly with Game Pass (rumors that PS+ is going to become more extensive), their goal still seems to be focused on making money and supporting their other divisions (TVs, movies, etc.).

 

[Yesterzine]

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.

Click to shrink...

Maybe not QUITE this scale but Psygnosis and Rare took quite a lot of games from the formats of those that weren't the owners.

 

[Yesterzine]

Xbox is not Microsoft's goal. They're making these purchases because they want Game Pass to be the Netflix of Videogames and the more companies they own, the more guaranteed content they can get for their service without having to deal with licensing. Their end goal is to have Game Pass on every device, including Sony & Nintendo's consoles. Ultimately, they won't care where you're using Game Pass as long as they get their subscription fee. And they're not going to shoot themselves in the foot by paying huge amounts of money for popular multiplatform IPs and then making them exclusive to their own hardware.

Click to shrink...

Exactly the immediate defence in any court will be "Sony can have all our games on their systems tomorrow, they just need to approve the XCloud app"

 

[Apathy]

If we look at their windows side and the restrictions the EU put on them because of the antitrust stuff and the continual push by Microsoft to either push those limits or ignore them and see what happens, this would go about the same. They would agree to it, do it for a while and then after a while just start trying to go against whatever agreements they signed on to.

Microsoft didn't spend what it did to play nice.

 

[BassForever]

Xbox is not Microsoft's goal. They're making these purchases because they want Game Pass to be the Netflix of Videogames and the more companies they own, the more guaranteed content they can get for their service without having to deal with licensing. Their end goal is to have Game Pass on every device, including Sony & Nintendo's consoles. Ultimately, they won't care where you're using Game Pass as long as they get their subscription fee. And they're not going to shoot themselves in the foot by paying huge amounts of money for popular multiplatform IPs and then making them exclusive to their own hardware.

Microsoft isn't playing console wars, they're playing an entirely different game. That's also why it doesn't make any sense for Nintendo or Sony to "retaliate" and start buying up companies. Nintendo's hardware & software is selling like crazy already and despite Microsoft's numerous acquisitions, they have very little software that directly competes against Nintendo's big hitters - Minecraft's pretty much it and they get Minecraft on the Switch without owning it. Likewise, Playstation is doing just fine and though there's signs that Sony may try to compete more directly with Game Pass (rumors that PS+ is going to become more extensive), their goal still seems to be focused on making money and supporting their other divisions (TVs, movies, etc.).

Click to shrink...

I agree with all this except for one point

I think retail copies of these games will be Xbox exclusive. The only way a playstation 5 will be able to play/buy CoD 2024 will be via gamepass on playstation. Perhaps retail stores will an unlock voucher on PS5 for the holiday shopping season, but that voucher will be for gamepass only.

 

[Tomacco]

Xbox is not Microsoft's goal. They're making these purchases because they want Game Pass to be the Netflix of Videogames and the more companies they own, the more guaranteed content they can get for their service without having to deal with licensing. Their end goal is to have Game Pass on every device, including Sony & Nintendo's consoles. Ultimately, they won't care where you're using Game Pass as long as they get their subscription fee. And they're not going to shoot themselves in the foot by paying huge amounts of money for popular multiplatform IPs and then making them exclusive to their own hardware.

Microsoft isn't playing console wars, they're playing an entirely different game. That's also why it doesn't make any sense for Nintendo or Sony to "retaliate" and start buying up companies. Nintendo's hardware & software is selling like crazy already and despite Microsoft's numerous acquisitions, they have very little software that directly competes against Nintendo's big hitters - Minecraft's pretty much it and they get Minecraft on the Switch without owning it. Likewise, Playstation is doing just fine and though there's signs that Sony may try to compete more directly with Game Pass (rumors that PS+ is going to become more extensive), their goal still seems to be focused on making money and supporting their other divisions (TVs, movies, etc.).

Click to shrink...

What's weird is making COD exclusive would be one of the only things MS can do to get Sony to allow GamePass on Playstation. I think people are downplaying how much $$$ this move removes from Sony's expected revenues going forward.

The other side of it is that for every customer MS can convince to go with Xbox over PS increases the price Sony will have to pay to continue getting some of their Console exclusive deals.

 

[Goldenroad]

Right. The FTC is going to come in and say "Call of Duty has to be on Playstation, Spiderman has to be on XBOX, and Mario has to be on Sega Dreamcast, or no video games for anyone". That's ridiculous. Companies pay for exclusivity constantly and not just in the video game or tech space. There is no way regulators get involved in video game console exclusivity. If it were going to happen it would have happened dozens, if not hundreds, of times over already.

 

[BranCrackr]

Just like their Bethesda deal, right?

So much coping happening right now.

 

[Jobbs]

Because they didn't pay $70 billion dollars for a business unit to acquire Halo, which they will have to write down as an asset value if it no longer generates the same amount of revenue.

Even Microsoft's shareholders might baulk slightly at that strategy.

Same reason why people in general think that Apple or Netflix should buy a film studio to get the rights for a load of films, which also never, ever happens because that doesn't make any sense from an asset write down perspective..

Click to shrink...

They're not interested in game sales really, they're interested in building up gamepass. That is to say they made this acquisition with the goal of looking to the future of gamepass, not to try and sell copies of games on playstation. If Playstation adds Gamepass then you'll play COD on it, otherwise I don't think so. Not in the future

 

[BassForever]

What's weird is making COD exclusive would be one of the only things MS can do to get Sony to allow GamePass on Playstation. I think people are downplaying how much $$$ this move removes from Sony's expected revenues going forward.

Click to shrink...

That's why I think it's just a matter of when, not if, CoD goes Xbox, PC, and "Gamepass" exclusive. Not only does it put Sony on the defensive, but Microsoft can pull the "we'd love to let Playstation fans play CoD on gamespass and we're willing to work with Sony to make that happen" card. Manipulate the fans into applying pressure from one end and have Microsoft & stock holders applying pressure from the other. If your Sony your option is lost ALL of the revenue or just lose some of the revenue.

 

[moriquendi]

A chance - sure. I don't think it's likely.

 

[lunanto]

Grasping at straws.

 

[Splader]

Lolwat

 

[RedOnePunch]

MS is now a huge publisher. You want Sony to have their games on their platform, Sony will have to agree to their terms.

 

[Vintage]

with respect to point number 1, I never understand this logic. "They have to have it on Playstation or they'll lose sales". Why isn't this logic applied to other things then? Keeping Halo off of Playstation is costing them sales. Put Halo and Gears on Playstation! They aren't doing that because they are trying to promote their own platforms over Sony. So you tell me they acquire a huge flagship game like COD and they're going to give it to the competitor's platform? I just don't believe it. Elder Scrolls/Fallout in the future won't come to Playstation and neither will COD after the deal is done and whatever existing obligations have been delivered

Click to shrink...

1. MS is already doing that, just with PC, not Playstation. You have Halo day 1 on Steam. They know the value of sales and visibility.
2. There are very little Halo fans on Playstation - small number of sales would not justify losing exclusivity.
3. Mainline Elder Scrolls/Fallout are definitely coming to Playstation.
4. Minecraft is still on all platforms and selling very well.

 

[Hurting Bomb]

Here we go again….
My prediction is MS will have no trouble whatsoever getting this through & it will end up in the same state as the Bethesda deal.

Warzone may stay multi console but everything else will be Xbox/PC exclusive, yes that includes future COD's.

 

[Stormy_One_Kenobi]

3. Mainline Elder Scrolls/Fallout are definitely coming to Playstation.

Click to shrink...

Pretty sure they have already said that anything new is exclusive to Game Pass. So if by the time those games come out Sony has allowed Game Pass on Playstation, thats how they get those games. If not, then they will not play them.

 

[Jarmel]

It's amazing to read the same posts as last year.

 

[Mad_Rhetoric]

lol the games are going to be Xbox/PC exclusive.

 

[ajoshi]

If we go back in time, take the infinity stones, use them to restore the multiplats, and place the stones back in their original timelines, we can stop Phil Spencer

 

[dglavimans]

I find it weird we have had this exact situation already with Bethesda and all their topics. We saw MS stance on that. WHY would it be any different here?

 

[NinjaScooter]

CoD titles are so evergreen that I could understand, moreso than with even Bethesda's stuff because they pump them out yearly, the idea that you'd have to continue to release them on multiple platforms to continue to draw the kind of revenue the franchise does on annual basis, however, Activision Blizzard (especially on the Activision side) is basically a CoD company. Yeah they pop out a Tony hawk or Crash every few years, and Diablo does well for them on consoles, but their business is driven by CoD Warzone and CoD annual releases. If they were to continue publishing those games on Playstation, then the only real advantage MS gains is having those same CoD annual releases day and date on GamePass, and while that's an advantage, is that something you pay $70 billion for? It just doesn't make sense. I could see Warzone continue to be supported on Playstation but post-2023 I'd be shocked if there were any mainline CoD games on Playstation. Yes that might "shrink" the CoD brand, yes that might mean they bring in less revenue from MTX, but that's not MS' end game. they are effectively treating these publisher purchases as loss leaders to drive GamePass growth.

 

[Iron Eddie]

All of these are Microsoft platforms though. That's where the regulation might kick in.

Click to shrink...

No. This isn't like the MLB license.

 

[EvilBoris]

Presumably such promises are irrelevant. MSFT aren't planning to not make money.
Shareholders will continue to make money , just under a larger company's shares instead?

 

[Joopster]

I think regulators will easily let this acquisition go through. The acquisition is divided between mobile, console and PC gaming, which I am sure regulators will note. Mobile games of King will not be exclusive to Xbox consoles and Microsoft also certainly will not come close to a monopoly on console, PC or mobile gaming. This is ofcourse just all my thinking and I am definitely no expert. Just seems to me regulators will definitely distinguish between atleast the mobile & console part of this acquisition.

 

[Chasex]

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.

Click to shrink...

The premise that analysts understand the situation more than an average ERA poster is incorrect. I'm very in tune with this as an equity holder of a startup who watched these idiots state the most ridiculous nonsense repeatedly for years. They almost always have interests in the outcome of the stock and steer it in certain ways.

There is zero chance regulators intervene in this. MS doesn't spend this money without thoroughly checking out the situation.

 

[Xiofire]

We live in a world where Disney can buy Fox.

This will go through fine.

 

[pswii60]

Microsoft's digital ecosystem gaming revenue is tiny compared to Google and Apple's. If Apple were acquiring AB, then might be a different story. Even after the AB acquisition MS' market share isn't anything close to be a concern under scrutiny.

Also their games will be on Steam, service-heavy games like Warzone (and likely Overwatch) will no doubt continue to be multi-plat, and King's games will continue to be available in Google and Apple's ecosystems.

 

[mael]

They can choose to ignore Gog and Epic Store, no reason they shouldn't be able to ignore PS and Nintendo's platform.

 

[Panic Freak]

The gaming market is much larger than consoles. Eventually, they'll put games on every device with a microprocessor. You'll be able to play Call of Duty on your smart refrigerator. I don't see how this deal won't pass the regulators.

 

[TooBusyLookinGud]

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.

Click to shrink...

Steam isn't a platform, Windows is. Steam is a storefront. You don't access Windows through Steam, you access Steam through Windows.

 

[Liliana]

Mainline Elder Scrolls/Fallout are definitely coming to Playstation.

Click to shrink...

Oh dear. Anyone want to break the news to him?

 

[Goldenroad]

3. Mainline Elder Scrolls/Fallout are definitely coming to Playstation.

Click to shrink...

OK. And God of War is coming to XBOX. I guess we can just say whatever we want here.

Pretty sure they have already said that anything new is exclusive to Game Pass. So if by the time those games come out Sony has allowed Game Pass on Playstation, thats how they get those games. If not, then they will not play them.

Click to shrink...

Nothing is exclusive to Game Pass, and I don't think anything ever will be. They are more than happy to sell you a game for $70 if that's the route you want to go. But also, future Bethesda, Double Fine, Obsidian and Activision Blizzard are not going to be on Playstation.

 

[Barius]

1. MS is already doing that, just with PC, not Playstation. You have Halo day 1 on Steam. They know the value of sales and visibility.
2. There are very little Halo fans on Playstation - small number of sales would not justify losing exclusivity.
3. Mainline Elder Scrolls/Fallout are definitely coming to Playstation.
4. Minecraft is still on all platforms and selling very well.

Click to shrink...

Sorry bud, new Elder Scrolls/Fallout games aren't coming to Playstation, just like Starfield isn't. It's just like what they're going to do with COD, the ones that are already out stay on Playstation, but new entries will not. Matt said in the other thread that the 2023 COD will be the last on Playstation (depending on when it gets announced).

 

[Vonocourt]

Are we really doing the whole song and dance again?

Spoken as someone who ate it on the Bethesda exclusivity... just stop.

 

[LavaBadger]

There will be some level of scrutiny here, but the reality is, there are too many factors working in MS's favor:

1. MS isn't the biggest player in the market, so making an argument they have a monopoly would likely fail on that alone (If they were buying Sony or something, there might be a different argument to be made).
2. They put their games on PC, including on the largest PC gaming marketplace, which they do not own.
3. They have supported their IP on other platforms (Minecraft) and likely still will in some circumstances (I could see Warzone remaining on all platforms for example).
4. They would probably argue that they would be happy to put ALL of their IP on competitor platforms, maybe even under the same % cut that platform owners currently get. Just allow them to put Gamepass on the platform. (Sony isn't going to want that.)

Removing Sony from the picture for a lot of their IP won't lead to a monopoly, and there are too many other angles from which to defend.

 

[TripleBee]

1. MS is already doing that, just with PC, not Playstation. You have Halo day 1 on Steam. They know the value of sales and visibility.
2. There are very little Halo fans on Playstation - small number of sales would not justify losing exclusivity.
3. Mainline Elder Scrolls/Fallout are definitely coming to Playstation.
4. Minecraft is still on all platforms and selling very well.

Click to shrink...

They have already specifically said the next Elder Scrolls is exclusive.