Status
Not open for further replies.

Witness

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
9,982
New York
My PS5 to my Series S in late 2020: Hey little guy, you're just for GP indies and Halo

My Series S to my PS5 Jan 2022:

captain-phillips-boat-hijack.gif

That's perfect 😂
 

iceatcs

Member
Oct 30, 2017
374
Now isn't the time. They are still in the market growth phase. People who think this is about console wars are thinking way too small.

This is about starving Stadia, Luna, Nvidia, etc of content so that Game Pass will be the default game streaming service. Give it another year or two and major electronics such as TVs will ship as "GamePass enabled" Just buy a controller (or use your smartphone) and you are off and running.
I feel it is all about MS vs Sony on stream market. Nothing else.
 
Mar 8, 2018
1,161
Regarding Kotick: It's pretty standard to keep a CEO through the closing of an acquisition, and then to dump them after. If you think about it, it makes sense. The cost of onboarding a totally new management team during a corporate transition is insanely high, even when the existing management is bad. You need to keep the team with the existing institutional knowledge in order to pilot the firm through the merger process. After that, they can be disposed of at a much lower cost.
 

entremet

You wouldn't toast a NES cartridge
Member
Oct 26, 2017
61,527
lol at people thinking MS spent 70 billion to keep CoD on their biggest rival.
 
Feb 1, 2018
5,301
Europe
Pretty much, I said it earlier and I'll say it again. I do not see how Sony can compete with this in the long run without buying Take Two plus one or two smaller Square Enix level publishers.

They desperately need to get the checkbook out because this won't be the last Microsoft purchase.
Nintendo seems to be doing quite well and they don't own zillions of first party companies.

This is a deal for GP, not to kill Sony.
 

Rick44-4

Member
Oct 8, 2020
1,325
I hate the direction the industry is going in, every publisher is going to be acquired by 3 or 4 companies and I don't know why anyone would like that tbh.
 

Iztok

Member
Oct 27, 2017
6,228
"everything else " = what's not COD. And yes of course it will come to Steam (why not ?).

Minecraft didn't stay multiplat because of the money, it's still multiplat to stay relevant and ot being eaten by Roblox.

Same will happen to COD that could be 100% replaced outside of the MS ecosystem by anything already existing (PUBG) or yet to happen (future Battlefield spin off?).

Minecraft stayed multiplat because it already was multiplat.
Same as COD:MW or COD:Vanguard will stay multiplat - they won't pull them from people who bought them on Playstation - that's not how this works.

Exclusivity begins with NEW games. I thought this was clear, but obviously not.
 

Pyro

God help us the mods are making weekend threads
Member
Jul 30, 2018
14,641
United States
What bothers me about folks saying "MS won't make CoD exclusive, it's too much money being left on the table" is that they don't consider this:

If you make it exclusive, that's not just a copy of the game sold or rather played through GP. That's a console sold which, at $300-$500 is the equivalent of at LEAST 4 copies of the game sold. If it's the Series S then they're guaranteed a 30% cut of anything bought on it throughout its life. And if they're getting a GamePass subscription they're most likely going to stay with how much content you've invested in and pay you money EVERY MONTH, not just every couple years.

If MS ONLY wanted to make money and not be competitive (or in this case drive competition out IMO), they would continue to sit back and collect 30% of a billion dollars worth of CoD games and DLC sold every year.

MS is nowhere near a monopoly in gaming. They are now the 3rd largest gaming company when this deal closes. Hard to hit them for antitrust when they aren't the dominant company in the market.

If they get CoD I think you could make a case for it tbh, especially since they're going to make it exclusive.
 

Demeisen

Member
Mar 11, 2021
243
Activision Blizzard had annual revenue of 8 billion in 2020 so this deal will take around 8.5 years for MS to recoup their investment before taking into account revenue growth they'll see from Gamepass or just in general. That's not bad at all.

No, that's revenue, not profits. Assuming zero growth, it'll take far longer to earn back $70b.

That said, whilst it's a decent premium to the share price, it's not outrageous. ACTI's EBITA was ~$3.2b last year, so this is a ~22x multiple. Compare that to Zenimax/Bethesda, where estimated EBITDA was ~$300m, which implies a ~25x multiple.
 

thepenguin55

Member
Oct 28, 2017
12,058
Wouldn't be surprised if they started to use Battle.net as their dedicated PC launcher but I'm hoping they'll bring all of the Activision-Blizzard games to Steam as well!
That would be nice. Certainly opens the door for that. Even if they wanted to convert the Bethesda launcher to a dedicated GamePass and xCloud launcher with Battle.net becoming the store front for all things MS that would be a huge improvement.
 

Servbot24

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
43,539
Remember: Megacorporation acquisitions and wide-scale industry conglomeration are great news for You, The Gamer

Screen-Shot-2022-01-18-at-9-02-54-AM.png
 

kurt

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
1,747
They haven't. The difference between Starfield and Warzone is there is an established population to the game that is needed to keep that game a massive hit. Microsoft doesn't need to keep the multiplayer games off of the PlayStation to convert gamers. Gamepass is going to to that for them

Thats all wishfull thinking here.
& i think they should do it if they want to convert gamers.
 

Deleted member 15395

Unshakable Resolve
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
3,145
Insane amounts of copium here, there's absolutely no way in hell Sony ever sees a new CoD game on the platform ever again. Warzone is probably the only exception.

Guess I'll never get to play OW2 though, on the flipside this could mean a new lease on life for Starcraft.
 
Oct 30, 2017
8,790
I hate Activision Blizzard and don't like Microsoft buying them, but 'it kills competition' is a complete surface level take for me. Like, what about making Xbox an actually competing platform behind Nintendo and Sony kills competition? Xbox building a portfolio has created many games over the past years that wouldn't exist or be as popular otherwise.
Where will you draw the line here? How many other publishers would they need? How many more studios than the competition do they need?
 

Deleted member 22750

Oct 28, 2017
13,267
right now Sony is discussing whether or not they can afford Microsoft on their platform gobbling up % of their profits from in game purchases
 

Legacy

One Winged Slayer
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
15,704
Call of Duty is 100% going Xbox exclusive. Why would MS pay $68.7 billion to keep Call of Duty on their main competitor's console? MS paid that much specifically to make Call of Duty, among other franchises, Xbox/PC exclusive.
I can't see it, COD prints money on Playstation. Make it free on GP and full price on PS5
 
Status
Not open for further replies.