Microsoft buys Activision Blizzard

[Scaff]

Absolutely, there'd be some. There are some valid concerns about anti-trust WRT how much Microsoft has bought out developers, and the Kotick conundrum (which was already pretty cut and dry in terms of a resolution) but if anybody actually thinks that COD or Overwatch are going exclusive at any point then they are wrong. Likewise, pretty certain both parties more or less confirmed that the main intent of this deal is metaverse related, with King being a secondary benefit. The actual game franchises? Basically bonuses.

If the metaverse angle is the filet mignon, and the mobile potential the baked potato, then the franchises themselves are basically the side salad. And I seriously doubt that either of the two biggest names in this scenario go Xbox exclusive. But really...it all hinges on Sony. Considering how much the split in terms of player base on COD on console was titled towards Playstation (after it was the other way around for much of the previous generation by way of the DLC exclusivity arrangement with Microsoft) does Sony really believe that burning that potential player base simply because Microsoft is a publisher on the boot up screen is a good thing? They'd be absolutely silly to.

Even the worst COD title (which you could make the argument Vanguard is) is still a guaranteed top 3 seller on a console marketplace. Hell, pretty certain MW19 was still in the top 10 for PSN digital sales for 2021, and that was before the Vanguard integration borked the game hard. That's a lot of money to leave on the table if you are Sony, since it's clear Microsoft stopped giving a **** about appearing on other platforms.

Most commentators on this are speculating that Warzone remain multi-platform, with the annual CoD title itself going Xbox exclusive and popping up on Gamepass.

With Gamepass being the ultimate driver behind that and MS potentially trying to use it as leverage to get Sony to allow Gamepass on Playstation.

Is this speculation too far? Maybe, but one thing the industry has is a track record of big upsets coming out of nowhere. Let's me honest even after MS bought Bethesda no one had this on the cards as the next move, in the same way that Sony entering the market back in the '90s and then going on to turn Sega from a hardware giant to a multi-platform publisher was about as leftfield as it gets.

In my mind this purchase is potentially the start of a change to the industry on that kind of scale, note that I'm not saying that it will kill of Sony from a hardware perspective, just that what we see in the next few years I believe will be of that kind of scale.

 

[ImaRobot]

Most commentators on this are speculating that Warzone remain multi-platform, with the annual CoD title itself going Xbox exclusive and popping up on Gamepass.

A lot of the Warzone content itself is tied to the actual COD games itself - Multiple games, too. I mean, they could simply allow it in Warzone regardless if the game is actually released on that console or not, but that would seem weird. In my opinion, I feel what would happen here is that the timed exclusivity that PS has on the COD franchise will just be over and likely either not exist at all anymore, or switch to Xbox getting timed exclusivity instead.

 

[TypeRDC5]

Although I have no interest in any Activision games I wouldn't exactly miss them on playstation but the fact this deal is part of a move to get everything on gamepass and a Netflix style future for gaming annoys me.

Nothing against people who prefer digital but I will hold onto physical media for gaming as long as I possibly can.

 

[ImaRobot]

Although I have no interest in any Activision games I wouldn't exactly miss them on playstation but the fact this deal is part of a move to get everything on gamepass and a Netflix style future for gaming annoys me.

Nothing against people who prefer digital but I will hold onto physical media for gaming as long as I possibly can.

Why? Things on the Gamepass are readily available whenever you want, not just via Gamepass. Aside from Indie games, of course, if you're looking for a physical version. Even Netflix itself hasn't changed that.

 

[Scaff]

A lot of the Warzone content itself is tied to the actual COD games itself - Multiple games, too.

It is now, doesn't mean it has to remain that way.

I mean, they could simply allow it in Warzone regardless if the game is actually released on that console or not, but that would seem weird. In my opinion, I feel what would happen here is that the timed exclusivity that PS has on the COD franchise will just be over and likely either not exist at all anymore, or switch to Xbox getting timed exclusivity instead.

MS could most likely have achieved that, if that's the aim, a lot cheaper. They've overpaid for Activision by a good 40%, not something they are going to recoup via timed exclusivity, MS has a bigger, longer play in mind here, that I'm quite convinced about.

 

[kjb]

It is now, doesn't mean it has to remain that way.


MS could most likely have achieved that, if that's the aim, a lot cheaper. They've overpaid for Activision by a good 40%, not something they are going to recoup via timed exclusivity, MS has a bigger, longer play in mind here, that I'm quite convinced about.

Of course they do. That might have something up there sleevs that we don't have any idea about. I do believe this is more about the mobile space than anything else.

 

[ImaRobot]

It is now, doesn't mean it has to remain that way.


MS could most likely have achieved that, if that's the aim, a lot cheaper. They've overpaid for Activision by a good 40%, not something they are going to recoup via timed exclusivity, MS has a bigger, longer play in mind here, that I'm quite convinced about.

Certainly doesn't, but it seems easy for them to throw content at a game that's already made for a different game, otherwise they'd have to produce their own unique content if it doesn't remain that way. They both seem like plausible outcomes, but I'm leaning more towards the former.

As for the overpaying, if @MikeV27 is correct about Warzone MTx, $5mil a day on MTX could very well be seen as something beneficial to recoup overtime, especially for a free game that basically uses content from other games rather than make it's own, aside from the map. Just don't know if there's a source for that number. Although, I'm wondering if they can keep Warzone interesting for that long for it to even be viable. Then there's COD Mobile, which apparently made $1billion in revenue

Seeing as the COD Franchise is likely the star of this acquisition, I don't see making it an exclusive to be beneficial if they're worried about recouping that money. The other games, while still good, don't seem to hold a candle to the series. I'm wondering how much WoW makes in mtx? Usually games like that also have a nice income from things like that. Diablo, while used to being a main game from Blizzard, and while being relatively popular among them, likely wont be doing as good as something like COD. D3 sold something like 30 million by 2015, but that was one game, but COD releases every year and it looks like they've been making 20-30 Million a game for a bit of time, although the later games seems to be slowly dropping.

All in all though, it can go either way at this point.

 

[TypeRDC5]

Why? Things on the Gamepass are readily available whenever you want, not just via Gamepass. Aside from Indie games, of course, if you're looking for a physical version. Even Netflix itself hasn't changed that.

They kind of tried the digital license thing with the xbox one.

I fear in the future they will turn everything digital only or gamepass only, certainly seems that is their intention to me anyway.

 

[ImaRobot]

They kind of tried the digital license thing with the xbox one.

I fear in the future they will turn everything digital only or gamepass only, certainly seems that is their intention to me anyway.

So far, both streaming services and physical games are coexisting just fine.

 

[TypeRDC5]

So far, both streaming services and physical games are coexisting just fine.

Hence why I said I feared that is their plan for the future, I didnt mention past or present.

 

[Scaff]

Certainly doesn't, but it seems easy for them to throw content at a game that's already made for a different game, otherwise they'd have to produce their own unique content if it doesn't remain that way. They both seem like plausible outcomes, but I'm leaning more towards the former.

As for the overpaying, if @MikeV27 is correct about Warzone MTx, $5mil a day on MTX could very well be seen as something beneficial to recoup overtime, especially for a free game that basically uses content from other games rather than make it's own, aside from the map. Just don't know if there's a source for that number. Although, I'm wondering if they can keep Warzone interesting for that long for it to even be viable. Then there's COD Mobile, which apparently made $1billion in revenue

Seeing as the COD Franchise is likely the star of this acquisition, I don't see making it an exclusive to be beneficial if they're worried about recouping that money. The other games, while still good, don't seem to hold a candle to the series. I'm wondering how much WoW makes in mtx? Usually games like that also have a nice income from things like that. Diablo, while used to being a main game from Blizzard, and while being relatively popular among them, likely wont be doing as good as something like COD. D3 sold something like 30 million by 2015, but that was one game, but COD releases every year and it looks like they've been making 20-30 Million a game for a bit of time, although the later games seems to be slowly dropping.

All in all though, it can go either way at this point.

Even those numbers don't justify a price of near $70bn, even if you haul in $5m a day on MTX.

 

[ImaRobot]

Hence why I said I feared that is their plan for the future, I didnt mention past or present.

Hence why I questioned it, because nothing has happened for the past decade and what has happened hasn't changed anything.

Even those numbers don't justify a price of near $70bn, even if you haul in $5m a day on MTX.

Nearly 2 billion a year at a minimum doesn't seem like something minor for a game that is borrowing almost all of it's content from other games. And that is literally just Warzone, out of all the things I mentioned. Either way, you and I don't know what is or isn't justified here, really - We're all just playing a guessing game.

 

[SestoScudo]

Even if Cod is not exclusive it can also have content shaved off not just modes but also weapons.

Imagine if certain weapons are only for xbox nothing else.

Remember the cod mw 2019 debacle where sony locked survival mode. A dangerous predcedent has already been opened and its going to get worse.

What happens with car games??

 

[ImaRobot]

Even if Cod is not exclusive it can also have content shaved off not just modes but also weapons.

Imagine if certain weapons are only for xbox nothing else.

Remember the cod mw 2019 debacle where sony locked survival mode. A dangerous predcedent has already been opened and its going to get worse.

What happens with car games??

Timed exclusives are not new within the COD Universe. Sony has them now, but before that, over a decade ago, Microsoft used to have it. Literally nothing has changed there except the fact that it keeps switching sides.

What car games, and what's the relevance here?

 

[kjb]

Even if Cod is not exclusive it can also have content shaved off not just modes but also weapons.

Imagine if certain weapons are only for xbox nothing else.

Remember the cod mw 2019 debacle where sony locked survival mode. A dangerous predcedent has already been opened and its going to get worse.

What happens with car games??

What car games?

 

[SestoScudo]

What car games?

What happens if Ms feels the need to take certain brands as exclusive especially for Forza Motorsport and Horizon.

 

[Tornado]

What does that have to do with the Activision purchase? Sony didn't buy Blizzard and PD buys up exclusive licences that they don't even use.

 

[Silver Arrows]

Even if Cod is not exclusive it can also have content shaved off not just modes but also weapons.

Which was already done. And both Activision and Infinity Ward/Treyarch learned their lesson from that.

Imagine if certain weapons are only for xbox nothing else.

Never going to happen, ever, considering how fast people latch onto the meta in COD. You are basically asking for trouble in that instance.

Remember the cod mw 2019 debacle where sony locked survival mode. A dangerous predcedent has already been opened and its going to get worse.

No one cared for Survival mode, and no one certainly cared for Onslaught mode in Cold War, so I don't exactly know how much of a precedent it actually sets.

What happens with car games??

Again, never going to happen. You are basically asking for a **** storm of massive proportions. Moreover...even if you are given more money for exclusitivity, most marquees have realized that restricting your cars to one game is ultimately detrimental to getting your brand out there.

What does that have to do with the Activision purchase? Sony didn't buy Blizzard and PD buys up exclusive licences that they don't even use.

Also this. And, might I add, simply so that other developers can't use it and ultimately do better with it.

 

[Zaccheus]

We will know for sure only after the deal closes next year, but unless Sony lets Game Pass to come to Playstation (they won’t) I’m sure all the future Activision Blizzard releases will be Xbox/PC exlusives. It’s not about money now, it’s about marketshare and money in the future.

It’s Netflix all over, it will take a decade before Microsoft will have competition if they can ensure the content now. Of course MS is not going to say any of this now.

 

[ArR29]

"If you can't beat em, buy em"

Microsoft has lost all creativity and rather than grooming and growing a small team of game developers, they buy one of the largest ones. It's a little hilarious actually.

They're abusing their monopoly powers and they're limiting games from being released on other platforms but I don't see any huge backlash about it so I guess it's all fine. An act of desperation, perhaps?

 

[Blitz24]

What happens if Ms feels the need to take certain brands as exclusive especially for Forza Motorsport and Horizon.

Then racing games are magically transported back about a decade as the "Ferrari and Porsche at EA legacy" rears its ugly head.

Regardless, this has nothing to do with Activision-Blizzard.

 

[ArR29]

What happens if Ms feels the need to take certain brands as exclusive especially for Forza Motorsport and Horizon.

That's pretty much where we are heading? They bought Activision, there's nothing stopping them from doing this.

 

[Famine]

Anyone 'member when he said MS would "honor existing agreements" with the Bethesda purchase? I 'member.

What happens if Ms feels the need to take certain brands as exclusive especially for Forza Motorsport and Horizon.

Same thing that's repeatedly happened in the past with other exclusives (nearly happened with Ford - fun story). No idea what MS buying ABK has to do with that given that it didn't previously.

 

[Com Fox]

Anyone 'member when he said MS would "honor existing agreements" with the Bethesda purchase? I 'member.

Same thing that's repeatedly happened in the past with other exclusives (nearly happened with Ford - fun story). No idea what MS buying ABK has to do with that given that it didn't previously.

Just means current projects will still be multiplatform but new projects later on can easily be not on Playstation or Nintendo consoles right? (though I think Nintendo might be OK with some of the IPs like Crash and Spyro with their recent History of using Microsofts more cartoony IPs)

 

[Silver Arrows]

That's pretty much where we are heading? They bought Activision, there's nothing stopping them from doing this.

Give proof as to this is where we are heading. Because I don't see it or any modern precedent for going that route that would be beneficial.

I wonder how many people would champion this if the title read 'Sony' and not 'Microsoft'.

Also this, once more.

 

[ImaRobot]

They're abusing their monopoly powers and they're limiting games from being released on other platforms but I don't see any huge backlash about it so I guess it's all fine. An act of desperation, perhaps?

Wow you might be on to something! If it weren’t for the fact that it didn’t happen.

 

[Famine]

Just means current projects will still be multiplatform but new projects later on can easily be not on Playstation or Nintendo consoles right?

That's what the same statement meant for Bethesda properties - stuff that was signed and contracted prior to the aquisition remained multiplat, but future stuff (Starfield, TES6, whatever the next Fallout will be) is all MS only.

If the same holds true for Activision, whatever's after COD Vanguard will remain multiplat, but don't hold out too much hope for the one after that.


Not that COD has been any good since MW2, mind.

 

[Silver Arrows]

Wow you might be on to something! If it weren’t for the fact that it didn’t happen.

If anything, it's clear Microsoft doesn't give a **** about whether their games appear on other platforms. The onus is on Sony in this case.

Literally, Sony would have probably burned a bridge with a major rights license holder (MLB, in this case) because they were asked to make their game multi-platform, and they had to be majorly convinced.

 

[Northstar]

In my opinion the best way for Sony to respond is to start releasing all of their games on PC. I'm not just saying that because I have a gaming PC and not a console either (ok, I'm totally saying it for that reason).

I don't see any huge backlash about it so I guess it's all fine.

Probably because Microsoft isn't even close to a gaming monopoly and console exclusive games are not a new concept?

 

[Terronium-12]

Speaking of, can we please stop misusing the word monopoly? It's not a monopoly, nor is it close to threatening one.

It's a business conglomerate, if anything.