Talking Point: Do You Think Microsoft Will Be Able To Acquire Activision Blizzard?

I think it could go through. Nintendo and Valve signing the 10 year deal with Microsoft probably means they support the Microsoft-Activision deal.

Also I think maybe the regulators will be somewhat satisfied with this.

It looked a dead cert at first, then the many probing investigations made it seem in doubt.
That said, after today's news I'm fairly sure it will go through. MS seem determined to take it through the respective courts if it's "unfairly" blocked so I think it's a matter of when not if.

112% going through. The deal will save Blizzard from Bobby and management, devs from remaining to be CoD slaves, PC & Xbox users from getting the worst versions of games because of exclusivity contracts, and cheapskates like me from spending $70 because GP. Plus with Nintendo & Steam also benefiting from this, it'll be the best thing to happen to gaming in a long damn while!

I actually don't care either way anymore. If it happens yay if not shrug and I go on about my life as before.

It's all just meaningless noise to me from the involved parties at this point. I don't have the energy or desire to follow anymore.

Let me know when it's done one way or the other but until then I'm good ignoring the whole thing from now on.

I really don't see any scenario where it is outright blocked. There is a small chance they will need to add another concession since these 10 year deals aren't really a concession, it was their plan all along to keep cod multiplat. They have said as much since the deal was announced. They are doing a good job of framing it as a concession tho.

I think it goes through as is though. If any one of the big remaining regulators FTC, CMA, etc folds then the others probably will too.

MS’ lawyers have earned their fee with how they’ve positioned this. They have the biggest install bases in PC and Nintendo onboard, it now makes Sony the outlier not willing to negotiate.

America will pass the deal obviously but its more 50/50 in the UK and Europe. I think the deal will go through though and then maybe we can talk about great games every week instead of this deal.

One thing is pretty much certain though, if this goes through I doubt Microsoft will be able to make another publisher acquisition for many many years.

It’ll go through, regardless of how Sony debases itself with their whining and hypocrisy.

I think it will. With Nintendo and Valve expressing confidence and trust in MS’s handling of the process, Sony’s protests are starting to look anti-competitive. Especially if Microsoft is willing to sign legally binding deals with Nintendo and Valve.

@UnusedBabyWipes Nintendo and Valve signed the contract which means they support the deal (Activision-Microsoft) probably

@Snake_V5 PlayStation is basically committing "goodwill suicide" atm with all the nonsense spewing out their mouth. They've essentially ruined their relationship with Activision and if for some ungodly reason they stop it, they'll ruin future enjoyment from Nintendo fans and GP subscribers. All in the name of greed for a multiplatform series THAT. WILL. REMAIN. MULTIPLATFORM. Ain't no way Microsoft will be to blame for PlayStation's "death" that'll never happen, at least for this reason. If Nintendo can remain successful this far without CoD, so can the #1 console maker.

@UnusedBabyWipes You heard what Sony said, COD needs to remain independent. If this deal gets stopped it's a big win for Sony and PlayStation because it means everything stays the same as it's always been. No longer will it be the case of Sony losing millions of dollars thus threatening the state of PlayStation. They will no longer be under threat anymore which is good for Sony and PlayStation.

@Snake_V5 It’ll be good for Playstation and only Playstation. Not the various creative teams thrown in the COD mines like Toys For Bob or Vicarious Visions, not Nintendo who now stands to gain a franchise on their systems, not the employees under Activision that have been used and abused and will continue to exist that way should the company remain ‘independent’. Hell, not even Activision as a whole which wants to sell.

Why don’t you go back to Push Square, seems like that’s more your speed.

Of course it will. Once again, this will not be stopped because of one baby crying and withering on the floor. They just need some time to give him a warm bottle of milk to shut him up, unfortunately.

The deal will go through. The only question I might have is what concessions will be asked if Microsoft, besides the 10 year CoD promise already on the table.

@Sakisa I’m not too confident anymore that the teams currently involved in CoD will be “freed” from working on the IP. I am highly doubting MS will try to change the yearly cycle, so those resources will continue to be needed to keep up the pace.

Only way things would change is if MS throws a LOT of money at recruitment to increase the size of existing teams.

Yeah I think it’ll go through, not as smoothly as I originally thought, but I think it still will.

@Snake_V5 why do you think the PlayStation brand is that weak that losing COD will end them and are you okay with things as they are now where Sony use their dominant market position and money to keep content away from the competition when it comes to COD?

@Snake_V5 It's not a threat to PS, it's merely a setback for them. They'll adjust & adapt to stay relevant like any other business. They have Deviation's game as well as many other shooter IPs with the dev power to back them up. Competition leads to more creativity in terms of staying ahead (GP probably wouldn't have happened if the XBONE era went well and the PS+ tiers wouldn't exist if it weren't for GP). Now I say it's about time for PS to make another non 3rd-person game. No matter what happens, the PlayStation brand will survive.

@Tharsman I’ll admit that’s most likely wishful thinking on my part, but it’s a genuine waste of platforming talent that could be used for Spyro or Crash or hell, even Banjo.

I do hope at the very least MS disperses talent wisely while not being as draconian as Activision was with their employees.

Yes, it will go through everywhere in the end I believe. The CMA and the EU will approve with concessions.

No, exclusive is way of the playstation and they don't want anybody else but themselves and their players exclusiveness.

it will go through with concessions. just as any major merger has to make.

again for all the fanboys, CoD is smallfry in this deal. MS will happily make concessions.

the $$ is all in king.

Yeah it will go through for sure, always destined to be a done deal. However, that doesn't mean i don't have any concerns. I'm not a huge cod fan, but with MS track record, they do tend to ruin franchises. I can't name one they have bought out that has actually succeeded.

From the start there's been nothing worthy brought up to show this is anything but a positive move. Sony is naturally worried, Blockbuster worried some would say, but that's because it forces competition and change upon them when they are happy with thing's as they are now. From an investor, employee and consumer standpoint this is good. From the existing market leader it's bad...so everything says it's good for competition.

Come on Diablo baby! Can't wait to play it in gamepass.

As a stupid idiot who doesn’t know anything, my opinion is that it should be allowed to go through, no government should have the power to stop free trade from happening.

I get the usual concern about creating monopolies and metaverses, but this can only benefit Nintendo fans.

Sony’s just upset that they have to pay to keep one of their few good games.

I don't think this deal will be outright blocked, I believe the regulators will negotiate with Microsoft and eventually come to a compromise. And Microsoft seems very open for compromise.

@Snake_V5 if Sony stops the Deal, seeing as they actually can, which I doubt. Activision is going to be upset with sony and make things way worse for them. Then MS is going to make sure any one Sony tries and buys deals with they will outbid or be aggressive towards. Like it’s not smart business for Sony to pout their way out of competition. The industry is behind this deal more than many give credit towards and activision has been very vocal that they will fight to get this deal done.

@Sakisa they've shown so far that their philosophy is "hands off, let them make what they want to make", how we got Grounded and Pentiment. It will take a while to find out if that holds true for ABK though as they've already got COD in the pipeline for several projects for the next several years.

I would guess, based on Phil saying, and I can't remember exactly so paraphrasing, "we'll take into consideration the release schedule for COD" and his comments on wanting to see dormant IP resuscitated, we'll at least see that to some extent. That is all likely 5-10 years down the line though so there won't be any immediate answer unless they explicitly make it known after this closes.

The poll doesn't have the option "I don't care anymore". Seriously, after what nonsense stuff Sony has done and all the articles we have read it all feels like a waste of time and I am so bored of this stuff that steals time from reviews and game announcements. To be honest I would much prefer if the sites stopped covering it.

Now, to be fair I am not a fan of games from this company so I may be in the minority. Weren't we supposed to boycott Activision anyway due to some scandal? Also, how can the EU or the UK stop a USA company from buying a USA company?

@Tharsman I can see a lot of those devs maybe creating/joining a union, since Microsoft has stated that it will stay neutral to such, and asking for 2 year or more COD cycles, longer development time, more freedom to work on varied ip’s, etc. Then again Xbox may just stay hands off like with their first party studios and let the Activision-Blizzard teams do whatever they want outside of COD cycles.

Wouldn't it be interesting if it turned out that Activision had some kind of deal in place to publish the next couple of Sekiro games?

@AdamCorela unions don’t help you pick what you get to work on, it’s about humane working conditions, sick and vacation leave and stuff like that. You don’t call your union representatives to ask them to put you to work on a different project.

I feel like it'll happen. Even with all the drama.

@stvevan Yeah people seem to forget that King is the big earner here and the EU/UK have real concerns with the duopoly of Apple and Google in the mobile space. MS getting a market foothold there will help to ease this deal through.

@CunningPig I absolutely LOVE Obsidian under Microsoft's umbrella.

Grounded 1.0 is legit tied with Triangle Strategy for GOTY for me, and Pentiment is a triumph of storytelling. I know it may take a while for the ABK merger to really produce creative results outside of the box (Which Playstation was good at before a Mr. Jim Ryan took the helm) but I am hopeful.

All this nonsense over CoD… Who’s to say that the franchise will last ten years at this pace. 🤷🏻‍♂️

I agree with the majority it will go thru. The US is a slam dunk. The UK might require some more restrictions, but only because the regulatory body has expressed their own personal bias in favor of Sony.

As long as MS agrees to let CoD stay on Sony indefinitely, they will give in. It's all pretty much grandstanding at this point to see how many concessions they can get. The Nintendo deal much sealed it.

Sony is in no danger of going out of business because of the loss of one franchise, no matter how popular. 🙄

The problem is Gamepasses dominant position in the market and the activision deal will only enhance its position and thats what monopolies and mergers dont like

I think it's going to go through eventually. Maybe take a little time, but it'll be approved with only the most minor of caveats. I don't think they'll be forced to divest some other studios, etc.

Now personally I wish it WOULDN'T go through. We've got enough problems as it is with the entertainment industry as a whole being consolidated into a handful of conglomerates, and the only people that can do anything are these big government agencies. Sadly they rarely seem to take action.

I am fairly confident that this deal will go through - even more so now that there are likely to be a formal and legally binding agreement to not only keep CoD on PS, but to also bring it to other platforms. Agreeing to keep it on Steam, on PS and 'bring' it to Nintendo, a Platform CoD has been absent on for years, is hardly reducing the consumer choice of where they 'wish'' to play CoD.

Its not about whether Sony 'loses' sales of CoD - which is 'likely' given the fact that gamers will have MORE choice and won't feel like they have to buy it on PS to get the 'full' package, Its about the 'consumer' and their 'choice' of Platform.

The fact is that if this deal goes through, it will be better for the 'vast' majority of gamers who can now choose to play the game on their preferred hardware, with their preferred friends etc. If you prefer to game on ANY platform other than PS right now, you are either out of luck completely or you get short-changed because Sony paid to keep content off your preferred platform. If/when the deal goes through, EVERY gamer gets the Same content at the same time on their platform of choice.

PS fans are not going to give up their Library of games, their Trophies, their friends etc just so they can play CoD via Game Pass. It doesn't make sense to Subscribe for just CoD - its 'cheaper' to buy it if you intend to play it more than 6months or so. The fact its still available on BOTH PS and Xbox, Same content day and date, same price to buy will not affect peoples decision. It will still come down to the Exclusives.

Minecraft is the Biggest Selling game ever. Its available on Game Pass as are the Spin-offs but you don't see Minecraft fans abandoning PS since MS acquired Mojang. In fact Minecraft (and its Spin-offs) doesn't even get mentioned because it doesn't matter what hardware you buy, you'll still be able to play Minecraft.

The whole argument seems to be that Sony 'expects' their entire CoD gamers to suddenly give up all their Playstation history, their library of games, trophies etc, not want to play their first Party games like Spider-man, Wolverine, Last of Us etc in favour of getting CoD through a Subscription Service instead of staying with their preferred platform and buying CoD like they always have...

It’ll go through, they have no argument now. Everyone was complaining about COD, Microsoft has fixed that. Sony and the regulators will now look utterly stupid if they continue on their previous lines of its bad for gamers and ga img if COD is owned by Microsoft, because millions may lose access to it. Instead of now which is millions more WILL have access to it.

@trev666 Sony dominates the games market with consoles. Thencent dominates the entire gaming market. Game Pass is a small thing compared to those dominance’s. It’s no argument really.

@UltimateOtaku91 This deal won’t stop them acquiring anyone else, why should it? If they have the money they have the ability to buy, it’s up to the regulators if they allow them through, but of course if they are smaller ones I doubt regulators will take much interest.
Microsoft I think has several others yet they will acquire.

@themightyant I'm sure that there will be investment by major Publishers - not Just those with a Platform. However, that won't necessarily lead to 2 or 3 companies with ALL the games. New studio's and independent developers are springing up all the time - Glen Schofield for example has set up another Studio and made Callisto Protocol having formed Sledgehammer after leaving Visceral Games. Tencent is still the largest gaming company and Embracer Group too has a lot of Studio's/IP's so the chances of one company monopolising gaming when there are so many Publishers, so many studios, more and more people making 'games' independently etc...

@themightyant I don't think we will see 'just' 1 system with CoD or any other game. You may need multiple Subscriptions to play 'every' game you want, but you won't be limited by your choice of Hardware.

In the event of Consoles becoming 'obsolete' due to the fact that people are accessing games via a Subscription service, direct to their TV, if that is their preferred access point for games, CoD will be available there through Game Pass. Its not 'blocking' you from playing on your preferred System. So its not available on Playstations Subscription service through your TV, but that's not stopping you from being able to play CoD on that 'device'.

Netflix and Disney+ have their own exclusives too but its not as if you need to buy a 'specific' platform to access content - you decide whether or not to subscribe based on the content they have. Its not like you have to buy a Playstation if you want Netflix exclusives but Xbox has Disney+. That same content is available on ANY device.

The same will likely happen with gaming. If you prefer to game on your TV, your PC, your Mobile/Tablet etc, the games will be available. If you want to play Destiny, Spider-Man etc, you'll sub to Playstation, want to play CoD, Starfield etc you'll sub to game pass.

Point is, if you are 'gaming' on any platform, CoD will be available to play. If PS gamers are no longer gaming on a PS console, accessing games through 'their' TV as their 'main' gaming device, CoD is available through a Subscription so those gamers can still access it on their 'preferred' platform. MS will 'sell' CoD on PS hardware so if people are gaming on that console, its still going to be available...

Even if we get to a point where 2 or 3 companies are providing all the games via streaming, you, as a consumer, can still access EVERY game on your preferred device. Want to play CoD? Sub to the service its on, same with Uncharted or GTA or whatever other games you enjoy.. Its not like you'll need to go out and buy 'Hardware' just to play a game...

I think it's a done deal after Nintendo jumped on board. That was pretty much the biggest asterisk, I mean Sony is a big part of the industry but Nintendo has arguably gotta have the biggest presence right now with how many Switch's they have sold and continue to sell. Any argument Sony had blocking it was appealing to what's best for the industry and the competition. Well you can't get bigger competition than Nintendo, and they are all for it. Sony looks like the one who is trying to screw with competition now. Pretty much everyone is supporting this deal besides them now, and all Sony can do is cry about how they can't control everything. It's really looking pathetic on their end, like they can't handle the competition so they gotta try to screw everyone over. Not a good look.

@Snake_V5 Sony can never win this one! Even if the deal doesn't go through they will lose at the end. Even if COD would stay indepent, MS is never going to let the amount of devs work on those titles forever. Sony will lose all goodwill at Activision, already did now with MS because of blocking games from GP which MS thinks it's the future (big investement). Sony will lose millions because MS will not let them make millions on their account. There are limits on Sony's demands (surprised how Sony gets to influence the regulators at this point as a number 1 in the industry = as if regulators have a lot of Sony shares)
MS has been "the good guy" for many years now & it finally pays off. I hope they will stay that way on don't do a Sony post PS4!

Don't really care to be honest.

@themightyant We are talking about over a decade from now. With the way bandwidth and speeds are increasing on average, there is less likely to be streaming limitations reducing the 'quality' of the experience. It doesn't matter 'how' complex or 'big' a game gets, with streaming, there is a 'fixed' bandwidth requirement to deliver 4k/120 fps.

In a decade, Consoles could cost a LOT more than $500 to play games at more than 1080/60 to play the latest games. 2yrs into this gen, and these '$500' consoles are not much 'better' than Streaming. Yes they can deliver a sharper image - great if you have a 4k TV. You get 60fps (if the game has a 60fps mode) as standard because they don't use the 'graphics' mode - pointless as its mostly resolution boosts.

If you want to play CoD for example, you still need to buy 'hardware' and that game. If you can play all your games for a small monthly fee, or spend say $750+ on Hardware, Game and an 'online' Subscription (Gold/PS+) to play a 'selection' of games, most of which you could play without the Hardware, will people still be buying Consoles.

If I want to Play Starfield or MSFS for example, I don't 'need' to spend money on an Xbox/PC at all. OK so it might not be the 'best' option right now because its not the 'best' graphically, but its convenient as you can play on ANY device, not just your TV, mobile or tablet, then it becomes about whether the 'cost' and 'benefits' of playing on Hardware outweighs the cost, benefits and convenience of the Sub model.

To use Starfield again as an example, to play that at its 'console' best, I need to buy a Series X and spend $70 to buy the game - I assume it won't require Gold and that would mean I could play on console 'only'. However, with a Game Pass Subscription, I can play on ANY hardware that Game Pass is available on - inc Series consoles for a small monthly price - even a PC which could offer even better graphical settings and higher frame-rates.

This is a 'hypothetical' future where 'Streaming' is the predominant way of accessing your games. It doesn't matter if its 'NOT' on Playstation Consoles because they don't exist and those gamers will still have access to CoD on their preferred device.

If you are gaming on a TV via Streaming, that is your preferred gaming platform and CoD will be available there. As a 'consumer', you are not forced to buy specific hardware to play certain games, they are 'all' available on that device. Its not like you as a consumer won't be able to play because you bought the 'wrong' hardware to play that game, that game is available on the device you want to play games on.

That's no different from the near future in effect because if you want to play CoD on Playstation Consoles, even Nintendo or Steam, you can and will be able to do so - for at least the next decade. However, unlike today where CoD is 'ONLY' available on PC, Xbox and PS, you'll be able to play on ANY device. Its not 'taking away' options to access CoD on your preferred device, its ensuring CoD will be available on your 'preferred' device, with the SAME content day and date. If your preferred device is PC/Xbox/Switch etc, you currently don't get that...

If Sony get out of the Hardware game, its no longer a 'unique' platform to support. If you access 'Playstation games' through a Sub service on your TV, you can still play CoD on your TV - you are NOT 'blocked' from playing CoD because CoD is available on that TV too...

@themightyant Maybe for ultra competitive CoD gaming, streaming isn't ideal at the moment and ping can still be terrible depending on who ends up hosting and where they are in relation to you.

Instead of spending money on millions of individual units of CPU, GPU, RAM and Storage, that money and those Chips etc can all be built into Game servers around the globe and if 'everyone' would be playing off the same servers, all with the same spec hardware, all with the same frame rate and graphics settings etc - nowadays, you could be playing with someone who has 240fps and tweaked graphic settings to give them an advantage vs a Console gamer stuck at 1080/60 (or less) on a last gen console.

Fortnite 'works' across a much wider range of Hardware too. Of course for competition 'e-sports', they would still likely require a set-up that's 'equal' for all - whether that's playing on the same spec hardware or streaming from the same server to the same venue etc so its a 'Consistent' for ALL competitors experience - no one has an 'advantage'.

The fact is, nowadays with cross-platform play, multiple game modes (30, 60 and/or 120fps+), different internet speeds, different locations (so different Ping), different TV's with different input Lag, different image quality (from 'low end' PC's, last gen consoles to PS5/Series X and high end PC's with all the visual bells/whistles), you have a much wider variation for gamers - the more you spend on hardware, the bigger an advantage you can have over others. If 'everyone' is Streaming, you have the 'same' performance for all because you are ALL using the same 'system' to play.

As I said, we are talking at least a Decade on from now and at least for the foreseeable future, CoD is still going to release on Playstation for Playstation gamers to 'buy' - just like its always been. If the infrastructure isn't in place to compete with Hardware at an 'affordable' price, then it makes sense for Sony AND MS to continue releasing Hardware - although how much longer they can keep making 'affordable' hardware without taking too big a hit as they lose money on Hardware, we will see, but whilst Sony have a 'Playstation console' to Ship too, CoD will be available - but its 'not' the ONLY option, won't be the 'best' option (neither will be Xbox Consoles as PC Hardware has a big advantage) and not the worst. Streaming could certainly be better than ~40fps 720p on an XB1S - 1080p (supersampled down from a higher resolution and with much higher visual settings) and a locked 60fps is 'better' if that's the Hardware you have. You are 'not' forced to spend $500+ to get 'better'.

Point is, whilst 'Consoles' are still one of the Primary ways people access games, regardless of whether you bought Xbox or PS, CoD will continue to release on your preferred platform. Wherever you 'prefer' to play CoD, it will be available day and date with the SAME content for EVERYONE. To me, that is MUCH better than it is right now. In the future, we won't need to spend $1000's on multiple Hardware units to play 'ALL' the games we love, instead maybe need a Couple of Subscriptions and that enables us to play on any device, whether its a small portable device or a your big-screen TV.

It will go through. The Nintendo/Valve deals really clinched it. Sony's the only major objector, and all their objections have myopically focused on a single game's importance and the risk of, in their words, foreclosing the game. The deal is smart, because it nulls the basis of Sony's entire argument very efficiently. Sony either has to come up with a new argument, which alone looks desperate while other competitors are aligned with the deal, or keep arguing on grounds that have already been disproves in writing. Either way they're entering tort territory. When the only one objecting is the current market leader who stands to lose market share as a result, it's pretty transparent why.

They don't like the deal. It's easily understandable why they wouldn't like the deal. But not liking it doesn't mean it's an illegal deal.

The second reason is in an era of big mergers were the biggest keep getting bigger and no one else matters, a precedent set by stopping this on shaky grounds will have a chilling effect in the larger business world, and especially at the political FTC, their benefactors would not like that very much.

@Tharsman Unlike Sony's arguments, MS's stake isn't about CoD that much. I don't think they'll mind tampering with the CoD formula or spinning off a new team (like 343 only hopefully better) to do it. Half the CoD studios don't want to be doing CoD and never did, and MS has a lot of use for what those teams otherwise can provide. Acti for example threw Toys for Bob into Cod instead of their very successful Crash & Spyro projects because they just weren't CoD money. But MS has a ton of use for Crash & Spyro projects. Raven had SoT, Hexen/Heretic, and other franchises of their own, plus they were id's go-to for campaigns. They they were thrown into CoD. Where did Skylanders even go? MS wanted ready-to-work turnkey teams to make more games more quickly for GP, more IP as selling points, and they wanted an inroads to mobile which they currently lacked, and they get King, literally the king of that market. There's no way they're spending this kind of money just to keep cranking out CoD as-is, especially when you see Activision's financials and how anemic the PROFITS from CoD are despite massive REVENUES due to operating costs. Activision never recovered evenly from when Vivendi bought them, used them as a debt sink, then left the rotting husk behind. They recovered, (and for all his faults, props have to go to Bobby for recovering what was unrecoverable at all), they're profitable, but they came out very lopsided. They used to be at the top, and then the became "that CoD company."

@Snake_V5 A win for Sony investors and executives is more like it. "The same as it's always been" would mean Sony would be producing their own competitors in SOCOM, Killzone, Resistance, etc. still. But they stopped that to go cheap and ride the CoD machine by throwing around their weight as industry leader. Post-PS4 PS is nothing like the way it's always been. They were at their best when they had to claw their way into market relevance, not when they've been coasting the CoD/GTA/FIFA money wave. But...different people at the helm. Jim Ryan & Ken Yoshida are no Ken Kutaragi, Kaz Hirai, and Jack Tretton, that's for sure. Even in faceless companies, it's the people that really make what it is.

@UnusedBabyWipes There's two facets to this why sony is willing to sabotage themselves to stop it which are kind of understandable. The first is CoD represents a massive portion of their profits, directly, and also represents a primary reason a lot of people buy their platform and thus buy all other games on their platform as well, as their marketing deals with CoD have made PS the most preferred place to play CoD, and have associated CoD as a game on PlayStation to the masses rather than a multiplatform game. This deal risks losing that position, losing that money and that sales incentive, and worse for them, risks putting that shoe on the other foot so XB gains that position. That's a massive two-pronged blow in both direct revenue losses due to one of the top games losing sales on their platform, and due to losing the appearance that that top game is exclusive, or preferred on their platform and losing total platform sales due to it.

But the broader reason is, most of us can tell subscription & streaming is the long-term future for mainstream gaming, and it's not a secret MS is positioning themselves as the default leader (the new Sony) in that future games market. The activision deal threatens to make the biggest games part of the subscription world. In addition to gaining more market influence in streaming for MS, what Sony is mostly worried about is that it could happen AT ALL. It changes their relationship with both the consumer and also their vendors. Changes consumer price expectations long-term. Encourages more vendors to jump into subscriptions at lower costs, changing game sales ratios. Encourages new competition from Amazon and Apple and the like to step into higher gear for which they don't have a response. CoD going into a subscription service will move a LOT of gamers into subscription or streaming much more rapidly than they otherwise might have. Many of those gamers will not move back, or may have never even participated in, the business model of buying a console and buying full price games. This accelerates the takeover of subscriptions, and undermines much quicker, PS's entire business model. Fighting ABK is a proxy for fighting against the rise of subs in which Sony doesn't currently compete effectively, and weakens their entire business model going forward at an accelerated rate. They're so worried about this they artificially impair their OWN subscription and streaming services, even though theirs was the first on the market, making it an anemic competitor, so as not to cannibalize their traditional model. The ABK deal threatens to explode the subs category rapidly to a new normal for one of the largest gaming groups, which is definitely a serious problem for their entire model.

So they have a lot to worry about this, and they know why. But they can't cite those reasons publicly, "We don't like it because it weakens our market power and long-term business model by increasing competition and lowering cost-to-consumer" isn't a viable argument for government interference, and unfortunately for them, the arguments they chose were very weak, very narrowly focused, easily disproven, and just not very well thought out. But there's no really easy way to argue to stop a business deal that really only harms one company leading the market through inertia. What they're trying to do would be like if MS had tried to use government to stop the sale of the iPhone because it would harm the position of Windows, by claiming it prevents competition because Apple could make communications proprietary and become a monopoly on telephone service, at which point Apple just goes out and inks carrier deals with AT&T and TMoble, all because it affects the power of Windows. It's a weak argument with little basis that can't hide it's self-serving origin.

It's a real problem for PS and Sony as a whole. Not one they can't dig out of, but I really don't think the current leadership is capable of it. They need new management to compete. Right now they have a room full of accountants and big media execs. Accountants can't fight a trench warr, and media execs can't innovate.

@themightyant Thanks for the link. I of course skimmed it rather than reading through the entirety of the brief, but it makes me even more puzzled as to how the once unstoppable Sony lawyers managed to bungle this so badly. It is the weakest set of arguments possible, it's contradictory, it's based on hypothetical supposition. This is a legal brief? Their legal management must be of the same caliber as their current games leadership....

The only real viable argument in there is the one about MS foreclosing on the cloud streaming market. And that's absolutely a threat. But there's multiple giant holes in their argument, the first being that ABK is actually required in order for MS to do so, where by their own arguments, MS has effectively already done so with Google failing the market and AMZ "struggling to gain traction" in which case ABK becomes a move to increase value and market reach rather than one to foreclose the market. They also make the case against themselves, confirming MS's own statements, that only a few companies have the infrastructure to even do so, and SIE is not one of them, meaning they don't even have legal standing to make a case for that position and are arguing the position of uninvolved hypothetical parties.

I do love the sloppiness about Nintendo. Using as an argument that a leading competitor isn't a competitor based on specific market segment participation, opened the door so wide for MS to walk over to Nintendo...literally down the street....and offer a contract to become a partner and therefore Sony competitor, which is precisely what they did. If you go get drunk, I'm sure you'll find Sony's legal team already there since 6:00AM.

This brief is bad. Like, really bad. It's the legal equivalent of CP2077 PS4. I can't help but think they knew this was a foregone closed deal from day 1 and this is nothing but a stall tactic they fielded to the just out of school legal interns to handle. This can't be the best work of Sony's full time legal staff. They're an insurance company for crying out loud!

I can’t see any reason now why it won’t go through. Nintendo are clearly fine with it and the only people playing games ironically is Sony. As each story breaks, Sony start to look more and more like Ronaldo - petulant and just throwing toys out of the pram. Their stance gets more pathetic with each passing day and any sympathy for them has now pretty much evaporated.
Xbox have offered the hand of friendship and collaboration but Sony are just playing games that are not necessary.
The deal will go through and before long, no one will even notice any changes Xbox and Nintendo are focused on games. Sony are focused o. Being anything but ‘for the players.’

I think it will go through but with certain concessions such as a very long long long time on PS, I think it will end on a 15+deal or it will be allowed but not if it goes to gamepass etc. Like I said, Will go through but with major concessions to appease the UK, the EU and stop the antiTrust lawsuit in USA.

The only ABK game I play is Overwatch 2, but I sure hope that the merger won't go through if it means ABKs output is going to match that of other Xbox studios. This Xmas it will be 1 year since I locked into 2 years of Gamepass and I'm still waiting for Xbox studios to put out something worth playing

@themightyant "The internet is a series of tubes." Funny how a bunch of rich-kid turned legislators that have lived a life of assistants doing everything for them seem to have less than zero understanding of anything once technology is involved. Especially when said tech companies paid for their campaigns, their vacations, and their fine dining.

FTC lawsuit filed:

https://www.theverge.com/2022/12/8/23498224/ftc-microsoft-activision-blizzard-legal-challenge-sues-block

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/12/08/ftc-sues-to-block-microsofts-acquisition-of-game-giant-activision-blizzard.html

@awp69 Good grief. This is going to get REALLY ugly, as though it wasn't ugly enough before. There's no good outcome at this point. Either it gets dragged through the courts for another year and the whole industry is in he-said, she-said limbo until Activision doesn't even have value anymore before it's dismissed on having no basis, or it's a kangaroo court designed to "do something" and the deal gets blocked at which point Activision will become immensely damaged and either liquidate in bankruptcy or sell off to some private equity firm for peanuts, and then Microsoft goes on a revenge spree and starts buying up half a dozen other publishers without an "irreplaceable title" or just gobbles up Embracer. Instead of MS owning one "critically important" title they'd end up buying half the variety in the industry in unblockable chunks, because they have the money to do it, and a market position to secure.

@NEStalgia

While I agreed and disagree. It will get ugly but then MS may just say screw it. I am not for all this buying up companies Sony and MS have been doing this last few years and it just hurts consumer in most cases. I do not think Activision would be worth nothing they have to many top ip's for that to ever happen. That said I do not think it is a monopoly and MS actually needs some games, it has been a dry year like I have never seen before in all my years of owning a Xbox. I barely turned it on and used mainly my Switch and PS5.

I’m shocked that Pure Xbox still doesn’t have a story on this when Push Square had had one for a half an hour. I know this site has a smaller staff but it should be breaking big news like this.

@NEStalgia https://www.pushsquare.com/news/2022/12/us-governments-ftc-will-attempt-to-block-microsofts-activision-buyout

An hour later and still no FTC article here. The first place to go for Xbox news is….Push Square!

@shred5 MS won't walk away from acquisitions. They've already stated that's part of their strategy and ABK wasn't the last acquisition. If they can't buy ABK, they will replace that component in their expected capacity with alternate purchases. If this one can be blocked because "CoD" is special and incomparable, they can try to waltz in and buy 2k, Ubisoft, EA, and Sega because all of those can't be special and incomparable, and trying to raise the same argument for ANY buyout will collapse fast.

Though I don't think it will come to that, MS's legal team won't have a hard time pointing to even more vertical integration and consolidation that has been approved. By time it's done Amazon, TMobile, SiriusXM, and other companies will end up dragged into this. It's going to get very ugly well beyond gaming. There's not really a sound legal basis here beyond signaling an anti-merger shift at the FTC, but then that opens my MANY very large cans of worms.

The problem for Activision is regardless of if they have value in assets, they have no liquidity, and their trade value will collapse if it goes through. They were starting to sink already which is why they were looking to sell before they lost too much value. Value is already being propped up by the expectation of Microsoft splits. Any time these big merger deals do not complete, the minority company pretty much implodes as they lose much of their value. Then they start liquidating assets to plug the hole in their valuation and boost liquidity, and then the spiral accelerates from there. Often they do get bought out eventually rather than total liquidation, but what's purchased is either a competitor or a hedge fund/equity firm that just winds them down for remaining value.

But I really don't think there's anything that will hold up in court here at all. This is just politics. It fulfills a political promise to be tougher on anti-trust policy, however, notice the much much more damaging trust situations go unchallenged, but this one involving video games they try to make a show of. Political theater. Very low chance actual courts, including appeals, will block it. If they let Google and Amazon buy the things they buy, and let's Kroger and Albertsons to merge most of the FOOD supply, I don't think stopping Microsoft from owning Warcraft is going to make a splash.

@Snake_V5 This will mostly drag it out which was probably Sonys' real goal. Tort to keep it tied up so they buy more time without having to worry about it. Very little legal grounds to stop it, keeping in mind US law is based on case law, precedent, and case law reflects that even much larger consolidation to even fewer parties in an industry has become valid. I don't actually expect any likely outcome other than approval. The FTC are politicians, they can make a show of it and act as plaintiff, however convincing a judge is going to be difficult.

This also might be a double-edge sword for Sony and a problematic "victory". It looks like the route the FTC is choosing to litigate on has less to do with CoD's influence, and more to do with the concept of exclusive games of all things, demonstrating they have absolutely no understanding of the industry they're suing. It could bring the very concept of exclusivity into court. For MS, that's no big deal because they are day and date on PC which would satisfy any requirement of being multiplatform. For Sony it could mean they could be forced to bring everything to at least PC day and date. They were probably planning to do that anyway, and I don't think it will go that far, but Sony got something of a "monkey's paw" victory. They got the FTC to file suit, but the basis of that suit is not framed around their own arguments, and actually can find themselves on the losing side of what the suit is actually questioning. WEIRD outcome here. Though I doubt the courts will compel any broader changes, and I honestly don't think the courts will uphold the FTC's suit. The virtually never have, ever.

It also will probably keep Sony from any major buyouts as well, though, as they can't give appearances of normalizing industry consolidation while being the primary affected party of this suit, else it strengthens MS's case.

On the flip side that could pose an ideal time for Tencent or Apple to make a big move, which would also suck quite a bit.

@NEStalgia Let's say the deal doesn't go through, how would you personally feel about that? Or wouldn't you be bothered either way.

Last Gen Microsoft has no games. This Gen, we can't allow Microsoft to acquire Activision/Blizzard because they they would control too much...

@Snake_V5 There's probably a few answers to that: In terms of MS/Acti I don't have too much personal stake in it. I'm against the global consolidation of basically everything into a duopoly in general, so video games aside, I'm livid that antitrust has been a joke for the past 30 years. OTOH, I don't think this particular merger really represents any serious consolidation compared to nearly every other major consolidation that's happened including things much more important to daily life than video games, and this doesn't actually consolidate video games that much, with numerous large publishers and 4 platforms competing, even without including mobile.

As a gamer, I don't care about CoD even slightly, and my Actibliz purchases are far and few in between since they went all in on CoD. I like Diablo....Spyro....that's about it, though I'd like to have seen older Acti IPs that have been dormant come back. Under current management they'll just remain a CoD factory and nothing more. Down for the count, as far as my personal game tastes.

If the deal doesn't go through, PERSONALLY, that makes me more optimistic about XB and LESS optimistic about PS in the future. The purchase I fear could make MS too big, too confident and start them back down that path to arrogant domination that PS has been on. I said a bunch of times on the NL XB thread before this site came back that I "want Xbox to lose" because I think they're doing their best job as the underdog and it's a better platform for it. If it doesn't go through, that won't happen, and MS will have to try even harder to keep customers happy and grow their platform.

PS on the other hand, if the deal goes through, I'm hoping it forces them to have to be competitive again (and clean house on their horrible management.) They've been coasting on CoD/GTA/FIFA money for too long and taking their customers for granted, and, like with their treatment of Japan Studio, casting aside everything that their long time customers have built to chase a new market spending more money. They'd have to try again. If the deal doesn't go through.....Jim Ryan probably gets a 50 million dollar bonus, and they continue abusing their customers believing themselves unassailable.

Being a cynic, I'd say I'd be upset with either outcome for different reasons. Contrary to the conversation on Push, I firmly believe the deal going through will, for traditional games enthusiasts specifically, make Xbox worse and PS better. The deal being blocked would keep Xbox on the "good" path, and keep PS on the "bad" path.

@NEStalgia That and I will seek out my own revenge by refusing to ever purchase another Playstation branded product ever again. Considering how the games they make have fallen out of favor with me, that shouldn't be difficult.

Honestly, I will probably be avoiding Sony products as a whole going forward. Not happy with the way that company is run. Not supporting them in any capacity going forward.

@JayJ It's just amazing, and it happens to every company in this industry, but it's amazing how PS went from what they were in 1995 to what they are today. It really is PEOPLE that make these companies what they are. That first group of PS leaders were really up against Sony Corp itself who never believed in them as much as they were up against Nintendo and Sega, and they just believed in the product, fought to win fans and devs, and really put Nintendo in their place when they were too arrogant. Jack, Kaz and Shu at the start of the PS4 really believed in their product and what they could do with it. But once it hit success they were replaced with the accounting crew who's only role was to maximize numbers quarterly. And once that happens companies flip off their customers and decide they no longer need to please them because they'll buy anyway, and there's a bigger, more important group of customers around the next corner.

Sony's main problem is that's how Sony Corp has always operated. That's how they sabotaged their electronics in the market. But PS was always run differently until this current bunch that now behaves like the parent corp. It's a shame, it's the fans that liked what they used to offer, that get the worst deal. But, that was Kutaragi's PS...this crew knows how to manage contracts, but they don't have the passion for the product that he had, just the ROI it can bring in. Same with Final Fantasy. It was great because it was Sakaguchi's soul in those games. Without him, it's just a brand name slapped on games that don't know what they wan't to be. Not necessarily bad, but not special, either.

@NEStalgia Yeah that totally makes sense, because Sony losing favor with me is a relatively recent development. From the PS1 - PS3 generation I loved them and was generally a fan of their brand and what they were doing. The PS4 generation felt very alienating and divisive for me, it's the generation where they really lost me over time. Seeing how the leadership changed during that period, it makes sense. Playstation simply isn't what it used to be, the entire culture over there has changed dramatically and it's no longer a brand that I want anything to do with.

Still no article on the FTC lawsuit?!? Not much of an Xbox news site. Pretty embarrassing.

@awp69 Maybe they figured there's already enough articles about the whole ordeal on the front page.

@JayJ Yep, that's really exactly it. Shame. I'd hoped the abk deal could finally get rid of Jim and the gang. Now ps6 will be in the way by the time it's done!

@NEStalgia Oh well, saves me a lot of money now that I will be actively avoiding anything with Sony's name attached to it.

@FraserG No problem. Hope everyone feels better soon!