MS is about to raise their game prices to $70, so it's no different they're just catching up to the cost. I have no real issue whether this deal for Activision goes through or not because I'll play the games I want to regardless of platform. It's just hilarious that people act like Sony is this huge Monopoly or the only one, yet if you point out all the timed game pass exclusives, new exclusives like Redfall, Starfield and likely Elder Scrolls 6 they suddenly fall silent because it doesn't fit their narrative. Neither does the fact that Sony and Microsoft have been Monopolies for their products since the 80s (Betamax anyone, mini disc, Words, Internet Explorer etc).
I don't get how people can say Sony is this huge Monopoly when MS is a trillion dollar company while Sony is 20 times smaller. Is Halo, Gears of War, Project Gotham not MS exclusives? Every company has their exclusives not going to other platforms so people have stop whining and crying when MS could give a crap when these same fans are buying their games and paying for game pass. Fans of all sides just have to take a chill pill because Activision being bought isn't paying them a dime unless they have shares in either company.
The deals probably still going through and likely just delayed to late 2023 or 2024, because as Meta and Zuckerberg already pointed out, the FTC has not succeeded in blocking ANY huge deal in 50 YEARS and just to block this deal, "literally needs to have laws changed".
Thanks for being the sound of reason. People make it sound like Sony is this huge Monopoly and the only one, yet MS is about 20 times the value of Sony and they're a near 2 Trillion dollar company and Sony can't afford to buy Activision on their own. The instant MS bought Zenimax/Bethesda for $7 Billion, they made their next games exclusive.
They act like MS hasn't ever done anything monopolistic when a quick Google shows they've done it since their first product with Microsoft Words, Internet Explorer. Assuming MS purchases Activision, it'd be utterly stupid to not assume that some of their games old and new won't become MS exclusives. I still think the deal goes through, but I bet it's after MS makes more concessions to appease the American FTC, European and UK for some time in 2024.
Microsoft is a trillion dollar monopoly themselves, so Sony is just doing the same thing. Is Starfield, Redfall and most likely Elder Scroll 6 being MS exclusives not the same thing as a Sony timed exclusive? So the hypocrisy about Sony being a big monopoly is a huge joke considering how much bigger MS is and they happen to try having a monopoly themselves with Windows etc until Apple successfully brought along their Software and products.
Nintendo releasing MS games ain't happening other than Minecraft and Cuphead. Their system just isn't powerful enough to run most MS exclusives like Halo etc. If COD makes it to Nintendo, it'll be for Nintendo's next system or a completely different build than the one on PS/XBox.
People have to stop talking about Sony being the only Monopoly when MS just demonstrated with they're the exact same with Bethesda and making their newest games (Starfield, Redfall, Elder Scrolls 6). Sony is also starting to release their first party games on PC but years later because guess what, they want to shift PS5s and that's just their business model and it works for them.
Oh I understand that it's not just adults playing COD, but I stand by my comment that COD move actually game units compared to Minecraft and having COD day 1 on game pass would for sure affect sales of physical copies for $70 on PlayStation and XBox.
Minecraft is all about the micro transactions and merchandise sales. MLB The Show is not a huge game compared to COD. I'm not saying you can't make COD on the Switch, but it's not going to be the same quality as COD on Xbox/PlayStation.
I think MS can make this deal go through if they offer Activision's whole catalog of games for 10 years instead of just COD. I think it's clear that COD is a hugely popular game that the FTC worries that making it exclusive would affect other consoles and it's probably the case.
Slack is relevant imho because it's their leader that said they're unable to compete with MS because their Team app (thanks for the correction btw) is available free with the rest of their software, hence why they have 100+ million users to Slacks 30+ million and Slacks comments are recent.
Although the FTC isn't looking at MS history from the late 80s to 2000s, they looked specifically at their recent history or Zenimax/Bethesda and they already made Starfield, Redfall and potentially Elder Scroll 6 exclusive which is counter to MS comments on trying to reach a wider audience. Take into consideration that at yesterday's IGN Gameshow (one of the biggest Gameshow), it was noted the MS announced absolutely nothing. It's speculated that they didn't want to announce more exclusive games considering the FTC case being officially announced on the same day yesterday.
The issue is that MS has a net worth near 2 trillion dollars and is more in line with Apple and Amazon. Sony is about 77 Billion, just a bit more than Activision so they're not close to being in the same league. The American government also has been criticised for huge antitrust failures in the recent past and Biden has made a promise regarding closer scrutiny of anti-monopoly cases. Guess what, other than Apple, Google, Amazon, MS is one of the biggest companies worldwide and not just in the US so that's why the FTC is looking more closer at their purchases. It doesn't help that the UK and Europe are both separately investigating MS for the same thing.
True enough my good sir, anyone whose been gaming since the Nintendo knows they bought up their competition just to get rid of them. MS, Sony and Nintendo are different companies yet all practice the same when it comes to their competition.
Lol you act like Xbox fanboys are any better. As someone whose been on plenty of game sites, one set isn't better than another. Literally different group, same sh#t.
So you think Sony that has been guilty of anti competitive practices since the betamax and MS since Word 1.0 (1983) to Microsoft Meeting, are really that different? So why am I supposed to trust MS anymore that Sony, when both are equally guilty?
So if it's okay for MS to have their exclusives, the argument everyone has for Sony/Nintendo exclusive going to MS systems is null and void. Having exclusives is exactly why we buy each system.
Minecraft is about the worst example that can be used. It was bought by MS and with a userbase of 100+ million, MS would have to be dumb to not have that on every platform because it makes most of its money on micro transactions and merchandise. No one's buying a system for Minecraft and it's not selling at $70. COD on the otherhand, is a legacy game from the original XBox and onward and I don't about you, but I believe a lot of adults with actual money are the ones buying systems for it.
What's your point with Overwatch, Tony Hawk etc? Activision isn't owned by MS yet and they make their money on multi-platforms. You think small userbase games like Ori, Cuphead are comparable to a huge game like COD that shifts actual game units? Because I don't know of anyone buying systems for Ori, Cuphead etc, on the otherhand I know plenty who buy systems for COD alone.
@Tharsman Sony's system is basically a Linux based PC that gets yearly COD updates, with COD games dating back to what, PS1? PlayStation 4/5 are easier to develop for because it's like a midrange PC optimized by Sony, similar development wise to Xbox. The Switch is a severely underpowered system that's fine with COD if it's like Fortnite. I play COD on Xbox and Switch is my main system, you think I'm going to play COD on Switch instead of Xbox with a elite controller? Diablo 3 was made for PC and ported to PS3, XBox 360 and doable on Switch, but Diablo 4 is made for modern day systems like PS5, Xbox series X and PC. Let's see Activision get a optimized version of Diablo 4 on a Switch, assuming they'll even get it out June, 2023 considering all the former developers who mentioned it's development being in total disarray and questioned if it'll meet it's deadline on PC.
You want to know what system I've played COD on with friends recently? Xbox Series X with a Xbox elite controller. I just don't see why I can trust a trillion dollar company that's been guilty of anti-competitive practices from day 1 with MS Word, Microsoft software, Internet Explorer to Microsoft Meetings versus Slack.
@JayJ So my most used/primary system is a Nintendo Switch, while my brother has every system currently out. My computer is Microsoft based system as I don't care for Apple products, which I haven't owned one since a iPhone 6. Does that automatically make me a MS/Xbox hater even though I play Xbox with friends and family that have them?
So why is Starfield, Redfall and most likely Elder Scroll 6 a MS exclusive if they're all about reaching a wider audience? Do you have a Nintendo Switch, because I'd love to know if you'd actually play COD Switch. I'll play any game on ANY system if it's my only choice because I want to play Starfield and I can't get it on a PS/Nintendo system.
@daftnate When has a MS first party game like Halo, GeOW etc gone to PlayStation or Nintendo? Those Nintendo and Sony exclusive games are from their own studios and MS hasn't released their first party games to anything other than PC. Companies are trying to sell their systems, controllers and other products. So if MS is all about the gamers, why are Star Field, Redfall and most likely Elder Scroll 6 exclusive?
Fair, then why not have the whole Activision category of games available for the 10 years? How about a agreement that COD doesn't go on game pass in that time frame so Sony and MS can each sell the game day 1 at $70 apiece. You think a COD on a underpowered Switch from 2017 is going to be competitive enough and reach a big audience even if COD Switch is out in 2 years? You're pretty optimistic that Activision could make a COD game in two years for a platform that's never had COD game, because I imagine coding for a underpowered Nintendo Switch won't be that easy versus a XBox/PlayStation that gets near yearly updates in new COD games.
You don't see how having a game like COD versus a game geared at a younger audience would make a difference if it was day 1 on game pass for Xbox versus $70 for PlayStation. Forgive if I'm wrong, is Minecraft selling for $70 and did Minecraft not make over 400 million in 2020 alone via micro-transaction and merchandise sales?
You mean Xbox fans aren't defending a trillion dollar MS company from purchasing a huge gaming company, despite a history of anti-competitive practices like the Internet Explorer one lost to the American government or maybe the same with Microsoft Words, how about Slacks argument that MS having Microsoft meeting free with their software being a unfair advantage they can't compete with? What exactly has MS done in the past that proves they'll do otherwise? 10 years for COD, how about 10 years for every Activision game currently out and every new game in that timeline because I'm sure the FTC would accept those terms.
@Banjo- Your answer is exactly why MS is being scrutinized so much for this purchase. If MS offers COD day one on game pass, that would have a huge affect on Sony trying to sell it day 1 for $70. For people who says it's only one game, the issue is that it's one of the biggest games out there that gets a new release frequently like Madden Football in the past .
@Floki How's one huge conglomerate buying out another huge game conglomerate to become the 2nd largest gaming company worldwide behind Tencent, not a big deal? It's like Apple buying up either Google or Amazon.
Anyone remember the Internet Explorer Antitrust case they lost against the American Government? It's not exactly like MS has been trustworthy when it comes to stamping out the competition by having the software essentially free with Windows. Not to say Apple has been any better in Europe etc.
@Floki Does it really matter if Star Field etc was ever even going to be a multi-platform? The point is it's a MS exclusive and not going multi-platform isn't a point in favor of COD staying multi-platform. If MS really was all about multi-platform and reaching every gamer, why's the contract only 10 years?
What's the point of COD on a Nintendo platform, seeing as it would be years before anything is even playable on a Switch or Switch Pro. People keep talking about the Switch having some violent games etc, but any COD player knows their games are well beyond 50+ GB and would be sub-optimal on a Nintendo Switch and I doubt the amount of players is anywhere near the amount already on Xbox or PlayStation.
Buying Zenimax and making their games exclusive is counter to what MS has been saying with regards to Activision. The problem is that COD is some small game or new exclusive without a following, it's in fact one of the biggest games out there and having it exclusive or day one on game pass without having to pay $70 is a game changer and would affect the main competition Sony.
MS is trying to sell this like it's Netflix for gaming and focusing on the sales method. The problem is that this is like Disney buying Amazon and it's not some small company like ZeniMax/Bethesda. MS buying Activision would take them to number 2 or 3 gaming company in size, only behind Tencent worldwide. If MS is promising to keep games multi-platform and is truly about the gamers, then why limit a COD contract to only 10 years? Why not promise every current game like COD, Diablo, WoW, Warcraft etc? If your intent is keeping games multi-platform then why not a longer contract for the whole current catalog of games? Unless you plan to make them exclusive after 10 years is up.
Comments 26
Re: EU Responds To FTC's Concerns Over Microsoft's Acquisition Of ZeniMax & Activision Blizzard
@Fiendish-Beaver
MS is about to raise their game prices to $70, so it's no different they're just catching up to the cost. I have no real issue whether this deal for Activision goes through or not because I'll play the games I want to regardless of platform. It's just hilarious that people act like Sony is this huge Monopoly or the only one, yet if you point out all the timed game pass exclusives, new exclusives like Redfall, Starfield and likely Elder Scrolls 6 they suddenly fall silent because it doesn't fit their narrative. Neither does the fact that Sony and Microsoft have been Monopolies for their products since the 80s (Betamax anyone, mini disc, Words, Internet Explorer etc).
I don't get how people can say Sony is this huge Monopoly when MS is a trillion dollar company while Sony is 20 times smaller. Is Halo, Gears of War, Project Gotham not MS exclusives? Every company has their exclusives not going to other platforms so people have stop whining and crying when MS could give a crap when these same fans are buying their games and paying for game pass. Fans of all sides just have to take a chill pill because Activision being bought isn't paying them a dime unless they have shares in either company.
The deals probably still going through and likely just delayed to late 2023 or 2024, because as Meta and Zuckerberg already pointed out, the FTC has not succeeded in blocking ANY huge deal in 50 YEARS and just to block this deal, "literally needs to have laws changed".
Re: EU Responds To FTC's Concerns Over Microsoft's Acquisition Of ZeniMax & Activision Blizzard
@themightyant
Thanks for being the sound of reason. People make it sound like Sony is this huge Monopoly and the only one, yet MS is about 20 times the value of Sony and they're a near 2 Trillion dollar company and Sony can't afford to buy Activision on their own. The instant MS bought Zenimax/Bethesda for $7 Billion, they made their next games exclusive.
They act like MS hasn't ever done anything monopolistic when a quick Google shows they've done it since their first product with Microsoft Words, Internet Explorer. Assuming MS purchases Activision, it'd be utterly stupid to not assume that some of their games old and new won't become MS exclusives. I still think the deal goes through, but I bet it's after MS makes more concessions to appease the American FTC, European and UK for some time in 2024.
Re: EU Responds To FTC's Concerns Over Microsoft's Acquisition Of ZeniMax & Activision Blizzard
@Banjo-
Microsoft is a trillion dollar monopoly themselves, so Sony is just doing the same thing. Is Starfield, Redfall and most likely Elder Scroll 6 being MS exclusives not the same thing as a Sony timed exclusive? So the hypocrisy about Sony being a big monopoly is a huge joke considering how much bigger MS is and they happen to try having a monopoly themselves with Windows etc until Apple successfully brought along their Software and products.
Nintendo releasing MS games ain't happening other than Minecraft and Cuphead. Their system just isn't powerful enough to run most MS exclusives like Halo etc. If COD makes it to Nintendo, it'll be for Nintendo's next system or a completely different build than the one on PS/XBox.
People have to stop talking about Sony being the only Monopoly when MS just demonstrated with they're the exact same with Bethesda and making their newest games (Starfield, Redfall, Elder Scrolls 6). Sony is also starting to release their first party games on PC but years later because guess what, they want to shift PS5s and that's just their business model and it works for them.
Re: EU Responds To FTC's Concerns Over Microsoft's Acquisition Of ZeniMax & Activision Blizzard
Oh I understand that it's not just adults playing COD, but I stand by my comment that COD move actually game units compared to Minecraft and having COD day 1 on game pass would for sure affect sales of physical copies for $70 on PlayStation and XBox.
Minecraft is all about the micro transactions and merchandise sales. MLB The Show is not a huge game compared to COD. I'm not saying you can't make COD on the Switch, but it's not going to be the same quality as COD on Xbox/PlayStation.
I think MS can make this deal go through if they offer Activision's whole catalog of games for 10 years instead of just COD. I think it's clear that COD is a hugely popular game that the FTC worries that making it exclusive would affect other consoles and it's probably the case.
Re: EU Responds To FTC's Concerns Over Microsoft's Acquisition Of ZeniMax & Activision Blizzard
@NEStalgia
Slack is relevant imho because it's their leader that said they're unable to compete with MS because their Team app (thanks for the correction btw) is available free with the rest of their software, hence why they have 100+ million users to Slacks 30+ million and Slacks comments are recent.
Although the FTC isn't looking at MS history from the late 80s to 2000s, they looked specifically at their recent history or Zenimax/Bethesda and they already made Starfield, Redfall and potentially Elder Scroll 6 exclusive which is counter to MS comments on trying to reach a wider audience. Take into consideration that at yesterday's IGN Gameshow (one of the biggest Gameshow), it was noted the MS announced absolutely nothing. It's speculated that they didn't want to announce more exclusive games considering the FTC case being officially announced on the same day yesterday.
https://www.ign.com/articles/xboxs-game-awards-no-show-is-a-slap-in-the-face-to-players
Re: EU Responds To FTC's Concerns Over Microsoft's Acquisition Of ZeniMax & Activision Blizzard
@daftnate
The issue is that MS has a net worth near 2 trillion dollars and is more in line with Apple and Amazon. Sony is about 77 Billion, just a bit more than Activision so they're not close to being in the same league. The American government also has been criticised for huge antitrust failures in the recent past and Biden has made a promise regarding closer scrutiny of anti-monopoly cases. Guess what, other than Apple, Google, Amazon, MS is one of the biggest companies worldwide and not just in the US so that's why the FTC is looking more closer at their purchases. It doesn't help that the UK and Europe are both separately investigating MS for the same thing.
Re: EU Responds To FTC's Concerns Over Microsoft's Acquisition Of ZeniMax & Activision Blizzard
@daftnate
True enough my good sir, anyone whose been gaming since the Nintendo knows they bought up their competition just to get rid of them. MS, Sony and Nintendo are different companies yet all practice the same when it comes to their competition.
Re: EU Responds To FTC's Concerns Over Microsoft's Acquisition Of ZeniMax & Activision Blizzard
@Sol4ris
Exactly, I think if MS offers every game instead of just COD they'll end up with a win in the end by buying Activision.
Re: EU Responds To FTC's Concerns Over Microsoft's Acquisition Of ZeniMax & Activision Blizzard
@JayJ
Lol you act like Xbox fanboys are any better. As someone whose been on plenty of game sites, one set isn't better than another. Literally different group, same sh#t.
Re: EU Responds To FTC's Concerns Over Microsoft's Acquisition Of ZeniMax & Activision Blizzard
@JayJ
So you think Sony that has been guilty of anti competitive practices since the betamax and MS since Word 1.0 (1983) to Microsoft Meeting, are really that different? So why am I supposed to trust MS anymore that Sony, when both are equally guilty?
Re: EU Responds To FTC's Concerns Over Microsoft's Acquisition Of ZeniMax & Activision Blizzard
@JayJ
So MS software has not been out longer than Sony's PlayStation?
Re: EU Responds To FTC's Concerns Over Microsoft's Acquisition Of ZeniMax & Activision Blizzard
@Tharsman
So if it's okay for MS to have their exclusives, the argument everyone has for Sony/Nintendo exclusive going to MS systems is null and void. Having exclusives is exactly why we buy each system.
Minecraft is about the worst example that can be used. It was bought by MS and with a userbase of 100+ million, MS would have to be dumb to not have that on every platform because it makes most of its money on micro transactions and merchandise. No one's buying a system for Minecraft and it's not selling at $70. COD on the otherhand, is a legacy game from the original XBox and onward and I don't about you, but I believe a lot of adults with actual money are the ones buying systems for it.
What's your point with Overwatch, Tony Hawk etc? Activision isn't owned by MS yet and they make their money on multi-platforms. You think small userbase games like Ori, Cuphead are comparable to a huge game like COD that shifts actual game units? Because I don't know of anyone buying systems for Ori, Cuphead etc, on the otherhand I know plenty who buy systems for COD alone.
Re: EU Responds To FTC's Concerns Over Microsoft's Acquisition Of ZeniMax & Activision Blizzard
@JayJ
I don't have issues with MS products, but yeah I hate their anti competitive practices the same way I hate Apple and Disney for the same.
Re: EU Responds To FTC's Concerns Over Microsoft's Acquisition Of ZeniMax & Activision Blizzard
@Tharsman Sony's system is basically a Linux based PC that gets yearly COD updates, with COD games dating back to what, PS1? PlayStation 4/5 are easier to develop for because it's like a midrange PC optimized by Sony, similar development wise to Xbox. The Switch is a severely underpowered system that's fine with COD if it's like Fortnite. I play COD on Xbox and Switch is my main system, you think I'm going to play COD on Switch instead of Xbox with a elite controller? Diablo 3 was made for PC and ported to PS3, XBox 360 and doable on Switch, but Diablo 4 is made for modern day systems like PS5, Xbox series X and PC. Let's see Activision get a optimized version of Diablo 4 on a Switch, assuming they'll even get it out June, 2023 considering all the former developers who mentioned it's development being in total disarray and questioned if it'll meet it's deadline on PC.
Re: EU Responds To FTC's Concerns Over Microsoft's Acquisition Of ZeniMax & Activision Blizzard
@JayJ
You want to know what system I've played COD on with friends recently? Xbox Series X with a Xbox elite controller. I just don't see why I can trust a trillion dollar company that's been guilty of anti-competitive practices from day 1 with MS Word, Microsoft software, Internet Explorer to Microsoft Meetings versus Slack.
Re: EU Responds To FTC's Concerns Over Microsoft's Acquisition Of ZeniMax & Activision Blizzard
@JayJ So my most used/primary system is a Nintendo Switch, while my brother has every system currently out. My computer is Microsoft based system as I don't care for Apple products, which I haven't owned one since a iPhone 6. Does that automatically make me a MS/Xbox hater even though I play Xbox with friends and family that have them?
So why is Starfield, Redfall and most likely Elder Scroll 6 a MS exclusive if they're all about reaching a wider audience? Do you have a Nintendo Switch, because I'd love to know if you'd actually play COD Switch. I'll play any game on ANY system if it's my only choice because I want to play Starfield and I can't get it on a PS/Nintendo system.
Re: EU Responds To FTC's Concerns Over Microsoft's Acquisition Of ZeniMax & Activision Blizzard
@daftnate When has a MS first party game like Halo, GeOW etc gone to PlayStation or Nintendo? Those Nintendo and Sony exclusive games are from their own studios and MS hasn't released their first party games to anything other than PC. Companies are trying to sell their systems, controllers and other products. So if MS is all about the gamers, why are Star Field, Redfall and most likely Elder Scroll 6 exclusive?
https://www.theverge.com/2021/11/15/22783314/elder-scrolls-6-xbox-exclusive-pc-phil-spencer
Re: EU Responds To FTC's Concerns Over Microsoft's Acquisition Of ZeniMax & Activision Blizzard
@JayJ No one is claiming to be unbiased, but it's fair to question a trillion company guilty in the past of anti-competitive practices.
Re: EU Responds To FTC's Concerns Over Microsoft's Acquisition Of ZeniMax & Activision Blizzard
@Tharsman
Fair, then why not have the whole Activision category of games available for the 10 years? How about a agreement that COD doesn't go on game pass in that time frame so Sony and MS can each sell the game day 1 at $70 apiece. You think a COD on a underpowered Switch from 2017 is going to be competitive enough and reach a big audience even if COD Switch is out in 2 years? You're pretty optimistic that Activision could make a COD game in two years for a platform that's never had COD game, because I imagine coding for a underpowered Nintendo Switch won't be that easy versus a XBox/PlayStation that gets near yearly updates in new COD games.
Re: EU Responds To FTC's Concerns Over Microsoft's Acquisition Of ZeniMax & Activision Blizzard
@StylesT
You don't see how having a game like COD versus a game geared at a younger audience would make a difference if it was day 1 on game pass for Xbox versus $70 for PlayStation. Forgive if I'm wrong, is Minecraft selling for $70 and did Minecraft not make over 400 million in 2020 alone via micro-transaction and merchandise sales?
Re: EU Responds To FTC's Concerns Over Microsoft's Acquisition Of ZeniMax & Activision Blizzard
@JayJ
You mean Xbox fans aren't defending a trillion dollar MS company from purchasing a huge gaming company, despite a history of anti-competitive practices like the Internet Explorer one lost to the American government or maybe the same with Microsoft Words, how about Slacks argument that MS having Microsoft meeting free with their software being a unfair advantage they can't compete with? What exactly has MS done in the past that proves they'll do otherwise? 10 years for COD, how about 10 years for every Activision game currently out and every new game in that timeline because I'm sure the FTC would accept those terms.
Re: EU Responds To FTC's Concerns Over Microsoft's Acquisition Of ZeniMax & Activision Blizzard
@Banjo- Your answer is exactly why MS is being scrutinized so much for this purchase. If MS offers COD day one on game pass, that would have a huge affect on Sony trying to sell it day 1 for $70. For people who says it's only one game, the issue is that it's one of the biggest games out there that gets a new release frequently like Madden Football in the past .
Re: EU Responds To FTC's Concerns Over Microsoft's Acquisition Of ZeniMax & Activision Blizzard
@Floki How's one huge conglomerate buying out another huge game conglomerate to become the 2nd largest gaming company worldwide behind Tencent, not a big deal? It's like Apple buying up either Google or Amazon.
Re: EU Responds To FTC's Concerns Over Microsoft's Acquisition Of ZeniMax & Activision Blizzard
@GamingFan4Lyf
Anyone remember the Internet Explorer Antitrust case they lost against the American Government? It's not exactly like MS has been trustworthy when it comes to stamping out the competition by having the software essentially free with Windows. Not to say Apple has been any better in Europe etc.
Re: EU Responds To FTC's Concerns Over Microsoft's Acquisition Of ZeniMax & Activision Blizzard
@Floki
Does it really matter if Star Field etc was ever even going to be a multi-platform? The point is it's a MS exclusive and not going multi-platform isn't a point in favor of COD staying multi-platform. If MS really was all about multi-platform and reaching every gamer, why's the contract only 10 years?
What's the point of COD on a Nintendo platform, seeing as it would be years before anything is even playable on a Switch or Switch Pro. People keep talking about the Switch having some violent games etc, but any COD player knows their games are well beyond 50+ GB and would be sub-optimal on a Nintendo Switch and I doubt the amount of players is anywhere near the amount already on Xbox or PlayStation.
Re: EU Responds To FTC's Concerns Over Microsoft's Acquisition Of ZeniMax & Activision Blizzard
@Fiendish-Beaver
Buying Zenimax and making their games exclusive is counter to what MS has been saying with regards to Activision. The problem is that COD is some small game or new exclusive without a following, it's in fact one of the biggest games out there and having it exclusive or day one on game pass without having to pay $70 is a game changer and would affect the main competition Sony.
MS is trying to sell this like it's Netflix for gaming and focusing on the sales method. The problem is that this is like Disney buying Amazon and it's not some small company like ZeniMax/Bethesda. MS buying Activision would take them to number 2 or 3 gaming company in size, only behind Tencent worldwide. If MS is promising to keep games multi-platform and is truly about the gamers, then why limit a COD contract to only 10 years? Why not promise every current game like COD, Diablo, WoW, Warcraft etc? If your intent is keeping games multi-platform then why not a longer contract for the whole current catalog of games? Unless you plan to make them exclusive after 10 years is up.