Microsoft buys Activision Blizzard

[abija]

To make more games to fill out Game Pass. Warzone already shifted the formula anyways. Now they can sit on the free-to-play Call of Duty which generates them millions every day (which is why Call of Duty was never in danger of leaving PlayStation) while releasing one big CoD from Infinity Ward

To me, paying premium for a company built to pump out a product, with a proven track record and great results, in order to make it do something else doesn't make much sense. But what do I know...

 

[FreshCorpse]

I don't understand the positivity. It's not that Activision-Blizzard are total shit, it's just that there is no way they are worth 68 billion dollars and I seriously doubt the "synergies" with Microsoft, especially if they dump Blizzards output onto Gamepass.

 

[Grauken]

I don't understand the positivity. It's not that Activision-Blizzard are total shit, it's just that there is no way they are worth 68 billion dollars and I seriously doubt the "synergies" with Microsoft, especially if they dump Blizzards output onto Gamepass.

seeing a large company waste billions on another large company that is just as creatively bankrupt is always hilarious

 

[RaggleFraggle]

And even more IPs will be forever lost in a corporate blob. MS is probably worse than EA with the handling of old IPs (well maybe minus the mobile raep EA did). EA at least had SMAC, Dungeon Keeper, Wing Commander and bunch of other old stuff rereleased on GOG, MS can't fucking even put Freelancer on it let alone Starlancer, the lazy cunts.

Good. Everything Blizzard has touched in the last 10 years deserves the Microsoft treatment. This is a win.

If you ask me what is sooner going to happen is that COD and Blizzard's latest disappointment(s) overshadow some less consoomed IPs, and not necessarily IPs from the Acti-Blizz's portfolio.

Of course there's always the question if IP squatting is so bad if in the end someone can make a spiritual succesor (even by the original developers and it also can fucking suck despite them working on it) and the games become de facto public domain as abandonware due to lawyers having no clue who the fuck owns the IP, unless for storyfaggotry/lorefaggotry reasons. Westwood's closure hurt in part because people wanted to see where the story from Tiberian Sun goes, and because this was before game design went to utter shit due to so there was reason to be hopeful westwood could have churned out a few more great games if the (((suits))) didn't kill it, but say Freelancer? There are no dangling threads for the storyfaggot, people just crave the gameplay style. Ditto for Age of Empires where also you don't really need the IP, Supreme Commander showed this best I think (and sadly remains one of the few proper as good as they should be spiritual successors).

So honestly I don't know if it matters that MS becomes another EA-like IP-squatting blob, although the non-jaded part of me would like to dream that OG devs can make a proper sequel or reboot in the... uh... Vigilante 8 and Interstate 'XX series? Hexen? Dark Reign maybe? Jesus, Activion really kind of has jack shit besides COD looking at the 90s-00s releases list, assuming they still own those IPs. I guess I might as well:

Speaking as a storyfag, stories in RTS games are all pretty bad. The best are the ones that are sparse enough that you can fill in the gaps with something sensible in your headcanon, or know they're bad and lean into that. The worst are those that are really bad but still seriously think they're amazing. Blizz RTS falls into the latter.

On the bright side, all these IPs are shallow and generic enough that it would be easy to make spiritual successors. However, there aren't many spiritual successors in RTS because making RTS is prohibitively expensive and has low ROI compared to all other genres. There's no guarantee that the writing will be any good in story mode either, and in my experience these stories have yet to actually become genuinely good. Even the latest crop of original RTS stories are still relying on uncreative genre cliches.

And most players have shitty story criticism skills anyway. Age of Darkness: Final Stand has a campaign with the most generic banal predictable story you could think of (tldr; it's a generic heroic fantasy story with an edgelord paintjob), but the reviews say it's the most amazing story ever and easily recaptures the RTS golden age. The only positive thing I can say about the story is that the shadow demons trying to destroy the world aren't revealed as a persecuted minority halfway through the story or team up with the hero against the real villain.

I have exactly one piece of advice for any aspiring RTS writers: don't write romances, heroic fantasy, or any of those other clichéd plot outlines that first pop into your head as the main story. Write the main story as a political thriller and military story, because that actually fits the gameplay of armies fighting for their nationstates. If you can't do that basic prerequisite for the genre, then get a different job.

I don't expect M$ will revive Blizz RTS either, but even if they did then I wouldn't look forward to it. The stories were absolutely terrible to begin with and I don't expect that to change. The foundation of the IPs is garbage and corpos consistently hire hacks to write. I don't care if the gameplay works: if the writing consistently insults my intelligence then I won't bother with it. I get enough of that shit from Hollyweird.

 

[Assisted Living Godzilla]

To make more games to fill out Game Pass. Warzone already shifted the formula anyways. Now they can sit on the free-to-play Call of Duty which generates them millions every day (which is why Call of Duty was never in danger of leaving PlayStation) while releasing one big CoD from Infinity Ward

To me, paying premium for a company built to pump out a product, with a proven track record and great results, in order to make it do something else doesn't make much sense. But what do I know...

They would still be pumping out the ones that make the most money.

With or without Microsoft, Activision probably would’ve started moving away from a new Call of Duty every year because of Warzone. You don’t need three or four (or five) studios making one yearly release, especially if they start bombing like Vanguard did, if you’ve got a Call of Duty set up like a platform like Warzone (now Warzone 2.0) that brings in something like $5 million a day. Look at something like GTA post-GTA Online. Online is a cash cow, and that cash cow completely killed the rate at which they put out new games. You don’t need to spend all that money to put out a new package once a year if you’ve got a release continuously brings in over a billion dollars.

Microsoft also owns a bunch of other FPS franchises now. They might want to put one of the non Infinity Ward and Treyarch CoD studios on Halo. They were seemingly teasing a new Hexen and now they own Hexen developer Raven...and yes many of their old developers still work there.

Xbox Game Pass, like all streaming services, is about the amount of content it has that can keep customers hooked so they keep paying that subscription fee. One studio with three or four support studios focused on making one game isn’t exactly the best thing for them with Game Pass, and Game Pass makes more than any single CoD.

Let’s use Call of Duty: Vanguard as an example. Vanguard did not meet sales expectations. Vanguard was developed by Sledgehammer Games; but it was also developed by Treyarch, Beenox, Demonware, High Moon Studios, Activision Shanghai Studio, Toys for Bob, Sumo Digital, and Raven Software. Now would it make more sense to have that many studios make one game that bombs, or would it make more sense to have even half of them each make their own games that feed into Xbox Game Pass...which in 2021 (on consoles only) made $2.9 billion? I’d also assume that number has gone up quite a bit since 2021, since in 2022 Game Pass users were up. It’s not even a totally different concept, it’s just the thing they’re feeding into is Game Pass (with their own games, which in turn could generate their own paid DLC) as opposed to the one underperforming CoD.

 

[J1M]

I don't understand the positivity. It's not that Activision-Blizzard are total shit, it's just that there is no way they are worth 68 billion dollars and I seriously doubt the "synergies" with Microsoft, especially if they dump Blizzards output onto Gamepass.

Blizzard is so thoroughly colonized by dangerhairs people are happy that a new studio will get a shot at their IP.

 

[lycanwarrior]

Xbox deal could be closing soon, Activision Blizzard to leave Stock Exchange:​

https://www.windowscentral.com/gami...n-activision-blizzard-to-leave-stock-exchange

AInvest Wire shared on Twitter that Trade Desk will be replacing Activision ($ATVI) on the Nasdaq-100 on Monday July 17.

 

[Mise]

To make more games to fill out Game Pass. Warzone already shifted the formula anyways. Now they can sit on the free-to-play Call of Duty which generates them millions every day (which is why Call of Duty was never in danger of leaving PlayStation) while releasing one big CoD from Infinity Ward

To me, paying premium for a company built to pump out a product, with a proven track record and great results, in order to make it do something else doesn't make much sense. But what do I know...

They would still be pumping out the ones that make the most money.

With or without Microsoft, Activision probably would’ve started moving away from a new Call of Duty every year because of Warzone. You don’t need three or four (or five) studios making one yearly release, especially if they start bombing like Vanguard did, if you’ve got a Call of Duty set up like a platform like Warzone (now Warzone 2.0) that brings in something like $5 million a day. Look at something like GTA post-GTA Online. Online is a cash cow, and that cash cow completely killed the rate at which they put out new games. You don’t need to spend all that money to put out a new package once a year if you’ve got a release continuously brings in over a billion dollars.

Microsoft also owns a bunch of other FPS franchises now. They might want to put one of the non Infinity Ward and Treyarch CoD studios on Halo. They were seemingly teasing a new Hexen and now they own Hexen developer Raven...and yes many of their old developers still work there.

Xbox Game Pass, like all streaming services, is about the amount of content it has that can keep customers hooked so they keep paying that subscription fee. One studio with three or four support studios focused on making one game isn’t exactly the best thing for them with Game Pass, and Game Pass makes more than any single CoD.

Let’s use Call of Duty: Vanguard as an example. Vanguard did not meet sales expectations. Vanguard was developed by Sledgehammer Games; but it was also developed by Treyarch, Beenox, Demonware, High Moon Studios, Activision Shanghai Studio, Toys for Bob, Sumo Digital, and Raven Software. Now would it make more sense to have that many studios make one game that bombs, or would it make more sense to have even half of them each make their own games that feed into Xbox Game Pass...which in 2021 (on consoles only) made $2.9 billion? I’d also assume that number has gone up quite a bit since 2021, since in 2022 Game Pass users were up. It’s not even a totally different concept, it’s just the thing they’re feeding into is Game Pass (with their own games, which in turn could generate their own paid DLC) as opposed to the one underperforming CoD.

But a yearly high budget COD would keep milions of people on Gamers Pass(supposedly if things continue like this), one bomb in a couple of years doesn't change anything. Take it from Netflix/HBO as they are the oldest in this. Sure the rare mid-budget hit happens(Squid Game) but things like Stranger Things and House of Cards were sure hits. Netflix wouldn't had 100 milions users if all their shows were mid-budget ones. HBO was gaining subscribers with GOT, Sopranos etc. High budget shows are loss leaders, aka you get hooked with the high budget ones and then stay long enough in the months of the year where there is no high budget entertainment. It will be the same here.

 

[abija]

Let’s use Call of Duty: Vanguard as an example. Vanguard did not meet sales expectations. Vanguard was developed by Sledgehammer Games; but it was also developed by Treyarch, Beenox, Demonware, High Moon Studios, Activision Shanghai Studio, Toys for Bob, Sumo Digital, and Raven Software. Now would it make more sense to have that many studios make one game that bombs, or would it make more sense to have even half of them each make their own games that feed into Xbox Game Pass...which in 2021 (on consoles only) made $2.9 billion? I’d also assume that number has gone up quite a bit since 2021, since in 2022 Game Pass users were up. It’s not even a totally different concept, it’s just the thing they’re feeding into is Game Pass (with their own games, which in turn could generate their own paid DLC) as opposed to the one underperforming CoD.

If I'd have to guess I would go with: they'll double down on CoD until they have absolute definitve proof market is completely saturated with it.

 

[Infinitron]

https://www.eurogamer.net/microsoft-disappointed-as-ftc-launches-appeal

Microsoft "disappointed" as FTC launches appeal​

While the Activision Blizzard deal deadline looms.

Xbox maker Microsoft has said it is "disappointed" to see the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) launch a formal appeal to try and overturn this week's bombshell court decision.

Following months of legal wrangling a US judge cleared the way for Microsoft to complete its $68.7bn Activision Blizzard acquisition, after deciding the FTC had not sufficiently proven why it should be blocked.

The FTC, as had been expected, is now appealing this decision - and has already filed to begin the process as quickly as possible.

Reacting to news of the FTC's appeal, Microsoft president Brad Smith stated that the US regulator had a "demonstrably weak case" - and that Microsoft would fight back.

"The District Court's ruling makes crystal clear that this acquisition is good for both competition and consumers," Smith said in a statement passed to Eurogamer, regarding the ruling earlier this week.

"We're disappointed that the FTC is continuing to pursue what has become a demonstrably weak case, and we will oppose further efforts to delay the ability to move forward."

So what happens next? Well, currently Microsoft is subject to a temporary restraining order which stops it from completing the Activision Blizzard purchase before midnight Pacific time this Friday, 14th July.

The FTC may try to have this restraining order extended, though it is unclear whether there is time now for this to be done this week.

And timing is very much of the essence. The Activision Blizzard deal has an expiry date of next Tuesday, 18th July. Microsoft is committed to getting the acquisition closed by then and looks set to push forward with it over the weekend, with Activision Blizzard stock already announced as disappearing from the Nasdaq.

There's also the matter of the UK's Competition and Markets Authority - the other regulator still holding the deal up. But this week brought a glimmer of hope there, as the FTC court decision coaxed it back to the negotiating table.

"The facts haven't changed," Activision Blizzard exec Lulu Cheng Meservey said, noting the FTC's appeal. "We're confident the US will remain among the 39 countries where the merger can close.

"We look forward to demonstrating the strength of our case in court - again."

 

[deuxhero]

The FTC's constant focus on "cloud gaming" (something that already has several entrants and never really worked in the first place due to basic laws of physics) really suggests it's just Sony puppetry.

 

[abija]

Or formal request for more grease.

 

[lycanwarrior]

 

[RepHope]

Apparently MS will cut a deal with the CMA on Monday, so this whole fiasco will be over soon.

 

[Infinitron]

Yep, it's done:

 

[DemonKing]

Yep, it's done:

Spencer to Gates:

 

[deuxhero]

Any suggestions on who to write at MS to beg for allowing an Arcanum source code release once it goes through?

 

[Tacgnol]

Any suggestions on who to write at MS to beg for allowing an Arcanum source code release once it goes through?

Phil Spencer apparently responds to emails.

Worth a shot I guess.

 

[Atlantico]

Yep, it's done:

Call of Duty has no bearing on this acquisition, Microsoft wants ActiBlizz for one thing only, and that's the mobile gaming arm of the company. The rest they could take or leave.

 

[MerchantKing]

https://www.eurogamer.net/microsoft-disappointed-as-ftc-launches-appeal

Microsoft "disappointed" as FTC launches appeal​

While the Activision Blizzard deal deadline looms.

Xbox maker Microsoft has said it is "disappointed" to see the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) launch a formal appeal to try and overturn this week's bombshell court decision.

Following months of legal wrangling a US judge cleared the way for Microsoft to complete its $68.7bn Activision Blizzard acquisition, after deciding the FTC had not sufficiently proven why it should be blocked.

The FTC, as had been expected, is now appealing this decision - and has already filed to begin the process as quickly as possible.

Reacting to news of the FTC's appeal, Microsoft president Brad Smith stated that the US regulator had a "demonstrably weak case" - and that Microsoft would fight back.

"The District Court's ruling makes crystal clear that this acquisition is good for both competition and consumers," Smith said in a statement passed to Eurogamer, regarding the ruling earlier this week.

"We're disappointed that the FTC is continuing to pursue what has become a demonstrably weak case, and we will oppose further efforts to delay the ability to move forward."

So what happens next? Well, currently Microsoft is subject to a temporary restraining order which stops it from completing the Activision Blizzard purchase before midnight Pacific time this Friday, 14th July.

The FTC may try to have this restraining order extended, though it is unclear whether there is time now for this to be done this week.

And timing is very much of the essence. The Activision Blizzard deal has an expiry date of next Tuesday, 18th July. Microsoft is committed to getting the acquisition closed by then and looks set to push forward with it over the weekend, with Activision Blizzard stock already announced as disappearing from the Nasdaq.

There's also the matter of the UK's Competition and Markets Authority - the other regulator still holding the deal up. But this week brought a glimmer of hope there, as the FTC court decision coaxed it back to the negotiating table.

"The facts haven't changed," Activision Blizzard exec Lulu Cheng Meservey said, noting the FTC's appeal. "We're confident the US will remain among the 39 countries where the merger can close.

"We look forward to demonstrating the strength of our case in court - again."

They should've just put that money into speculation instead of buying a blizzard. They would make more money that way.

 

[Zlaja]

I have to laugh when they argue that this deal will benefit consumers.

Would sure be nice if some 'journalist' would bother asking a question like "how exactly will this benefit consumers?".

 

[Atlantico]

I have to laugh when they argue that this deal will benefit consumers.

Would sure be nice if some 'journalist' would bother asking a question like "how exactly will this benefit consumers?".

It will mean the end of ActiBlizz. That's not a bad thing. Since we can't end both Microsoft and ActiBlizz, I'll take one over none.

 

[abija]

Kotick is a sleazeball that abused workers, milked consumers and at worst ruined some game franchises. Microsoft is an empire built on monopolies and robbing poor countries through shady deals. It's nice you go for the lesser evil :D

 

[Infinitron]

Yep, it's done:

Call of Duty has no bearing on this acquisition, Microsoft wants ActiBlizz for one thing only, and that's the mobile gaming arm of the company. The rest they could take or leave.

Sony were trying to block the acquisition and refusing to answer calls from Microsoft. That they've agreed to this now suggests that they've given up and it's a done deal.

 

[deuxhero]

Any suggestions on who to write at MS to beg for allowing an Arcanum source code release once it goes through?

Phil Spencer apparently responds to emails.

Worth a shot I guess.

I was thinking someone less prominent (and thus less emailed), but I guess I can try. Do we know of any other games where the source is preserved by a third party but the rights are owned by Activison-Blizzard?