1y ago

Microsoft wins lawsuit and will go ahead with the purchase of Activision

gamerkick.com Microsoft wins lawsuit and will go ahead with the purchase of Activision

Microsoft’s purchase of Activision Blizzard may go ahead in the United States, as Judge Corley sees no danger of harming competition. Microsoft will be ab...

Microsoft’s purchase of Activision Blizzard may go ahead in the United States, as Judge Corley sees no danger of harming competition.

The Andromedus Galacticus Collection @lemm.ee

x-post

Microsoft wins lawsuit and will go ahead with the purchase of Activision

gamerkick.com /d/123-microsoft-wins-lawsuit-and-will-go-ahead-with-the-purchase-of-activision

[x-post] - Microsoft wins lawsuit and will go ahead with the purchase of Activision

4 4

49 comments

the judge ensures that it is clear that Microsoft’s intention is to bring the Call of Duty saga, and the rest of Activision’s content, to a greater number of consumers.
How can a judge be so naive?
- Money
  
  My head's soundtrack every time I read money
- It’s not naive, it’s the truth. They’re going to bring their games, including COD, to the switch, to steam, to mobile, and will keep releasing COD and other GaaS games on PS.
  
  COD is already on Steam and mobile. The only new one there is Switch, which Kotick all but committed to making happen if Activision remained independent.
- little green pieces of paper make you naive
- Fingers crossed the CMA aren't swayed on it
  
  Why? You want continued dominance by Sony? How does that benefit the consumer?

Holy shit that sucks. Good thing the Indi-games scene is doing so well. I don't really need the AAA publishers anymore.
- The good that can come from this (imo) is that unlike Activision, Microsoft discounts their games on Steam according to their age while Activision (historically) has been very stingy on sales of old Call of Duty games.
  To my knowledge, there are zero Blizzard games on Steam. Microsoft has been open to putting new games on Steam (starting with the Halo: Master Chief Collection).
  So if MS follows it's current practices with Activision/Blizzard games, it could be a good thing for gamers.
  
  In the short term maybe but in the long term it's just another corporation getting even bigger and swallowing up smaller corporations which doesn't work out well for consumers.
- Yeah I’m a bit fed up with cookie cutter design-by-committee experiences anyway. I hate how they skirt around anything meaningful for absolute fear of ever offending anyone in the slightest.

Gross.

Honest question: Why is Sony against this when they have purchased many franchises and companies over the years and have kept them platform exclusive? Naughty Dog, Insomniac (now), etc. (iirc, they had a deal with Square Enix, but that seems to have changed as Kingdom Hearts is now on most platforms IIRC, same goes for FF)
I grew up with PS2 and love the Jak and Daxter franchise but always hated that after that generation, without emulating via software, that the games aren't platform-agnostic.
(I side with no company, was just looking for perspectives on the issue)
- The major information that you can take away from this whole case, is just how much Call of Duty means to Sony, and gaming in general. Some stats came out that there were a good number of people who only play Call of Duty. I mean they own a PS5 and the only game they own and play is Call of Duty. For Sony, it's a potential loss of a significant portion of their customer base.
  
  This is going off memory, so there's a good chance the number is off, but something like $800m of Sony's yearly revenue is CoD. Something like 3 or 4% of their total playstation revenue
- Because they weren't the ones that got to buy Activision and Bethesda. If they were the games would still have been exclusives, just for Playstation instead of Xbox.
- Every single gaming IP Sony has purchased pales in comparison to the sheer financial juggernaut that is COD. Purchasing Activision is bigger than all of Microsoft's other gaming purchases combined. There's a good chance it's bigger than all of the gaming purchases from Sony and Microsoft pre-Activision — combined.
  As a gaming entity, Activision is in the same ballpark in size as Sony. Sony's market cap last I checked was ~$120b, but they also have a consumer electronics division, music division, movie division, image sensors division, etc. Without an acquisition markup Activision might be worth ~$50b today or so, and Sony's gaming-only value might be in the $60-80b range if I had to guess.
  Activision-Blizzard has about 17,000 employees. Naughty Dog has 400.
  Past acquisitions — by anyone — in the gaming market are completely and utterly incomparable to this acquisition.
- Why is Sony against this
  Because Sony don't want MS being more competitive, and owning ABK will do that.

I personally see this as bad. Look at all the local television stations getting bought up and have become "message deliverers". There are only few companies that own the majority and have decided that delivering local news is secondary to deploying a message. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=\_fHfgU8oMSo]

I want all the the people responsible for the sexual harassment out of there as soon as that takeover is complete,Activision has needed a major change in management. Also happy that Sony's arguments didn't work considering they do the same things they accuse Microsoft of doing

I know people dislike mergers for good reason but in all honesty I've been wanting this to just go through just so I can know whether they boot Kotick out. If they don't... boo.
I don't have any interest in CoD anymore. There are a few IPs I'd like to see explored though that Activision has been sitting on and ignoring. And some that Activision "might" own that they've been too lazy to check but still threaten to litigate if it turns out that they do own (No One Lives Forever).

Didn't the UK reject it though? What happened there?
- They announced that they're negotiating a deal with Microsoft. They'll get some new small concession for PR purposes, but it's clear this deal is 100% going to happen in the next week.
- UK? Don’t think anyone really gives a shit about them anymore. If the EU complains Microsoft will have to actually address it. Still boggles the mind to think a bunch of racist pensioners blew whatever was remaining of the UK’s relevance up. Not that the EU is “good,” but at least it meant they had a voice. I guess they’re quickly learning they are just an isolated rock north of Europe on their own. At least they “owned the libs”…

CMA have just agreed to negotiate with Microsoft. It sounds like the UK approval is forthcoming too.
https://www.theverge.com/2023/7/11/23791149/microsoft-activision-blizzard-uk-regulators-cma-appeal

Pretty shit news.

Can someone help me to understand why this is a bad (or good) thing. In my mind, Activision is huge - I'm having a hard time understanding what the difference will be here?
- Xbox exclusivity.

While I agree that in the end this is probably not good in the long run, I do hope they do something with the state of Call of Duty, activision has killed the franchise. Just look at the latest warzone / MW player count.
I used to enjoy playing with my friends. But the game is so broken.
I do think Phil Schiller is a good guy, let’s hope this doesn’t go sideways.
Maybe I’m being naive… only time will tell.
- activision has killed the franchise. Just look at the latest warzone / MW player count.
  COD MWII is one of the franchises biggest selling titles, and Warzone is an absolute smash hit. What are you talking about? MWII is the second most played game on xbox live, behind only fortnite.

I kinda want to play a Microsoft flight sim/WoW mashup

Yoo that's fantastic news, let's frickin go
- Imagine cheering for monopolistic practices. Gross. In 20 years when everything is owned by Microsoft and Sony and games are $200 a piece or gamepass $40 a month don't complain.
  
  What's monopolistic about the last placed competitor buying a company to try and better compete?
- Why, what benefits do you get from this?

49 comments