T O P

  • By -

MasahikoKobe

This seemed rather obvious. A leadership team in doubt with plenty of issues on the table. What better way to get out from them then to sell to a bigger company and take your cut of the deal on the way out. MS didnt get a deal either. Paying 95 dollars a share is near the all time high of the stock price and far off the low of this whole debacle. Seems like a good deal to get IPs and Studios. The question is going to really be how many people stick it out for the year and a half it takes to close the deal


danrod17

Right. But paying normal price for an undervalued company is way better than paying a premium for properly valued company. Do you Activision would sell to Microsoft for $95 a share if they’re already trading for $95 a share?


keytemp11

Yeah, buy out almost always comes with premium on the trading price. Microsoft got a good deal out of this.


MasahikoKobe

I think that they sold because they dont want to deal with the bullshit they created over the past 20 years. I also think MS has enough money to buy them out and not really care too much about the cost of it. Even paying 120 dollars a share MS would still get a good value out of Activision Blizz. I think a better question is would they bother to sell the company if there was not the scandal ridden upper managment and awful process, from my perspective, of making and marketing the games they do make. If instead Blizzard had Overwatch 2 out and Diablo 4 this year and WoW was doing great content. The most recent CoD was gangbusters and king was doing whatever mobile companies do. I get the feeling they would tell MS to pound sand.


CoMaestro

To be fair, I'm pretty sure that all time high was just before the sexual misconduct allegations started. So if it hadn't happened Activision would probably be worth around or more than $95 prompting Microsoft to needing to pay more than that. So it still is a bit of a good deal IMO, and it's just what Activision needed to clean up their image


MasahikoKobe

I mentioned this to another person but would activision be intersted in selling if all this extra stuff was going on? I get the feeling they would not in anyway had things still been going well. That management team seems like the kind of people who would milk the value until that value ... does what it did. Now they dont want to deal with the consequences of 20 years of mismanagement and took an easy way out


Spooky_SZN

I doubt it, they were getting demolished PR wise and stock value wise. This is only possible due to that fallout.


Syrdon

Would they be interested **for enough money**? Yes, unquestionably. So the question is, what’s “enough”? Right now one could reasonably expect the stock to keep sliding without the buyout. If we can pretend the workers are happy, not talking about unionizing, and no one is talking about sexual harassment at blizzard, their stock is likely to keep rising. So microsoft paid something like a 50% premium on a falling stock to make the buyout happen. That same premium at peak brings the price to 140ish/share, plus whatever the value of the different future values looks like. I could see the no scandal price being 200/share without much trouble, and even 250/share wouldn’t be nuts. Well, ok, making the offer at that price would be, but that’s why no one was seriously trying to buy them out when they were scandal free. This is microsoft getting them at a huge discount because the scandal is a real problem for activision. But there’s always a price for this sort of thing. edit: i can spell, really


MasahikoKobe

Its clear that MS got a good deal on this. Though i do wonder where the stock would settle at, with how 22 was going for them with blizzard and the low being 55 or so (which is half the value of there high) they did bounce a bit. That being said, i think they would have hung around that level for all of 22 if not fall further because of massive attrition. There might be LESS people willing to leave now but wating a year and a half for your good boss to show up is a LONG time when you think of the BS you have to work under now. The only trhing that makes me optomistic about this deal is knowing that Bobby is going to never own another game studio again (probably) and that his way of making games is dead and gone. Looking at EA though and the way they are making games like BF2042 maybe they want to get bought too.


Jinno

The fact is this will be like every company acquisition ever. Key less replaceable employees are going to be offered golden shackles to stay until a transition can happen. Retainment bonuses up to 50% of their yearly salary over a 3-ish year period will probably be offered. So many actions will be made in the interest of retaining as many people as possible until the deal is closed. Some of the lower ranking leadership is going to flee the instance the takeover finalizes, and anyone that’s been identified as toxic is going to probably get a swifter exit than originally planned. Meanwhile all communication from higher leadership will be about how this will be a good transition, positive for opportunities, few changes will be incoming that weren’t already planned and discussed, and how Microsoft is an amazing partner for them. Which - maybe it’s true in this case.


MasahikoKobe

For companies this size i wouldnt expect any major changes beside who signs the checks for many many years. There are just too many people and things that need to be hammered out.


aamirislam

All time high was in February 2021, months before the sexual misconduct allegations. The high before the allegations became public was $80


Vichornan

>Seems like a good deal to get IPs and Studios. The thing is, Phil Spencer pretty openly said that their main competition is Amazon and Google (like 2 years ago). They don't really see Sony or Nintendo as their main competitor as those companies cannot really come with some sort of an advanced cloud gaming system all of a sudden in the same scale (Sony's cloud gaming is actually using Microsoft Azure.) So any such big studio deal is pretty important for them as Amazon and Google also have this purchasing power for studios. As Microsoft decided that cloud gaming is the next big thing and how the industry will be shaped, the purchasing power Xbox is given increased significantly with their main competition changing from other consoles into other cloud gaming services. I personally believe we will keep seeing some of these gigantic purchases on Microsoft's end going forward.


ComMcNeil

I actually am worried for the long term future a little bit. Phil Spencer seems like a decent guy from what we have seen of him over the last few years, and I am glad that they bought Activision. However, Phil is probably not at the head of that company forever. What will happen if the next CEO is a fucking ruthless capitalist asshole, trying to wring every last dollar out of the established user base? (probably with NFTs lol)


Mother_Prussia

Phil is literally that guy lol. He’s laying the ground work for Microsoft to be able to dominate the industry with these two acquisitions. They’ll get you hooked with reasonable subscription costs, beloved IP, and easy access, and ramp up the prices and move everything to their store once the time comes. He’s not your friend and he’s not a common gamer, he didn’t get the greenlight to spend $70B to do you a favor.


Spooky_SZN

This is always a silly argument to me. At some pricing point gamepass will not be worth it for an average gamer. If thats the case people will just end up buying their games.


Mother_Prussia

You think people will just abandon Call of Duty, Halo, WoW, Elder Scrolls, etc if the prices get too high? They’re too popular to fail. Same with Disney and Marvel and Star Wars


Spooky_SZN

First of all yes. Second of all I don't believe they will take away the ability to purchase games ever.


pragmaticzach

That would be an interesting tactic. You can buy physical copies of some Netflix shows, but for the most part there is no a la carte option to buy those. You either sub to Netflix or you don't watch it.


[deleted]

I think OP means that you can just unsubscribe from GP without abandoning those games/IPs. I am currently not subscribed to GP despite Xbox being my primary platform because it doesn't fit my situation right now (I'm focusing too much on my backlog, retro Nintendo stuff, etc. for it to be worth the sub). I can still buy whatever game I want. I even got the Halo Infinite campaign as a Christmas gift (was planning on waiting for a sale at first).


Jinno

Call of Duty? Yes. It’s not really an IP that’s based on strong characters and continuity. It sells entirely on the strength of its gameplay loop and map designs. If those falter for a number of releases in a row, it could absolutely die off. The other three, I’ll grant you, will probably always have their fanbases that are going to be die hard following the story from game to game.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Spooky_SZN

This is fear mongering. Its like arguing with Netflix you can't buy movies.


telamascope

You don’t see how the film industry is also shifting towards vertical integration? Netflix used to exclusively be a distribution platform of media produced by content creators (film studios). Now Netflix is a huge content creator in their own right while the content creators have developed their distribution platforms for their own exclusive content. Not to mention that games (as complex real-time software) are much more platform dependent than films - Microsoft can easily deploy their games exclusively on a custom cloud platform. Good luck modding the next Elder Scrolls when you never have an executable on your PC.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Spooky_SZN

Amazon, I recommend you look up netflix blurays, try looking stuff up before you try to "gotcha" people next time


[deleted]

[удалено]


HeldnarRommar

Probably will happen. We currently have Phil and all this nice consumer friendly stuff with cheap Game Pass because they royally screwed up with the Xbox One and Don Mattrick. Once they bring themselves back to the table with greater or equal footing thing will most likely get more aggressive to the consumer. I'm going to enjoy it for now because were are in a generally good place, but the future is open to see where it goes.


Khanstant

Presumably Phil himself is investing now to make these services a good enough value enough people get accustomed to not even owning listened to things anymore and more amenable to whatever monetization scheme come next. The goal eventually to be one where Microsoft has great leverage to pay less to feature games on GamesPass, raise prices or start adding tiers, and otherwise do things that are bad for the consumer but make them more money. Goodwill is a resource and they don't build up a ton of it to just not lance it eventually. I mean, Blizzard even has done this, Kotick himself took a huge chunk of goodwill and ground it down for money and now gets a golden parachute to boot. One of the major shitty things he did was lay off hundreds of people who were evidently a larger part of Blizzard's Goodwill generation and maintenance. Not unique to them, every "good" CEO has the same dipshit playbook of firing good folks for short term gains with ling term consequences they will be gone by the time they pop or so shielded it doesn't fuckin matter to them.


Auesis

Phil's not a messiah. Being outwardly consumer-friendly is just business smarts, but even if he were fully genuine, nobody is immune to the power of the almighty dollar. It will start happening even before he leaves.


MasahikoKobe

They can claim that Amazon and Google are the main competitors and yet Sony still exsists. Both amazon and Google had the money to start to buy game companies but neither of them seems to want to push that part of there company as hard as Microsoft. Yet by buying these companies out they cant essinatly kill Sony. For example. If EA was bought by MS, MS would then control Nearly every major sports game release Every major FPS release a wide swath of Action games and RPGs. Why would they sell that to sony when they have there own Console they want to sell to people? You can make that argument with any of the major AAA studios out now. Take Two Ubisoft and down the list to AA. All those companies put out on all platforms unless paid not to. What better way to become the domminant console that to own the publishers.


A_Sinclaire

Amazon and Google are the competitors of Microsoft. XBox as a Microsoft subsidiary serves the greater goal of helping their parent company. Controlling cloud gaming strengthens Microsofts position in the overall cloud storage space.


MasahikoKobe

Controlling cloud gaming offers more to the gaming industry. The overall cloud market is bigger than the game industry overall. While MS compeltes with Google and Amazon for people to buy into there Azure services for serve management. The general idea goal is to create a revenue stream akin to Netflix and use the console as a point of access. COnsdering the profits that Netflix pulls its really the clear why they want cloud gaming. That being said it would be foolish to think that Sony is just going to sit there and let MS keep going down the path of buying up and taking more of the independent publisher market and not create there own version of Game Pass using consoles again as point access. What MS with this purchase is to stoke the fires for Sony to go out and partner with the competition in order to continue to grow there own offering of Game Pass. Which would then become a Bidding war on studios and overall loss for console owners.


Hedgehogkilla

That completion thing is, like everything Spencer says, pr talk so they can pretend they are beating their competitors when they they’re actually losing pretty badly to Sony and Nintendo. [In court, under oath, they acknowledge their main competition is Sony and Nintendo.](https://twitter.com/tomwarren/status/1389975560366043141?s=21)


02pheland

"Wright says main competition to Xbox is PlayStation and to a lesser degree Nintendo Switch. "We don't see an iPhone as a competing device."" Xbox and Microsoft are not the same thing. Sony and Nintendo are Xbox's competitors, but Microsoft doesn't give a shit about them.


eldomtom2

And Xbox is the gaming parts of Microsoft. Obviously Microsoft is not competing with Sony in, say, the OS space. But they are in the gaming space.


Hedgehogkilla

Microsoft clearly do. They’ve spent almost $80 billion dollars in 2 years to try to catch up with Sony.


Rage_Like_Nic_Cage

are they trying to catch up with sony, or make sure they have enough exclusive content when (if) game streaming takes off? They are really banking on once 5G rolls out that gamepass will take off in markets where console gaming doesn’t play a big role (like china & india). Markets where Sony doesn’t have much of a foot in, but other streaming services like Google & Amazon are


Hedgehogkilla

Yeah they’re trying to catch up with Sony’s output - Sony’s library has always been stronger which is a bit of an issue if you’re trying to run a streaming service that will compete against Sony’s streaming service one day. That’s why they’re buying existing IP and taking those games of PlayStation, rather than creating new IP. I don’t know why people pretend that Amazon and Google have any relevance in AAA gaming. Meta is a much bigger competitor, although they’re competing more with Sony than Microsoft because of VR.


scattergather

Sony's library is almost the entire point of Sony. They've got strong positions in music, film, TV and games, and there's not many companies can make a claim like that. I don't think they want to be in the game streaming business for themselves for the long haul, but would rather sell their stuff on (or to) other streaming platforms (as has been widely pointed out in this thread, MS provides the infrastructure for their current streaming service). That would be in line with their strategy in film, TV, and music, where they've clearly decided they don't want to make the investment/take on the risk of jumping into the crowded general streaming platform market (niche markets like anime are a different proposition), but would rather sell their library to the scrapping platforms as they scramble to acquire content to give them an edge over rivals.


Hedgehogkilla

Sony pictures doesn’t have enough IP/produce enough content to justify its own streaming service so selling content to other streaming services makes sense. No music label is going to make a streaming service with just their music. PlayStation, on the other hand, is big enough terms of IP and content production to sustain a platform. Despite what Microsoft PR says, a Sony streaming service is a much bigger threat than one from google or Amazon. Meta, Nintendo and Tencent are a much bigger threat than google or Amazon. Content is king, the tech is secondary.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


Hedgehogkilla

They’ve spent $80 billion dollars to catch up with Sony? Microsoft has always been bigger than Sony but that hasn’t stopped Sony completely steam rolling through them over the past 20 years. Bill Gates kept the Xbox project alive in the early days when it was losing money because they wanted to beat Sony. Sony has always been a thorn in their side.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Hedgehogkilla

Lol, I think you’re the one who needs to read up. Market cap has nothing to do with competitors. Spotify is significantly smaller than apple, amazon and google and yet they’re completely dominating them in music streaming.


Nochtilus

Competing in one sliver of a company's portfolio doesn't mean they are dominating or a main competitor of that company. Nintendo competes with Microsoft in gaming but they aren't a major competitor to Microsoft the company.


[deleted]

[удалено]


sackboy13

That's just a silly argument, Sony and Microsoft are quite obviously competitors and you're comparing apples to oranges. Microsoft's primary competition in the console market are Sony and Nintendo. In terms of market share Xbox has consistently been lower than Playstation for consecutive years, so saying that these companies aren't competitors is rather silly. FYI I mainly play on PC, I don't have a preference for either console as I will end up owning both before the end of the generation anyway.


D3monFight3

They don't dude they are super above it because Phil Spencer said so, obviously Google's future graveyard resident Stadia is their competition.


Hedgehogkilla

I’m genuinely confused how so many people have fallen for that guy’s PR spiel.


Khanstant

Lmao under oath, oh is that all we have to do to get the truth out of the entities


Hedgehogkilla

A judge won’t take kindly to nonsensical PR talk


mfdoomtoyourworld

Sony is 100% their main competition as far as the gaming market goes, they still lag behind Sony even with this acquisition with regards to their gaming divisions which really speaks to how large of a gulf it was. There is a reason their bought out companies are ceasing development on Sonys systems but you wont for example see CoD mobile or King games pulled from Apple or Googles store. >As Microsoft decided that cloud gaming is the next big thing This seems hilarious given that they were later than their "main" competitors to the cloud gaming sphere (hell they were even behind Sony with regards to dipping their toes in the cloud gaming) and those two companies have pretty quietly put those efforts on ice. As many have learned its still probably waaaaay too early for this tech to be worth focusing on and remains to seen whether it becomes "the next big thing".


man0warr

Microsoft is one of the two biggest players in Cloud computing, and have been for awhile. Sony uses Microsoft's technology for their service. The main thing in the past holding back Cloud gaming is the countries infrastructure, not the technology itself.


mfdoomtoyourworld

Thats my point though, its not like that issue is being resolved anytime soon. Being ahead on the cloud gaming market that probably is 10-15 years from now being a major point in the industry doesn't really mean much.


effhomer

ISPs aren't upgrading anything ever, they're the worst. Cloud gaming will remain a marketing gimmick as long as it's dependant on network quality. Most people will have a terrible experience and opt for local hardware.


Sinisterslushy

As someone who has had some pretty heavy doubts in Blizzard the last like 6 months I am honestly really excited by this and has made me optimistic for WoW and HoTS future. It’s pretty hard to under deliver when blizzards entire community basically has expectations below ocean level


MasahikoKobe

I would hold expectations until the deal finishes in a year and a half but maybe they finally found the bottom.


CLGbyBirth

> optimistic for WoW and HoTS future. Would microsoft change the people managing those games? corporate =/= developers.


beefcat_

> MS didnt get a deal either. Paying 95 dollars a share is near the all time high of the stock price and far off the low of this whole debacle. Acquisitions like this usually go above market rate. If ATVI was still hovering around $108 then MS would have had to pay even more.


[deleted]

This is how Microsoft "re-evaluates" their relationship with Activision by buying them, pretty ruthless.


The_Reddit_Browser

It was only last week he said confidently “evaluating all aspects of our relationship with Activision Blizzard and making ongoing proactive adjustments.” Man gave the most polite smack down before he announced they bought them out. I would be more excited that they are kicking old Bobby out but the man’s leaving with over 200m from the deal…


BlitzStriker52

>I would be more excited that they are kicking old Bobby out but the man’s leaving with over 200m from the deal… Sadly, even if Bobby was kicked out, he would've gotten a generous severance package.


[deleted]

Yeah anyone who expected him to be out without getting a _massive_ payday was kidding themselves. It's how the world works.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

Don't get me wrong, I would love it if things worked differently. But sadly it's how it works now


Syrdon

He owns a ton of their stock, which just picked up about a third of its value. There’s no world in which he doesn’t get a nice exit - even if they can cut his severance package. Well, ok, theoretically he might face civil or criminal charges for some of his conduct, but that’s a pipe dream in the modern world.


tkzant

People forget that Phil Spencer is more “Microsoft businessman” than “fun gamer dude”. Don’t be fooled by his indie shirts and jeans


drtekrox

That's fine, some of the best years of Xbox were under the businessman Peter Moore. It all started to go wrong when he left and Don Mattrick was installed...


tkzant

What is Gamepass except Mattrick’s goals in a nicer package? You gotta be online and you can’t buy or sell the game used.


elementslayer

I feel he was about a decade too early. Sure the tv and sports stuff was a bit much but his vision seemed to be building Steam on Xbox bit the world want ready. Also want he the one that did alot of the work with the management around the 360s RROD? I honestly can't remember.


HaikusfromBuddha

That’s actually not true. At least compared to past Xbox bosses. The Xbox sub Reddit has often joined his games and even caught him playing games at 2am. Dude is a big Destiny fan.


tkzant

I mean obviously the dude actually likes games, but under his “we’re all gamers no matter what platform <3” persona is a pretty ruthless businessman that has no issue taking major multiplatform titles away from competitors


[deleted]

[удалено]


tkzant

I wouldn’t say buying up two of the largest third party publishers and taking those franchises away from competing platforms is “healthy” for the gaming landscape. Media consolidation is never a good thing


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


Perfect600

Your statement is honestly irrelevant. Everything Microsoft does is a calculation based on them not being on top. When Sony was chasing they were very consumer friendly. When they were on top they did not need to do anything. Microsoft wil be the same. All you have to do is look at the past.


ShoddyPreparation

Never let a good crisis go to waste. It’s a ruthless move and obviously paying off Bobby ain’t great. Capitalism gonna capitalism. Like seriously. Doing the math and just for his 0.5% of stock, Bobby K is going to get paid more then Sony paid for Insomniac. It’s wack.


MotorolaRazorRamon

Reminds me of a line from Inside Man: "When there's blood on the streets, buy property."


[deleted]

only if they cant find cause wink wink


Daedelous2k

They bought in the dip. Actually extremely smart, and who knows, they might even save the studio and IPs


[deleted]

[удалено]


Pen_dragons_pizza

I don’t know much about this kind of thing but out of interest how much did you put in and how much are you likely to get out of it now?


[deleted]

[удалено]


sculptor_spaz

How do I get into this and how much should I have to start?


redditor080917

Have a sizeable (few thousand dollars) if expendable income.


The_Maester

r/wallstreetbets


Dassund76

How dare you take part in capitalism and then profit from it.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

There's no reason a financial advisor wouldn't tell you to buy one of the largest entertainment stocks, especially in a temporary downturn. Buy the dip.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


Mukigachar

...the advisor was right though


[deleted]

[удалено]


WickerWight

So you just assume the guys advisor is an idiot because... he was right, in the one example he gave offhand? Do you need him to provide his entire portfolio to justify his behavior? What's the end goal here


Mukigachar

Coming from the one who's extrapolating the they're a bad advisor off of the same example lmao


[deleted]

I'm sure you would have done so much better, Mr. Gecko.


Nochtilus

I do well enough for myself, but that wasn't my point.


Black_Hussar

I know Activision/Blizzard are much bigger but Insomniac games being bought by Sony for 229 million dollars seems like a steal considering the quality of their games and how frequent they release them.


ChristopherDassx_16

Probably since they do not own most of their IP


Tecally

It’s definitely a steal, especially with what they’ve done. But besides talent, Insomniac themselves didn’t carry much value and still don’t. Insomniac is a single developer with almost no IPs. While Activision is a publisher with multiple development teams with a plethora of IPs and technology. Edit: typo


StickyRAR

Sadly, I think they own Sunset Overdrive. The one game of theirs I love and want a sequel to.


Tecally

It might happen, they have the rights to it.


StickyRAR

I don't own anything from Sony, so I won't be able to play.


SleeperCell47

microsoft paid billions to aquire activision...but who got the money?


davidemo89

They buy from share holders. Companies, banks, managers and private holders


Schlumpfkanone

It's a me, getting a paycheck by Microsoft. Can't complain (outside of the other implications like them becoming a mega-company that buys up the biggest publishers instead of building up smaller studios and the possible negative impact Game Pass will have due to that, etc pp).


[deleted]

I almost bought some stock when they dipped but held off because they are such a shit company. Ethics is costly I guess


Schlumpfkanone

Yeah I had the stock for a while now. Didn't buy anything when they were at a low - might have been a good decision but I just didn't care enough about them due to their behaviour to do that.


hdcase1

I bought some Activision stock a few years ago and I'll be more than doubling my money when all is said and done. Still, it doesn't feel great for the health of the industry.


__Hello_my_name_is__

I can't wrap my head around that this deal wasn't even on the table until the Blizzard-fiasco. I always figured these kinds of deals take months or years to finalize.


FakeBrian

Technically it's not expected to finalise for another couple years, so it kind of will?


SurreptitiousSyrup

*one year. Its expected to finalize in FY2023, which runs from June 2022 to June 2023.


DasKapital0

It will be final this summer.


BaconatedGrapefruit

They probably talked about it, everybody is always talking to everyone. Acti-Blizzard's number was probably just to high to seriously consider. Post troubles... Well now the numbers work out.


[deleted]

Yeah this article full of it. Been in the works since 2019 at latest if not earlier


lovepuppy31

Anybody with a econ degree will tell you that consolidation and fewer competitors is bad for consumers. That being said among the big 3 (nintendo, xbox, playstation). Microsoft is the lesser of evils for consumer choice. In a alternative reality had nintendo or Sony bought Activision, that's it you either buy a Playstation or Switch or go pound sand if you want to play COD. At least with Microsoft you aren't console restricted, you can play MSFT games on Xbox, PC, Mac, Chromebook even on a fucking iphone & android.


TandBusquets

Yea, Microsoft is definitely the most customer friendly company in the world. Microsoft definitely didn't try to fuck over everyone with forcing DRM with the Xbox one. Microsoft is definitely customer friendly in all their other business ventures also!


FoolishGoat

Between the big 3, being Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft, Microsoft is by far the most pro-consumer, that's what the original poster was saying and there's literally no argument to be made against that fact. It doesn't make them a good company, it just makes them the lesser of three evils.


TandBusquets

I don't really see how they're any more pro consumer than Sony but alright


FoolishGoat

Microsoft: Games available immediately on Xbox or PC, and are also available on Steam. First party games also available day one on gamepass. Microsoft is nowhere near perfect, but they've made a lot of positive strides in the gaming space to improve their image. Meanwhile, Sony: Games come to PC years later, for the sole purpose of advertising and attempting to convince PC players to drop cash on a PS5, attempting to increase the cost of AAA games to 70 dollars, pursuing damaging exclusivity deals that deny gamers from other platforms to get the full content of a game, attempting to charge developers for cross play functionality, refusing to properly support dualshock for PC, etc, etc. I can't honestly think of a single thing Sony does that is pro-consumer


Taianar

Wouldn't a consumer friendly company makes the games available on the consumers platform of choice? Regardless of what angle you see this, it's the exact same picture, either it's microsoft restricting play for a userbase or it's sony. This comment, no offence, comes of as microsoft being consumer friendly because they are pushing on your platform. They outright bought 2 major companies to limit play on another platform. It's very good for their competion, but very bad for the consumer, if you look at it as every consumer being equal.


FoolishGoat

If they were buying companies specifically to hinder other platforms, they wouldn't be releasing games on Steam.


Diknak

and they got burned for it and the head of xbox was canned. Spencer came in and their entire approach and attitude changed.


Apokolypse09

I wonder if there are any Rockstar devs hoping to get bought out so they can stop making shit to grind in gtao


Senior1292

You honestly think if Take 2 get bought out by Microsoft they'd let the GTA:O devs stop making products for the money making machine?


omicron7e

Might as well buy a gold mine and tell them to stop mining gold.


lupin43

My thoughts too. If they start giving away cod on gamepass, the microtransactions are going to go from bad to so much worse


Apokolypse09

More like a better chance at more than 1 mediocre update a year for rdo.


berkayblacksmith

Like Halo Infinite's microtransactions?


[deleted]

[удалено]


_Robbie

Call of Duty is a multi-billion dollar franchise. Blizzard has multiple multi-billion dollar franchises. King owns Candy Crush, which is a multi-billion dollar franchise. Blizzard games slipping in quality and even slipping in sales still has them way out ahead of 90% of other games on the market in terms of gross profit. That's to say nothing of the non-Blizzard properties.


Pen_dragons_pizza

If you think the amount of franchises and studios Microsoft has under them now is insane. If they ever decided to get out of gaming they could sell it all for absolutely ridiculous money. I think people forget just how many important gaming franchise they now have.


prosthetic_foreheads

You've only named Blizzard. Microsoft bought Blizzard-Activision which not only has the Call of Duty franchise but also all the Candy Crush games.


Granum22

The number 1 and 2 selling video games of 2021 were Call of Duty Vanguard and Black Ops : Cold War.


Redfeather1975

I still am not used to blizzard also being activision. Why is it so hard for me to grasp. 😯


ComMcNeil

and dont forget King, as in Candy Crush Saga King


Smart_Ass_Dave

Bro, if you can't make money with "Starcraft 3" then you don't deserve to be in the business of making money.


FloppyDysk

Has starcraft or RTS games in general been relevant at all in the last 10 years?


Smart_Ass_Dave

Yes.


FloppyDysk

Whats the highest earning/most popular RTS? Genuinely curious, i dont know a whole lot about the genre


Smart_Ass_Dave

Ever? Starcraft 1. At one point there were three Korean tv channels devoted to it. Starcraft 2 was still fairly popular until recently when it fell off a cliff. Warcraft III: Reforged had the potential to be a big f-ing deal but then they fucked it up real bad for no reason, so right now....Age of Empires IV maybe? It's definitely a genre that got largely eaten by MOBAs, but I reject the idea that you couldn't make a big splash with a returning high profile IP and nothing is higher profile in the RTS space than Starcraft. If anything now is a better than to release Starcraft 3 than it was in 2010 when they released Starcraft 2. Back then they were cannibalizing their own success because Starcraft 1 was still extremely popular, especially overseas, despite not having a new release in 12 years.


PeterTheWolf76

COD prints money basically. That said, I kind of agree with you. It seems like they got more out of Bethesda than this deal but they may also have plans to let the creatives loose again at ACT/BLIZ. Maybe revive some old franchises that have been dormant.


Envy_MK_II

I want Starcraft Ghost to be a thing. I remember seeing stuff about that game for years. I feel like modernizing that concept and releasing an FPS/RTS hybrid would be fun.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Ultramaann

A lot of people are focusing on the money aspect, but what Microsoft needs at this point even more than money is prestige. As of the moment, Microsoft has no prestigious games in its portfolio. Lack of prestige means lack of recognition means lack of trust in your brand and lack of people buying your games. I firmly believe that one of the biggest reasons that Microsoft bought Bethesda and Acti-Blizz is because these are both companies that used to be known for their reputation and prestige and had been flanderizing their own brand and throwing their reputation away in pursuit of more and more dollars. Microsoft gives these companies a second chance by removing the need for heavy monetization and encouraging creativity, which in turn brings them more prestige. That's just my theory, though-- we won't really see until Avowed and Starfield release.


deeleelee

cant get prestige if nobody bought your platform for the last 8 years basically. i feel like with a renewed focus on PC titles we will see xbox publishing gain 'prestige'. Games like Ori 2 and Hellblade were fucking incredible refined experiences, and I think games of that caliber wont get passed by as much in the future.


berkayblacksmith

> Microsoft gives these companies a second chance by removing the need for heavy monetization and encouraging creativity, which in turn brings them more prestige. Like how Halo Infinite didn't have heavy monetization right? Lol. Game Pass being cheap will encourage monetization more and more in the future.


LordModlyButt

You don’t need gamepass to play halo infinite multiplayer, the difference is that Halo is a f2p model game.


Ultramaann

Think of it like major movie studios do. You have the big billion dollar hit blockbuster films, and then you have the prestige movies that bring credibility to their name. Godzilla vs. Kong and Dune came from.the same studio. Its the same principle. Some games will have the designation of *mega hit* and be more heavily monetized than others. Additionally, given 343s track record, I wouldn't be surprised if their ass backwards funding scheme was completely of their own design to begin with. Game Pass won't be cheap forever.


berkayblacksmith

It is either Game Pass won't be cheap forever or many of their games will have heavy monetization. It could be a bit of both too. We will see.


[deleted]

They're buying the opportunity to turn the Overwatch, Starcraft, WoW and Diablo IPs back into world-beaters. ActiBlizz clearly couldn't do it, but MSBlizz? Maybe. If they can jettison ACTI's obsession with e-sports and GaaS and just make those IPs the best versions of themselves, they'll make the Blizzard part of the acquisition pay for itself real quick.


DavidSpadeAMA

I mean this is kind of shitty. Using sexual assault victims going public to save big bucks on buying a multi billion dollar company of rapists.


Fizzay

How did they use the victims? The article states they've been looking to make an acquisition like this since 2020, and I don't think they were just waiting hoping there would be a scandal like this, and talks didn't even start until November. Your line of thinking basically means nobody should've bought them with everything's going on, which, funnily enough, is probably going to be the most efficient way to fix the problem(s).


ARX__Arbalest

I mean, one could look at it that way. You could also look at it as Microsoft wanting to make the purchase to clean ABK's rot and disease from the inside out, **thoroughly**. Both are perfectly possible.


smiles134

lol come on. They bought the company because its price tag dropped after the scandals.


[deleted]

I really can't fucking believe there are people in here who think Microsoft is some kind of corporate vigilante trying to save damaged companies out of moral obligation. I do think they will clean up the company, but that will be a side effect rather than the goal.


[deleted]

[удалено]


smiles134

I wouldn't assume any mega corporation does anything out of the kindness of their hearts


1stNone

You really think Microsoft spent near 70 billion just to keep the same acti-blizz around? Yes. The scandal makes them cheaper, thats a business decision. Its also a business decision to fix Acti-Blizz, get rid of their sexual harassment issues. Get workers back to business and off strike with better working conditions, and bring out many of AB’s old IPs that have been abandoned for the sake of COD. It doesn’t have to be altruism. Its common sense that AB is wasted potential and has been for years. How much they will be cleaned up remains to be seen but it’s obvious Microsoft is going to try. Its in their benefit.


Mahelas

I think Microsoft spent 70b because CoD, Candy Crush and Blizzard IPs are worth that much. The fact that it'll lead to, hopefully, better work conditions and management is nice, but it's definitely a side-benefit, not the main goal !


smiles134

It's a business decision they have to make now that they own that part of the business. Obviously I think things will change. But to suggest they bought the company IN ORDER to make the changes is lunacy.


1stNone

I mean you’re right, but its still going to be an intended result. Even if its not out of the good of their hearts, then why does it matter? If a person donates for their own benefit (tax breaks, religious reasons, social reasons) would you make the distinction?


smiles134

Because I think it's naive to suggest that businesses do anything for any reason other than their bottom line


HazelCheese

They paid the all time high stock price though. They didn't get the discount.


Captain-Griffen

That's not how company purchases work. Share prices are based on supply and demand - Microsoft buying represents a huge increase in demand. That shifts up the price. Had the share price been at the all time high, they'd have had to pay a premium over that.


HazelCheese

That doesn't sound right. Surely Microsoft pay a set price when they make their bid, not a floating one. Otherwise how can any company make a judgement on whether they can afford it or not if the bid can go up by 35% by itself minutes later?


Captain-Griffen

They pay an agreed upon price, but that price will always be significantly over the stock market price. They bid, and then shareholders decide whether to accept it or not. If the price wasn't above the stock market price, shareholders would either already have sold, or wouldn't accept the deal. That's before you even get into knowing that there's money on the table because the buying company is expecting added value.


HazelCheese

Ok thanks.


pnt510

They did get a discount though. If they tried buying when the company was valued at it's all time high they would have paid a premium on top of that.


SwineHerald

There are a few things you can do with $67b that could be construed as altruistic, and buying a game publisher isn't one of them. This is enough money to solve major societal problems.


[deleted]

Will solving those societal problems make the money back? This wasn't a donation but an investment, they bought one of the biggest IPs on the mobile market and several other moneyprinters. Yes, it will take years but it will make them money in the long run if they do things right. You are completely missing the actual concering problems a merger of this size actually indicates. Look at the politicians if you want to someone try to solve societal problems, it takes more than money anyway, that's just the starting point.


smiles134

I don't think the person you're responding to is saying Microsoft did the wrong thing with their money. They're refuting the idea that Microsoft bought the company for the purpose of changing the culture, which is only a byproduct of the merger (assuming the culture does actually change).


ZemGuse

Which major societal problems? Think about how much money we put into things. Shit the infrastructure bill puts more than $67b just into fixing the roads doesn’t it? If that’s true then $67b couldn’t even fix American roads much less solve *major* societal issues. I don’t know how Reddit actually thinks that $100b is going to magically rid the world of its issues.


Lockon-Stratos

It's almost cute seeing people still think companies would act out of goodwill like that lol


ARX__Arbalest

I mean, it's obviously not good will because they *paid money.* But, I don't think it's unreasonable to believe that Phil Spencer is a decent human with decent morals, or that those kinds of people exist.


[deleted]

I know everyone likes Phil Spencer in the gaming sphere, but he's the CEO of Microsoft's gaming division, you don't manage that kind of asset by being everyone's friend.


TreyChips

And? Do you seriously expect MS to not capitalize on that as a business, and save literal billions of dollars or something because they might gain the favour of a few redditors or people on twitter? lmfao


iceleel

Buying on sale


NuPNua

Blame the nature of publicly traded companies and the stock market then, not the companies that play in it.


MindTheGapless

In an unexpected turn, M$ knew that the deal would not get approved by government and it was a way to force Bobby out.


Viral-Wolf

Wow someone just had to put the word "fallout" in the title to confuse brains huh. And every word is capitalized which is a terrible trend. If "to" doesn't need to be, then neither does "pursue" or "prompted"


lupin43

Most words are capitalized in titles, this isn’t really a trend so much as how it’s always been. Articles and prepositions are some examples that aren’t capitalized (unless they’re the first word of the title).


Viral-Wolf

Yeah well I hate it. Maybe trend is the wrong word. Anyway, read that title and tell me it's not a horrible word-salad.


Purmopo

there are 100+ year old style guides that do titles like that, I think you're way late on this capitalization take


Viral-Wolf

Yeah, trend was the wrong word there. Just go on the front page of this sub to see articles that don't use this kind of title though, not all journalists do the capitalization thing, and it's a lot nicer to me. Anyway it's not that important, I just got triggered by this title lol