PC & Video Games

Microsoft buys Activision for $68.7 billion

  • Last Updated:
  • May 21st, 2022 7:04 am
Deal Fanatic
Dec 28, 2007
5138 posts
3923 upvotes
blaznazn22 wrote: The US are a laughing stock. They allowed crypto ponzi schemes to proliferate for the last 12 years unchecked yet now they want to regulate a gaming company purchase? One would think a digital currency ponzi scheme would be the more critical thing to regulate instead of a freaking game company purchase. Uncle Sam acting a fool as usual needs to stay in his lane.
There is carbon tax on gasoline and environmental fees on electronics and nothing on crypto mining which is also bad for the environment.
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Jul 5, 2001
8346 posts
8333 upvotes
Toronto
johncraven wrote: Microsoft has the upper hand now; the only way i see this happening is if Sony agrees to port their exclusives on game pass for Xbox or PC. And not just MLB The Show: games like Horizon FW, God of War Ragnarok, etc. on game pass. Hell will probably freeze over at this point Face With Tears Of Joy
Rumour has it MLB made Sony do it, in order to keep their licensing deal.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Nov 2, 2012
3388 posts
5067 upvotes
The deal will go through. They're not even close to a monopoly or anti-competitive, even with AB added. If it's "console" market share, Nintendo is slapping everyone around. Sony also still has the higher hardware sales as well. Sony also "organically" Face With Rolling Eyes gobbled up 5 studios themselves last year as well.

https://www.reuters.com/technology/microsoft-buy-activision-blizzard-deal-687-billion-2022-01-18/
According to Newzoo, Microsoft's gaming market share was 6.5% in 2020 and adding Activision would have taken it to 10.7%.
This isn't just about the small potatoes console war. It's partly to bolster Game Pass, but even bigger than that too. Microsoft is nowhere near the gaming behemoth overall. They're just in the public eye a lot because they also have Xbox console hardware. Tencent gobbles things up left and right, but nobody bats an eyelash because they operate behind the scenes. Microsoft even with AB added will still have less gaming revenue than Tencent and Sony.

To me if you look at the big picture, Microsoft got King, Candy Crush. They got Blizzard, Hearthstone. They got Activision, COD Mobile. I see it more as Microsoft's push from almost nonexistent, to having 3 big cash cows in the mobile space, as well as the knowledge of how to effectively operate within it. This is more long term to prepare themselves to compete with Facebook, Tencent, Amazon, and whoever else in the mobile + metaverse.

The gaming industry is absolutely massive.
Last edited by Caerus on Jan 19th, 2022 10:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Deal Guru
Feb 11, 2007
10020 posts
4394 upvotes
Major League Baseball lost billions of dollars due to COVID and had to take out loans.
They are looking for any revenue sources to recuperate.
The MLB is currently in a lockout as well.

If the lockout continues deep into the sesason, I wonder if Sony Santa Monica will even release an MLB 22 game.

9394 wrote: Rumour has it MLB made Sony do it, in order to keep their licensing deal.
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Jun 16, 2009
5595 posts
5801 upvotes
GTA
Caerus wrote: The deal will go through. They're not even close to a monopoly or anti-competitive, even with AB added. If it's "console" market share, Nintendo is slapping everyone around. Sony also still has the higher hardware sales as well. Sony also "organically" Face With Rolling Eyes gobbled up 5 studios themselves last year as well.

https://www.reuters.com/technology/microsoft-buy-activision-blizzard-deal-687-billion-2022-01-18/



This isn't just about the small potatoes console war. It's partly to bolster Game Pass, but even bigger than that too. Microsoft is nowhere near the gaming behemoth overall. They're just in the public eye a lot because they also have Xbox console hardware. Tencent gobbles things up left and right, but nobody bats an eyelash because they operate behind the scenes. Microsoft even with AB added will still have less gaming revenue than Tencent and Sony.

To me if you look at the big picture, Microsoft got King, Candy Crush. They got Blizzard, Hearthstone. They got Activision, COD Mobile. I see it more as Microsoft's push from almost nonexistent, to having 3 big cash cows in the mobile space, as well as the knowledge of how to effectively operate within it. This is more long term to prepare themselves to compete with Facebook, Tencent, Amazon, and whoever else in the mobile + metaverse.

The gaming industry is absolutely massive.
I must admit, half your post confuses me, I can't tell if you're ignoring things you've said before, or are in such euphoria over the purchase that you're looking at the whole situation in a rose-coloured haze.
It's an odd opening point, talking console sales. You yourself have talked about how MS is in it for subscriptions, about the power of GamePass, how numbers of game and console sales doesn't mean anything because MS is playing the long game. But you compare console sales as a way to argue that, I'm not sure, MS is the weaker sister? A plucky upstart?
Just as a recap, Microsoft admitted during Epic v. Apple that it loses money in console sales, as does Sony. But MS also reiterated that Xbox makes a good profit with game sales and subscription services. Talking console sales just obfuscates things.
And about those 5 studios Sony "gobbled" up, although numerically more than what MS has done in the past year, is not even in the same plane of existence. MS didn't gobble some small to medium sized companies, but wholesale swallowed a big one first, and a massive one now. Their buyout of Bethesda alone was probably still larger than all of Sony's small "gobbling".
Also consider that Bethesda was more of a third party to both MS and Sony. And bleeding money, making it more susceptible to a rich offer from an outsider they couldn't refuse. And from my understanding and reading, Sony's purchases offered financial stability to smaller game devs organic to their brand, while MS was literally saving a big outside company that was pretty stupid lately.
Microsoft isn't just in the public eye from Xbox, as they have a rich history of being noticed both in North America and Europe for way too many monopolistic practices to list. Maybe you don't want to think they're a gaming behemoth, but they sure are an International Corporate behemoth. And while Tencent gobbles things up too, MS was on their side during the Epic v. Apple trial. Probably to piss off their rich competitor, Apple. Keep in mind, Tencent owns 40% of Epic Games, which I suspect Microsoft was aware of. Really, the whole trial was just a battle of Uber rich vs. Uber rich.

I get loving Xbox, and this is definitely an Xbox win, but let's not lose sight of the Microsoft reality.
c'mon get happy!
Deal Addict
User avatar
Nov 2, 2012
3388 posts
5067 upvotes
BernardRyder wrote: I must admit, half your post confuses me, I can't tell if you're ignoring things you've said before, or are in such euphoria over the purchase that you're looking at the whole situation in a rose-coloured haze.
It's an odd opening point, talking console sales. You yourself have talked about how MS is in it for subscriptions, about the power of GamePass, how numbers of game and console sales doesn't mean anything because MS is playing the long game. But you compare console sales as a way to argue that, I'm not sure, MS is the weaker sister? A plucky upstart?
Just as a recap, Microsoft admitted during Epic v. Apple that it loses money in console sales, as does Sony. But MS also reiterated that Xbox makes a good profit with game sales and subscription services. Talking console sales just obfuscates things.
And about those 5 studios Sony "gobbled" up, although numerically more than what MS has done in the past year, is not even in the same plane of existence. MS didn't gobble some small to medium sized companies, but wholesale swallowed a big one first, and a massive one now. Their buyout of Bethesda alone was probably still larger than all of Sony's small "gobbling".
Also consider that Bethesda was more of a third party to both MS and Sony. And bleeding money, making it more susceptible to a rich offer from an outsider they couldn't refuse. And from my understanding and reading, Sony's purchases offered financial stability to smaller game devs organic to their brand, while MS was literally saving a big outside company that was pretty stupid lately.
Microsoft isn't just in the public eye from Xbox, as they have a rich history of being noticed both in North America and Europe for way too many monopolistic practices to list. Maybe you don't want to think they're a gaming behemoth, but they sure are an International Corporate behemoth. And while Tencent gobbles things up too, MS was on their side during the Epic v. Apple trial. Probably to piss off their rich competitor, Apple. Keep in mind, Tencent owns 40% of Epic Games, which I suspect Microsoft was aware of. Really, the whole trial was just a battle of Uber rich vs. Uber rich.

I get loving Xbox, and this is definitely an Xbox win, but let's not lose sight of the Microsoft reality.
Nah, I'm mostly indifferent on AB. There's no euphoria on the purchase, or joining Xbox. I posted the photos of the dev teams and pics of games because of how out of the blue and unimaginable it is.

I talked heavily about the trash that is the AB environment and Kotick and his minions being POS. I even made a thread talking about the sexual harassment case here. I also barely play anything they offer. But, I'm looking at it from a big picture perspective, not from the console industry only perspective, or from a preference for Xbox perspective. I'm just looking and stating how I think the rationale was for the purchase, which I believe is way beyond just the console bickering that's flooded forums and twitter. I'm also stating my opinion on why the deal will go through, because MS "gaming" is small, regardless of the fact that MS corporate is a $2.X Trillion monster.

I brought up console sales for comparison for regulators. Not as some upstart or sister. There is no monopoly in the console space. Microsoft in terms of console market share is in last place. In terms of gaming revenue, Microsoft would only be at 10.7% post AB, and still behind Tencent and Sony. Not even close to a monopoly, and not even the leader. Again, for the perspective of regulators, not console wars.

If you thought my post was a gloat of MS amazingness, that wasn't it at all. I'm stating what I see happening and making comparisons to other big players who are arguably bigger and still are, than MS in the gaming space, even post AB acquisition.

Yes, I also mocked the dumb "organic growth" BS because a purchase is a purchase. Trying to sugar coat it saying one is helping, loving, and meant to be, because they're symbiotic and worked together; while the other is a big mean takeover, and just buying success, is dumb. A buyout is a buyout, simple as that. If a company agrees to buy and another agrees to be bought, it's "meant to be". None of MS's buyouts were hostile takeovers, so "organic growth" for everyone. The term itself is stupid marketing propaganda to make it seem that Sony doing it is okay, and MS doing it is evil. You can absolutely make the case for scale. I'm arguing the stupidity of the term, coined by Playstation, and used as ammo to demonize one side for doing it, while giving praise to the other for the same thing.

I'm seeing this as primarily a purchase for mobile and meta, with Game Pass secondarily getting a boost as well. Yes, I absolutely said subscriptions and Game Pass are more important to MS than just Xbox console sales. This acquisition though, I don't believe was primarily for Game Pass. I think this was Microsoft's big step into the mobile + meta gaming industry, and establishing the foundations there. Game Pass got the benefits too. Making it worth that price to MS. If it was just for Game Pass, I think the price would have been closer to Bethesda levels, instead of holy shit levels.
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Jun 16, 2009
5595 posts
5801 upvotes
GTA
Caerus wrote: Nah, I'm mostly indifferent on AB. There's no euphoria on the purchase, or joining Xbox. I posted the photos of the dev teams and pics of games because of how out of the blue and unimaginable it is.

I talked heavily about the trash that is the AB environment and Kotick and his minions being POS. I even made a thread talking about the sexual harassment case here. I also barely play anything they offer. But, I'm looking at it from a big picture perspective, not from the console industry only perspective, or from a preference for Xbox perspective. I'm just looking and stating how I think the rationale was for the purchase, which I believe is way beyond just the console bickering that's flooded forums and twitter. I'm also stating my opinion on why the deal will go through, because MS "gaming" is small, regardless of the fact that MS corporate is a $2.X Trillion monster.

I brought up console sales for comparison for regulators. Not as some upstart or sister. There is no monopoly in the console space. Microsoft in terms of console market share is in last place. In terms of gaming revenue, Microsoft would only be at 10.7% post AB, and still behind Tencent and Sony. Not even close to a monopoly, and not even the leader. Again, for the perspective of regulators, not console wars.

If you thought my post was a gloat of MS amazingness, that wasn't it at all. I'm stating what I see happening and making comparisons to other big players who are arguably bigger and still are, than MS in the gaming space, even post AB acquisition.

Yes, I also mocked the dumb "organic growth" BS because a purchase is a purchase. Trying to sugar coat it saying one is helping, loving, and meant to be, because they're symbiotic and worked together; while the other is a big mean takeover, and just buying success, is dumb. A buyout is a buyout, simple as that. If a company agrees to buy and another agrees to be bought, it's "meant to be". None of MS's buyouts were hostile takeovers, so "organic growth" for everyone. The term itself is stupid marketing propaganda to make it seem that Sony doing it is okay, and MS doing it is evil. You can absolutely make the case for scale. I'm arguing the stupidity of the term, coined by Playstation, and used as ammo to demonize one side for doing it, while giving praise to the other for the same thing.

I'm seeing this as primarily a purchase for mobile and meta, with Game Pass secondarily getting a boost as well. Yes, I absolutely said subscriptions and Game Pass are more important to MS than just Xbox console sales. This acquisition though, I don't believe was primarily for Game Pass. I think this was Microsoft's big step into the mobile + meta gaming industry, and establishing the foundations there. Game Pass got the benefits too. Making it worth that price to MS. If it was just for Game Pass, I think the price would have been closer to Bethesda levels, instead of holy shit levels.
I totally get your points, well made. Although the MS Gaming Division is small, do keep in mind it is just that, a smaller division of the larger whole. As such with MS's past, the move will deservedly bring some scrutiny. I don't think it will amount to more than harsh words from the US (Capitalism HQ), but I'm interested to see if Europe will react. This is the same continent that is pushing Apple to get rid of their proprietary Lightning cables to follow standardized formats. If there is any form of meaningful backlash to this, it could come from there.
A buyout is still a buyout yes, I won't mince words and didn't make it sound like Sony was in the good if you read again. These are billionaires fighting over companies like they are toy cars. But scale makes a difference, and by saying Sony "gobbled" 5 is equating MS of being less harmful since this has only been 2 in name. As your chart showed, it's not really 2, as Activision has also been eating up studios for at least a decade. In one felled swoop, the one acquisition is equal to about a decade at Sony's pace, lol. And as I said before, you may dismiss it as Sony fanboy propaganda, but these were companies they worked with, and almost exclusively in most cases. It was a takeover and it is all business, but there varying degrees of the same action.
As an aside, I keep meaning to read Blood Sweat and Pixels, not sure if you have. I've heard about the premise and that's what I'm relating the differences in acquisitions to. But that's another conversation in any case.
This move will put MS in a better position for the metaverse, as MS announced recently. But it is still a great move to shore up exclusives for GP. It puts MS in a better position against the Tencents if the world, but I feel that the scale of the deal shows they are well beyond Sony now. Let's put the scale of Xbox within the console space in perspective of the new (always!) reality: Could Sony afford to announce something similar tomorrow?
c'mon get happy!
Deal Addict
Jul 31, 2007
1042 posts
909 upvotes
CFRTim wrote: Great response from Sony
“We expect that Microsoft will abide by contractual agreements and continue to ensure Activision games are multiplatform,”

Sony Issues Statement About Microsoft Activision Blizzard Purchase And Xbox Exclusivity
not sure why you think its a great response? it makes Sony look weak and begging Microsoft to keep COD on playstation...
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Dec 1, 2004
9459 posts
2948 upvotes
johncraven wrote: not sure why you think its a great response? it makes Sony look weak and begging Microsoft to keep COD on playstation...
Ahh.... I was being sarcastic, or trying to at least. ,Face With Rolling Eyes.
STEAM-XBL-PSN: CFRTim
Deal Fanatic
Feb 21, 2013
5319 posts
2295 upvotes
Toronto
CFRTim wrote: Great response from Sony
“We expect that Microsoft will abide by contractual agreements and continue to ensure Activision games are multiplatform,”

Sony Issues Statement About Microsoft Activision Blizzard Purchase And Xbox Exclusivity
I think people are trying to draw parallels from what Xbox did with Bethesda and what they're going to do with COD, and making the assumption that COD will become exclusive because it's what they did with Starfield. But it's a totally different scenario, and COD is a different beast. NPD's 2021 charts show just what kind of a beast it is.

Call of Duty: Vanguard was the #1 best selling game in America.

And to drive home the point, do you know what the #2 best selling game was? None other than Call of Duty: Black Ops Cold War, a game that came out in 2020!

I get that a lot of people on here have really soured on COD and relegate it to a title nobody buys, but if you consider the amount of casual interest and money COD, Warzone and COD Mobile bring in, and the number of retail, battlepass and microtransactions sales it gets, MS would be shooting itself in the foot by effectively halving that player population by making it a console exclusive.


Edit: Take this with a grain of salt but I believe it for now:

Last edited by M1GOmigs on Jan 20th, 2022 4:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Gear: Fujifilm X-Pro2 | Canon A-1
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Dec 1, 2004
9459 posts
2948 upvotes
Yes there are many ways MS can go with this acquisition. Phil Spencer has been making a lot of right decisions for gaming and gamers in general since he took over Xbox and hopefully many more to come. It's gonna be an interesting generation, that's for sure
STEAM-XBL-PSN: CFRTim
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Dec 1, 2004
9459 posts
2948 upvotes
All PlayStation fans can rest easy.......for now, lol.....j/k
As I said in my previous post, Phil Spencer is the right guy for the gaming industry. Period.
STEAM-XBL-PSN: CFRTim
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Jul 5, 2001
8346 posts
8333 upvotes
Toronto
CFRTim wrote: All PlayStation fans can rest easy.......for now, lol.....j/k
As I said in my previous post, Phil Spencer is the right guy for the gaming industry. Period.
Phil's only talking about the original Call of Duty game staying on PS.

Image
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Dec 1, 2004
9459 posts
2948 upvotes
9394 wrote: Phil's only talking about the original Call of Duty game staying on PS.

Image
LOL Face With Tears Of Joy

Those were the COD days for me, when SP campaigns were actually a fun thing. Who knows, maybe MS will bring that back
STEAM-XBL-PSN: CFRTim
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Jun 16, 2009
5595 posts
5801 upvotes
GTA
CFRTim wrote: Great response from Sony
“We expect that Microsoft will abide by contractual agreements and continue to ensure Activision games are multiplatform,”

Sony Issues Statement About Microsoft Activision Blizzard Purchase And Xbox Exclusivity
MS will because it would be bad business if they didn't abide to standing contracts. They did the same with Bethesda, which is why Deathloop is still a PS exclusive right now.
Moving forward past those contracts, lol that new games will be multiplatform. Or even better, just change the company name to DeActivision and voila, end of problem.
c'mon get happy!
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Jul 5, 2001
8346 posts
8333 upvotes
Toronto
BernardRyder wrote: MS will because it would be bad business if they didn't abide to standing contracts. They did the same with Bethesda, which is why Deathloop is still a PS exclusive right now.
Moving forward past those contracts, lol that new games will be multiplatform. Or even better, just change the company name to DeActivision and voila, end of problem.
And rename Call of Duty to "Leisure Suit Larry's Call of Booty"?
Deal Addict
User avatar
Dec 18, 2007
2168 posts
825 upvotes
Scarborough
thechampion116 wrote: COD as a yearly game will eventually go exclusive to Gamepass (PC and Xbox). This will happen. If its just Warzone, I think that will continue on all currently available platforms.

MS doesn't need the money that is being generated by Activision on the other platforms. There are still many gamers who just buy a COD machine. They will move over to Gamepass and pay to play. MS will get all the profit and don't need to share anything.
If they only just play COD, why would they sub to gamepass? gamepass would cost them more than just buying the yearly COD game.
Tangerine
Simplii
Freedom Mobile

Top