Microsoft acquire Activision

t2na said:
Do you think that could be something that just happens as you get older too? I think I'm definitely more 'picky' now with the games I buy compared to when I was in my 20's with no kid or wife so I had more time.

I don't buy every game that releases on PS5 and some don't appeal to me at all - but the ones I have bought (Horizon FW, God of War, Last of Us Part 1 & Spiderman Miles Morales) I've really enjoyed.

Totally in agreement with you about the Xbox 360 era, I swear I bought a new game every 2 weeks from the preowned bin in Gamestation.
Click to expand...
If anything I am less picky, I have been at times desperate to buy something, so have lowered my standards.

I will be buying FF16 even though I think I wont like it. FF7 remake part 2 also.

I did buy tales of arise, but thats also a last gen game. Which is why I didnt mention it. Of course no doubt it will be a better experience on the PS5 vs the PS4.
 
Last edited:
hyperseven said:
Why is it 'good for gamers'? Will it make prices go down, will it fix broken games at launch?
Click to expand...
Because it is anti-competitive.
A lot of people are comparing this to Sony releasing exclusives on the Playstation ecosystem.
There is a massive difference between Sony Studios (or MS Studios if you like) making full exclusive or time-limited exclusives on their own platform and one large company buying another and then cutting off access to that company's existing IP.

This is a massive, independent publisher, with no affiliation to Sony, MS or Nintendo - which then suddenly comes under the control of MS.
A lot of talk about MS offering to supply certain games for 10yrs - but what happens in 10yrs time?
Of course nobody knows, there is every chance MS won't actually exist in the console market, which of course will be another bad thing for competition.
 
stoofa said:
Because it is anti-competitive.
A lot of people are comparing this to Sony releasing exclusives on the Playstation ecosystem.
There is a massive difference between Sony Studios (or MS Studios if you like) making full exclusive or time-limited exclusives on their own platform and one large company buying another and then cutting off access to that company's existing IP.

This is a massive, independent publisher, with no affiliation to Sony, MS or Nintendo - which then suddenly comes under the control of MS.
A lot of talk about MS offering to supply certain games for 10yrs - but what happens in 10yrs time?
Of course nobody knows, there is every chance MS won't actually exist in the console market, which of course will be another bad thing for competition.
Click to expand...

Ah, the 'it's not fair' defence. I have all four major platforms what 'good' will I get if this does not go through?

I don't remember all this fuss over Zenimax, maybe it was but not this bad.
 
Last edited:
hyperseven said:
Ah, the 'it's not fair' defence. I have all four major platforms what 'good' will I get if this does not go through?

I don't remember all this fuss over Zenimax, maybe it was but not this bad.
Click to expand...
There sas some fuss but Zenimax is a much smaller publisher. Buying Zenimax +Activision is a bigger deal than just buying one of them.
 
If this deal falls through, is what will be interesting for me. Any ideas of platform agnostic behaviour may officially be thrown out the window after seeing a deal they wanted closed failing. They had no reason to make COD exclusive as there is no console dominance that can offset the sales loss they'd incur.

It will now depend on what the EU and FTC decide, if they both decide to block there's now route for them to get this acquisition through. If they approve the merger then they'll find a way to circumvent the CMA decision?
 
hyperseven said:
Why is it 'good for gamers'? Will it make prices go down, will it fix broken games at launch?
Click to expand...

I don't think the purchase would have made prices go down or made games better at launch either. Would just be a bigger publisher pushing out more games of the same standard at the same price.
 
Personality+ said:
If this deal falls through, is what will be interesting for me. Any ideas of platform agnostic behaviour may officially be thrown out the window after seeing a deal they wanted closed failing. They had no reason to make COD exclusive as there is no console dominance that can offset the sales loss they'd incur.

It will now depend on what the EU and FTC decide, if they both decide to block there's now route for them to get this acquisition through. If they approve the merger then they'll find a way to circumvent the CMA decision?
Click to expand...
I don't think they will win the CMA over regardless of what EU and FTC decide.
 
Without condemning or condoning the deal, my only issue with the opposition to it is the fact that if you ask people why they prefer PlayStation, almost 100% of them will say "because PlayStation has more/better exclusives". If I were on the Microsoft legal team, that would be my argument.
So, is the suggestion that it would be fine if Xbox were to make lots more hugely successful exclusives within their own current properties, but not fine for them to purchase exclusives from under the nose of their more exclusive competitor?
 
From what I am reading it’s got nothing to do with exclusivity. It’s about the CMA stopping MS monopolising future cloud streaming services - which they, and everyone else it seems (including MS) believe is the future of everything. ‘To protect innovation and choice’.

This sets out to explain it better than I ever could https://www.gov.uk/government/news/...protect-innovation-and-choice-in-cloud-gaming
 
Last edited:
Tigjaw said:
Without condemning or condoning the deal, my only issue with the opposition to it is the fact that if you ask people why they prefer PlayStation, almost 100% of them will say "because PlayStation has more/better exclusives". If I were on the Microsoft legal team, that would be my argument.
So, is the suggestion that it would be fine if Xbox were to make lots more hugely successful exclusives within their own current properties, but not fine for them to purchase exclusives from under the nose of their more exclusive competitor?
Click to expand...
Yes it would be fine for Microsoft to have 100 exclusives if they were all built in house from the ground up. But buying one of the biggest publishers instead is seeming a big no from the CMA.

As they think that secures them market domination for the cloud long term... if they ever decided to cut off access to competing platforms.

I don't agree with the decision personally but that's the logic.

If the deal falls through they should invest in house even more and go after Take-Two or EA only FIFA and GTA sell the kind of numbers COD would have. But then the lose mobile presence of the Actvision-Blizzard deal damned if they do, damned if they don't.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom