Microsoft is Buying Activision Blizzard $68.7B ***Update: Acquisition Finalized***

It was pretty crazy hearing Bobby say Game pass is value destructive and doesn't think it's good for gaming. Then the Judge asked him why are you accepting this deal and he basically said he had to because of shareholders. I'm not sure what the judge thinks of that but it can't be a good thing that one of the partners in this deal thinks that it will end up further damaging the industry.
 
It was pretty crazy hearing Bobby say Game pass is value destructive and doesn't think it's good for gaming. Then the Judge asked him why are you accepting this deal and he basically said he had to because of shareholders. I'm not sure what the judge thinks of that but it can't be a good thing that one of the partners in this deal thinks that it will end up further damaging the industry.

certainly explains why msft would want to buy, especially knowing that kotic was to be out. they get the studios and remove the thorn in their side ceo running them.

gonna laugh if msft ends up with a forced divestiture.
 
It was pretty crazy hearing Bobby say Game pass is value destructive and doesn't think it's good for gaming. Then the Judge asked him why are you accepting this deal and he basically said he had to because of shareholders. I'm not sure what the judge thinks of that but it can't be a good thing that one of the partners in this deal thinks that it will end up further damaging the industry.
Can't tell if that or the Lexecon team full on phoning in their testimony was worse for Microsoft. Just amazes me that Microsoft went with Lexecon right after they got shredded by another judge in their last antitrust case.
 
Oh man today was insane. It's like the FTC saved their best stuff for last.

- Canada submitted a document saying MS has been mispresenting things to regulators and they believe the deal is anti-competitive.
- Amy Hood (MS CFO) testified that they never did any projections on their revenue impact of removing COD from PS. This was a lie and was proven today that they did do that. They even calculated how much GP would need to grow in order to offset removing COD from PS. The answer was accidentally leaked and it was either 2 million subs or 2 million increase in revenue from GP.
- MS says they plan to bring COD to Nintendo Switch but did not do any modeling on what that would do to their revenue. Even the Judge asked them why not? I forget the answer but it wasn't convincing.
-This was released much earlier in the case but I forgot to post it. Apparently there were discussions with executives to stop the day and date for Gamepass. Matt Booty pushed back but kind of concerning that they've discussed walking that back.

So they ran projections on what would happen if they removed COD from PS. Yet they did no projections for bringing COD to Nintendo Switch. It's clear where their priorities are.

Closing arguments today which I believe are private. Judge expected to decide sometime next week. Never mind looks like they will be public.
 
Last edited:
Oh man today was insane. It's like the FTC saved their best stuff for last.
I can't help feeling like Microsoft is still coasting and didn't bother prepping their folks for depositions and testimony. Like they still thought the FTC was gonna go easy on them when it was so apparent that those days are gone for now.
 
A lot of bangers from Wedneday's Kotick testimony. Some bits after quick cull:



-- Warzone Mobile supposed to launch earlier; delayed to this fall
-- Call of Duty has 100 million monthly active users, with #1 being mobile, then PC, consoles
-- Only with the right price, Kotick would consider Call of Duty on day and date subscription services
-- "Made a mistake" no launching on Nintendo Switch
-- Microsoft did not consult Activision about the 10 year Nintendo deal, work has not started yet
-- COD PlayStation revenue 2x compared to Xbox revenue








Oh man today was insane. It's like the FTC saved their best stuff for last.

- Canada submitted a document saying MS has been mispresenting things to regulators and they believe the deal is anti-competitive.
- Amy Hood (MS CFO) testified that they never did any projections on their revenue impact of removing COD from PS. This was a lie and was proven today that they did do that. They even calculated how much GP would need to grow in order to offset removing COD from PS. The answer was accidentally leaked and it was either 2 million subs or 2 million increase in revenue from GP.
- MS says they plan to bring COD to Nintendo Switch but did not do any modeling on what that would do to their revenue. Even the Judge asked them why not? I forget the answer but it wasn't convincing.
-This was released much earlier in the case but I forgot to post it. Apparently there were discussions with executives to stop the day and date for Gamepass. Matt Booty pushed back but kind of concerning that they've discussed walking that back.

Kind of crazy so they ran projections on what would happen if they removed COD from PS. Yet they did no projections for bringing COD to Nintendo Switch. It's clear where their priorities are.

Closing arguments today which I believe are private. Judge expected to decide sometime next week. Never mind looks like they will be public.

Good to hear that anti-competitive business practices run strong through Microsoft's DNA.

They didn't learn a thing! How adorable.
 
Oh man today was insane. It's like the FTC saved their best stuff for last.

- Canada submitted a document saying MS has been mispresenting things to regulators and they believe the deal is anti-competitive.
- Amy Hood (MS CFO) testified that they never did any projections on their revenue impact of removing COD from PS. This was a lie and was proven today that they did do that. They even calculated how much GP would need to grow in order to offset removing COD from PS. The answer was accidentally leaked and it was either 2 million subs or 2 million increase in revenue from GP.
- MS says they plan to bring COD to Nintendo Switch but did not do any modeling on what that would do to their revenue. Even the Judge asked them why not? I forget the answer but it wasn't convincing.
-This was released much earlier in the case but I forgot to post it. Apparently there were discussions with executives to stop the day and date for Gamepass. Matt Booty pushed back but kind of concerning that they've discussed walking that back.

So they ran projections on what would happen if they removed COD from PS. Yet they did no projections for bringing COD to Nintendo Switch. It's clear where their priorities are.

Closing arguments today which I believe are private. Judge expected to decide sometime next week. Never mind looks like they will be public.

So most likely it's nice going through?
 
Oh man today was insane. It's like the FTC saved their best stuff for last.

- Canada submitted a document saying MS has been mispresenting things to regulators and they believe the deal is anti-competitive.
- Amy Hood (MS CFO) testified that they never did any projections on their revenue impact of removing COD from PS. This was a lie and was proven today that they did do that. They even calculated how much GP would need to grow in order to offset removing COD from PS. The answer was accidentally leaked and it was either 2 million subs or 2 million increase in revenue from GP.
- MS says they plan to bring COD to Nintendo Switch but did not do any modeling on what that would do to their revenue. Even the Judge asked them why not? I forget the answer but it wasn't convincing.
-This was released much earlier in the case but I forgot to post it. Apparently there were discussions with executives to stop the day and date for Gamepass. Matt Booty pushed back but kind of concerning that they've discussed walking that back.

So they ran projections on what would happen if they removed COD from PS. Yet they did no projections for bringing COD to Nintendo Switch. It's clear where their priorities are.

Closing arguments today which I believe are private. Judge expected to decide sometime next week. Never mind looks like they will be public.
Who cares?
Microsoft CEO: Sony Has Defined Market Competition Using Exclusives
Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella during today's Microsoft vs FTC hearing said he isn't a fan of exclusives, but the console market leader, Sony, has defined competition by using exclusives.

"I would love to get rid of the entire sort of exclusives on consoles, but that’s not for me to define," said Nadella. "Especially as a low share player in the console market that the dominant player [Sony] has defined market competition using exclusives. I have no love for that world."
Sony acquired Insomniac Games in 2019 and Bungie in 2022, and in neither case was there a inquisition by regulators demanding to know whether they intended to keep IPs from those studios exclusive. The Xbox doesn't even maintain full exclusives, anymore. Only Sony does that.

PlayStation Boss Jim Ryan Admits Starfield Xbox Exclusivity Is Not 'Anti-Competitive' - IGN
PlayStation boss Jim Ryan has admitted he does not view Starfield's Xbox console exclusivity as "anti-competitive".

During the ongoing trial between Microsoft and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the head of PlayStation took the stand. During his testimony, he was asked if anything was wrong with Arkane Studios' Redfall and Bestheda Game Studios' Starfield being console exclusives on Xbox.

"I don't like it, but I have fundamentally no quarrel with it," Ryan replied. When asked how he felt about Starfield skipping PlayStation 5 and being exclusive to the Xbox Series X/S on console, he said: "I don't like it, but I don't view it as anti-competitive."

Console exclusivity, particularly in relation to the Call of Duty, is at the heart of the FTC's case against Microsoft's proposed $69 billion buyout of Activision Blizzard. It has pointed to Bethesda's upcoming space role-playing game Starfield, which is not coming out on PlayStation, as an example of Microsoft’s behaviour after it bought parent company ZeniMax. For its part, Microsoft has committed to keeping Call of Duty multiplatform for at least a decade if it buys Activision Blizzard. Ryan has expressed concern about the fate of Call of Duty, should Microsoft obtain control over the franchise.
zxf2f01r1n8b1.jpg
 
Who cares?
Microsoft CEO: Sony Has Defined Market Competition Using Exclusives

Sony acquired Insomniac Games in 2019 and Bungie in 2022, and in neither case was there a inquisition by regulators demanding to know whether they intended to keep IPs from those studios exclusive. The Xbox doesn't even maintain full exclusives, anymore. Only Sony does that.

PlayStation Boss Jim Ryan Admits Starfield Xbox Exclusivity Is Not 'Anti-Competitive' - IGN

zxf2f01r1n8b1.jpg
If PC counts as not being exclusive not many Sony games are full exclusive. They are a timed exclusive.
Bungie is putting marathon on Xbox as well.
 
If PC counts as not being exclusive not many Sony games are full exclusive.
I'm aware, but eleven of their biggest and most successful releases (including upcoming IPs) are full exclusives. Furthermore, nobody has questioned that Microsoft intends under any scenario to release Call of Duty to PC, so arguing that Sony mostly traffics in console exclusives these days is an impotent defense on Sony's behalf against the merger.

Do as I say, not as I do.
 
The FTC, who's entire argument is based on subscription services and cloud gaming being distinct markets. The Sony stuff is just noise at this point, they aren't the prosecution here, so to speak. The exclusion of PC and Nintendo also aligns with how Microsoft defines distinct markets internally.
I'm aware, but eleven of their biggest and most successful releases (including upcoming IPs) are full exclusives. Furthermore, nobody has questioned that Microsoft intends under any scenario to release Call of Duty to PC, so arguing that Sony mostly traffics in console exclusives these days is an impotent defense on Sony's behalf against the merger.
Is there a reason you have such a hate boner for Sony and want Microsoft to see this transaction true? Like, as a gamer, are you hoping it makes things better or something?

And once again, the FTC's main arguments don't have much to do with the console market at this point.
 
The FTC, who's entire argument is based on subscription services and cloud gaming being distinct markets. The Sony stuff is just noise at this point, they aren't the prosecution here, so to speak. The exclusion of PC and Nintendo also aligns with how Microsoft defines distinct markets internally.

Is there a reason you have such a hate boner for Sony and want Microsoft to see this transaction true? Like, as a gamer, are you hoping it makes things better or something?

And once again, the FTC's main arguments don't have much to do with the console market at this point.
And I've highlighted Sony execs themselves undermining their own absurd argument against the acquisition based on the cloud.

I find the highly inconsistent treatment of Sony versus Microsoft when the latter isn't even the leader bizarre and hypocritical. I want the acquisition to go through because it means it's more likely that future Activision-Blizzard releases will be added to Game Pass. My interest is highly rational.

Conversely, I could ask, is there a reason you have such a hate boner for Microsoft that you wish to see its business maneuvers sabotaged? I never naysayed the acquisition of Bungie. Don't you own a PC? Wouldn't you be able to play COD no matter what happened? This would appear to render your support for Sony as highly irrational, and purely rooted in fanboyism, wouldn't it?
 
And I've highlighted Sony execs themselves undermining their own absurd argument against the acquisition based on the cloud.
Again, it's not their argument. They aren't the ones asking for an injunction, that's the FTC. Whatever difference there is in between public statements and private statements on Sony's part aren't relevant to the trial at this point.
I find the highly inconsistent treatment of Sony versus Microsoft when the latter isn't even the leader bizarre and hypocritical.
What acquisitions would you have liked the FTC to block since 2020?
I want the acquisition to go through because it means it's more likely that future Activision-Blizzard releases will be added to Game Pass. My interest is highly rational.
This part makes sense short term, not longterm. Game Pass bleeds money, the only path forward to profitability is for Microsoft to drastically hike prices, and that can only be done if they use predatory pricing to drive out competition early. Hence the FTC's huge interest in this matter. What's the maximum price you'd pay for Game Pass? $25 a month? $30? Like..why do you think Activision isn't putting its games on Game Pass? It's because it's inherently unprofitable.

Conversely, I could ask, is there a reason you have such a hate boner for Microsoft that you wish to see its business maneuvers sabotaged? I never naysayed the acquisition of Bungie. Don't you own a PC? Wouldn't you be able to play COD no matter what happened? This would appear to render your support for Sony as highly irrational, and purely rooted in fanboyism, wouldn't it?
Microsoft is clearly trying to dominate a market through vertical integration and using market power in anti-competiive manners. I have no love for Sony, the 360 is actually my all time favorite console. But as a gamer, there's no longterm benefit to this deal for me. Less competition is bad for consumers. Period.

As far as Game Pass, it's a nice perk short term. But it's similar to streaming in Hollywood, it's devastating for the art form and artists in sum. Gaming already has enough shittiness, I don't need anymore shittiness a la post-Netflix Hollywood.
 
Again, it's not their argument. They aren't the ones asking for an injunction, that's the FTC. Whatever difference there is in between public statements and private statements on Sony's part aren't relevant to the trial at this point.

What acquisitions would you have liked the FTC to block since 2020?

This part makes sense short term, not longterm. Game Pass bleeds money, the only path forward to profitability is for Microsoft to drastically hike prices, and that can only be done if they use predatory pricing to drive out competition early. Hence the FTC's huge interest in this matter. What's the maximum price you'd pay for Game Pass? $25 a month? $30? Like..why do you think Activision isn't putting its games on Game Pass? It's because it's inherently unprofitable.

Microsoft is clearly trying to dominate a market through vertical integration and using market power in anti-competiive manners. I have no love for Sony, the 360 is actually my all time favorite console. But as a gamer, there's no longterm benefit to this deal for me. Less competition is bad for consumers. Period.

As far as Game Pass, it's a nice perk short term. But it's similar to streaming in Hollywood, it's devastating for the art form and artists in sum. Gaming already has enough shittiness, I don't need anymore shittiness a la post-Netflix Hollywood.
"Less competition"? Isn't the result to make the Xbox more competitive? Nintendo is the dominant console-maker. Among platforms capable of the latest multiplatform titles, Sony is the dominant console-maker, and has been for a decade, now. This doesn't just extend to hardware sales, but software sales, as well.

To say that this is anti-competitive is disingenuous, and incontrovertibly not backed by the plain reality of the console landscape today. I don't know why you're misrepresenting that. Reeks of insincerity.
 
"Less competition"? Isn't the result to make the Xbox more competitive?
If we increase competition between two industry giants by reducing the number of firms in the industry, that market is now less competitive. This is basic economics. You're literally applying antitrust law backwards here by trying to twist it to only apply to the second largest console company in the industry.
Nintendo is the dominant console-maker.
It's a separate market. Or to be exact, the FTC is arguing it is, the CMA is arguing that it is, and Microsoft's internal documents confirm it agrees. The "high-performance console" market does not include PC or Nintendo.
To say that this is anti-competitive is disingenuous, and incontrovertibly not backed by the plain reality of the console landscape today. I don't know why you're misrepresenting that. Reeks of insincerity.
It's the textbook definition of vertical integration and anticompetitive behavior. Microsoft wants to vertically integrate by acquiring a major publisher, then use foreclosure or the threat of foreclosure to get a leg up on the competition in cloud gaming and game subscriptions. Microsoft's internal documents, depositions, and testimony confirmed this. Those are the two markets the FTC is most concerned with her. To that end, it's willing to loss lead through foreclosure in order to gain market dominance in those spaces and eventually race prices once you have monopoly and monopsony power.

I don't know why you keep bringing up the console market, that's not the crux of this hearing with the FTC. If you think it is, you aren't paying attention and just regurgitating talking points.

Like..why do you think Activision isn't putting its games on Game Pass?
You never answered this by the way. Why hasn't Activision put games on Game Pass?
 
Who cares?
Microsoft CEO: Sony Has Defined Market Competition Using Exclusives

Sony acquired Insomniac Games in 2019 and Bungie in 2022, and in neither case was there a inquisition by regulators demanding to know whether they intended to keep IPs from those studios exclusive. The Xbox doesn't even maintain full exclusives, anymore. Only Sony does that.

PlayStation Boss Jim Ryan Admits Starfield Xbox Exclusivity Is Not 'Anti-Competitive' - IGN

zxf2f01r1n8b1.jpg

Who cares? I don't know who cares. It's relevant to this thread though because MS has been going around talking about how many more people will be able to play COD and using the switch to boast 150 million more players.

- They never spoke to Activision on how possible this is.
- Never informed Activision about this.
- Never even did models on revenue projection even though they did 5 different revenue models (which is why the judge was confused. They did all these revenue models but just outright skipped that)

Not sure what the Jim Ryan emails or Sony statements are supposed to tell me. I think all exclusives are dumb and I hate that either company is doing it. Which is exactly why I hate the consolidation going on in this industry. I want it all to be stopped.

Now with that said I would be ok with the industry moving to a timed exclusive model to give developers proper time to properly develop games for each console\PC. I think devs are getting overwhelmed with so many devices to develop for and it might be time to start staggering the releases.
 
If we increase competition between two industry giants by reducing the number of firms in the industry, that market is now less competitive. This is basic economics. You're literally applying antitrust law backwards here by trying to twist it to only apply to the second largest console company in the industry.

It's a separate market. Or to be exact, the FTC is arguing it is, the CMA is arguing that it is, and Microsoft's internal documents confirm it agrees. The "high-performance console" market does not include PC or Nintendo.

It's the textbook definition of vertical integration and anticompetitive behavior. Microsoft wants to vertically integrate by acquiring a major publisher, then use foreclosure or the threat of foreclosure to get a leg up on the competition in cloud gaming and game subscriptions. Microsoft's internal documents, depositions, and testimony confirmed this. Those are the two markets the FTC is most concerned with her. To that end, it's willing to loss lead through foreclosure in order to gain market dominance in those spaces and eventually race prices once you have monopoly and monopsony power.

I don't know why you keep bringing up the console market, that's not the crux of this hearing with the FTC. If you think it is, you aren't paying attention and just regurgitating talking points.

You never answered this by the way. Why hasn't Activision put games on Game Pass?
I'm tired of hearing the latest buzzword "vertical integration" to describe a simple acquisition. Sony acquired Bungie. They all make acquisitions. So let's focus on the bullshit you're slinging.

(1) What percent of gaming revenue in 2023 does cloud gaming represent? What is the projection for cloud gaming revenue by a reliable third party analyst for the next 5 years? The next 10? What does that analysis assert is contributed by the Activision-Blizzard properties?

(2) Per gaming subscriptions, what is the current status of gaming subscriptions? I'll help you with that. Sony has over 47 million PS Plus subscribers. The highest officially confirmed figured we ever saw for Game Pass was over 25 million subscribers. Now, having established the undeniable reality that Sony has a massively greater share of subscribers, perhaps you can establish the relationship between the Call of Duty franchise and subscribers. How many subscribers does that franchise drive? Where is the evidence it will more than double Microsoft's share?

It's laughable that you're trying to sell these nonsense reasons that only confirm Sony as a far more dominant player as reasons to block the acquisition.
 
I'm tired of hearing the latest buzzword "vertical integration" to describe a simple acquisition
....Latest buzz word? The term has been around for decades, if not centuries.
(1) What percent of gaming revenue in 2023 does cloud gaming represent?
It's a couple billion. How much of global game revenue it is is irrelevant. It's a distinct market according to Microsoft, and the FTC and CMA agree. I'll point out here that Microsoft is the one who fucked itself here by hyping up cloud gaming so much.
What is the projection for cloud gaming revenue by a reliable third party analyst for the next 5 years?
Double digit billions if I recall, but I personally would take it with a grain of salt since no one knows how to profit from it currently.
Sony has over 47 million PS Plus subscribers. The highest officially confirmed figured we ever saw for Game Pass was over 25 million subscribers
You're wrongly comparing apples and oranges. The market in question is "multi-game subscriptions." This excludes Nvidia GeForceNow and the base tier of PS Plus. So PS Plus Extra (6.1 million) and PS Premium (8 million) is behind Xbox Game Pass.

For someone with such strong opinions on antitrust law, you love confusing and twisting the boundaries of markets.
It's laughable that you're trying to sell these nonsense reasons that only confirm Sony as a far more dominant player as reasons to block the acquisition.
Is there a reason you think Microsoft can't organically create amazing exclusive titles and needs to purchase Activision to do so?
 
This deal should be blocked based on the new information coming out. Microsoft had admitted its goal is to outspend Sony into submission basically. That’s practically saying that monopolization is the goal. Phil also said in 2021 that the recent purchase of Bethesda would have every game as an exclusive despite him saying it would be case by case earlier. Microsoft is not to be trusted. They already own more studios than Sony without this acquisition going through. Time to start managing the studios they already have
 
Back
Top