Bet: Will the Activision Deal close? - It has closed

[kitler53]

so do we think MS walks away from this or they go ahead and buy what they can (king blizzard).   i don't know exactly how much money MS could get for them but i'll bet it is a lot.  probably half of the 95 billion at least.  is blizzard/king 47 billion?    warcraft/starcaft/diablo/overwatch all all big in their own right,..  i'll be a bit mift if MS grabs all those but those are clearly much more PC-centric so i guess i won't be too mift.   

who could MS sell CoD too?  obviously not sony or nintendo.   ubisoft?  EA?  SE?

[the-pi-guy]

so basically they'd let them aquire king only?

wow.   I have no particular opinion on king,.. I'm not that up to speed on the mobile landscape.  I'd be happy with that.

Potentially.

They threw out 5 options

1.) Spinning off CoD by itself, MS takes the rest of Activision Blizzard King.

2.) Spinning off Activision, Microsoft takes Blizzard King

3.) Spinning off Activision Blizzard, Microsoft takes just King.

4.) Cancelling the deal

5.) Convincing the CMA to take behavioral remedies. Which even the 10 year CoD deals aren't enough.

MS sounds like they're still aiming to make behavioral remedies.

[kitler53]

Potentially.

They threw out 5 options

1.) Spinning off CoD by itself, MS takes the rest of Activision Blizzard King.

2.) Spinning off Activision, Microsoft takes Blizzard King

3.) Spinning off Activision Blizzard, Microsoft takes just King.

4.) Cancelling the deal

5.) Convincing the CMA to take behavioral remedies. Which even the 10 year CoD deals aren't enough.

MS sounds like they're still aiming to make behavioral remedies.

they can try but if the 10 years thing is not enough i don't know what they'd accept.   the problem with things like 10 years is there is really no way to enforce it post merger.   MS makes a promise and then day-2 says fudge y'all and that's that,.. CoD is exclusive to xbox if they want to.


the problem with spinning off CoD,.. who is the buyer.   No one in this industry has that kind of money do they??   i've heard the saudi investment fund.   honestly,.. they might be the only ones that could afford the price and i don't like that option either.   honestly i'd rather MS has CoD than a hostile authoritarian government that regularly murders journalists...

[kitler53]

for a supposedly site of well educated people... some of these posts on era are just wildly dumb. 

[Legend]

Potentially.

They threw out 5 options

1.) Spinning off CoD by itself, MS takes the rest of Activision Blizzard King.

2.) Spinning off Activision, Microsoft takes Blizzard King

3.) Spinning off Activision Blizzard, Microsoft takes just King.

4.) Cancelling the deal

5.) Convincing the CMA to take behavioral remedies. Which even the 10 year CoD deals aren't enough.

MS sounds like they're still aiming to make behavioral remedies.

How would #1 work? Every Activision studio works on COD nowadays. Splitting the two seems pointless from both Microsoft and the buyer's perspective. It's not like Activision has other IPs that Microsoft really wants to own.

2, 4, and 5 seem like the only realistic outcomes.

for a supposedly site of well educated people... some of these posts on era are just wildly dumb.

That makes sense, it's era  

[kitler53]

How would #1 work? Every Activision studio works on COD nowadays. Splitting the two seems pointless from both Microsoft and the buyer's perspective. It's not like Activision has other IPs that Microsoft really wants to own.

2, 4, and 5 seem like the only realistic outcomes.
That makes sense, it's era 

1 and 2 are basically the same other than, i dunno, toys for bob and the crash IP. 

i've seen a lot of dumb posts on era for things like "So MS can just sell the CoD IP and keep all the development teams and rebrand the next game under something other than CoD?...".    There has to be a buyer,... the buyer has to be willing to buy it and what buyer would take CoD without any of the studios that support it?!?!?   

or another favorite of mine,.. "MS should just pull all of xbox, windows, and azure out of the UK until so that they realize they need to let MS acquire CoD or be in economic ruin.".    1. so f'ing childish.   2. isn't this like the point of opposing monopolies in the first place?  you shouldn't allow 1 company to be soo big your country's nation security depends on it...

[Legend]

1 and 2 are basically the same other than, i dunno, toys for bob and the crash IP.  

i've seen a lot of dumb posts on era for things like "So MS can just sell the CoD IP and keep all the development teams and rebrand the next game under something other than CoD?...".    There has to be a buyer,... the buyer has to be willing to buy it and what buyer would take CoD without any of the studios that support it?!?!?  

or another favorite of mine,.. "MS should just pull all of xbox, windows, and azure out of the UK until so that they realize they need to let MS acquire CoD or be in economic ruin.".    1. so f'ing childish.   2. isn't this like the point of opposing monopolies in the first place?  you shouldn't allow 1 company to be soo big your country's nation security depends on it...

Ok those takes are worse than what I imagined lol.

Also even Toys for Bob works on cod now  

[kitler53]

Ok those takes are worse than what I imagined lol.

Also even Toys for Bob works on cod now 

i know but also it's the best example i could think of.    maybe it's none of their studios and only the IP that MS keeps like crash and spyro.

i dunno.   i think the point is MS would negotiate over what the final terms are.  none of the suggestions are set in stone they are just examples of what they could accept.    i think what that 1st example puts forth is they don't give a F about crash or spyro or even warcraft or whatever king makes.   the opposition is pretty squarely on CoD and that's what they need to devest from.

[the-pi-guy]

I imagine some studios would be pulled off CoD in that case.

[kitler53]

I imagine some studios would be pulled off CoD in that case.

again,.. buyer.    would a buyer buy CoD if they didn't get IW?    like.. who would buy CoD if upon purchase the franchise falls apart because the studios that support it are missing.

...i know i wouldn't buy that.

[the-pi-guy]

again,.. buyer.    would a buyer buy CoD if they didn't get IW?    like.. who would buy CoD if upon purchase the franchise falls apart because the studios that support it are missing.

...i know i wouldn't buy that.

I was more talking about studios like Toys for bob, Radical Entertainment.

IW, Treyarch and Sledgehammer games could continue working on CoD.  

[the-pi-guy]

Spoiler for joke:

Deal confirmed cancelled as pachter says it is going through.

Wedbush's Nick McKay and Michael Pachter see the CMA's provisional finding as "a signal that the UK knows it has a losing legal argument," expect deal to close by mid-Mayhttps://t.co/JBF4jZMImP

— GamesIndustry (@GIBiz) February 8, 2023

[kitler53]

Why is patcher so pro-aqution??   How much money does he have intested in this??

[SWORDF1SH]

Do people not realise that not allowing monopolies benefits us? Are people that dumb on era. I'm glad I don't go there.

[kitler53]

Do people not realise that not allowing monopolies benefits us? Are people that dumb on era. I'm glad I don't go there.

generally speaking,.. no.   people have seem to forgotten that monopolies are bad.  not just in reference to ABK,.. i've seen numerous statements that companies will never do anything bad because "it wouldn't be accepted" as an argument that monopolies aren't actually a bad thing.   i have a very republican colleague tell me that our government should promote monopolies to "help us fight against china".