Activision says putting their games on Xbox Game Pass or other subscription services would "lead to brand dilution & cannibalization of sales" (TLHBFR)

[FIREPOWER 729]

 

 

  Even Activision knows that GamePass is dogshit and will lead to their IPs becoming diluted and selling worse over time. This deal they have with MS is out of desperation. They basically have a gun to their head and they are being forced to play along with MS. I can’t imagine any regulators reading this news and thinking Microsoft’s acquisition of Activision is great for the industry.

 

This deal is either completely toast or it’s gonna have some major concessions before it can go through. No way it goes smoothly like the Bathesda acquisition for Microsoft. It might explain why some investors are already selling stock because they think the deal is going to get killed by FTC and CMA.

[jehurey 3,237]

"with the Merger, Activision content would not be available on multigame subscription services. The Merger can therefore not make competitive conditions worse, under any circumstances."

 

[FIREPOWER 729]

20 minutes ago, jehurey said:

"with the Merger, Activision content would not be available on multigame subscription services. The Merger can therefore not make competitive conditions worse, under any circumstances."

 

 Lemshits will have you believe everyone wants their games on ShitPass. Every major third party publisher is avoiding that shit like the Plague including Activision that’s about to be acquired by MS. That alone should tell you how shitty GamePass is.

 

The model is an idiotic loser model and only reason MS is following it is because they have the deep pockets to do it. They want to devalue gaming and drive Sony and Nintendo out of the market by buying all publishers and putting their games exclusively on ShitPas. When they are the only option, they will then raise prices for the cheap retards that are stupid enough to fall for this scam. Walmart model through and through. Everyone with brains can see this coming including the FTC and especially the CMA. Question is whether FTC will let corruption blind them to this obvious fact and let the deal go through. Thankfully, it looks like MS is finally meeting some resistance from the FTC and CMA have already made their objections to the deal known. All we can do is wait to see how the deal goes on but my money is on the deal flopping or clearing with some major concessions where MS won’t be allowed to yank games like COD from PS and place them in ShitPass.

Edited November 28, 2022 by FIREPOWER

[jehurey 3,237]

Oh by the way, the document makes it perfectly clear

 

Microsoft cancelled the Activision Call of Duty Exclusive DLC marketing deal back in 2015.

 

No more of this "Sony moneyhatted" bullshit history.

 

That deal practically fell into Sony's lap at a cheap price.

 

That's 100% on Phil Spencer.

 

Edited November 28, 2022 by jehurey

[Remij 4,682]

They're saying what they have to, first and foremost.

[Remij 4,682]

8 minutes ago, jehurey said:

Oh by the way, the document makes it perfectly clear

 

Microsoft cancelled the Activision Call of Duty Exclusive DLC marketing deal back in 2015.

 

No more of this "Sony moneyhatted" bullshit history.

 

That deal practically fell into Sony's lap at a cheap price.

 

That's 100% on Phil Spencer.

 

Holy shit that completely destroy's Sony's foreclosure argument  

 

They grew when Xbox had COD marketing... and COD was more important back then.

 

 

[jehurey 3,237]

Just now, Remij said:

Holy shit that completely destroy's Sony's foreclosure argument  

 

They grew when Xbox had COD marketing... and COD was more important back then.

 

 

Nope.

 

Xbox turned down COD Marketing..............because Activision demanded that the price of the deal had to go up DUE TO XBOX USERBASE BEING SO SMALL

 

Sony got a cheaper deal because as Andrew House said "they leveraged the size of their user base."

 

Activision needs alot of consumers in order to make their exclusive DLC worth it. Or else the platform holder NEEDS TO COMPENSATE Activision for lack of consumers.

 

In other words, this goes to show that Microsoft was plainly aware that their small userbase was an issue, and Activision must do what is financially prudent for them to make the most amount of money.

 

I love how it actually PROVES THE OPPOSITE of what you were hoping for.

[Remij 4,682]

Just now, jehurey said:

Nope.

 

Xbox turned down COD Marketing..............because Activision demanded that the price of the deal had to go up DUE TO XBOX USERBASE BEING SO SMALL

 

Sony got a cheaper deal because as Andrew House said "they leveraged the size of their user base."

 

Activision needs alot of consumers in order to make their exclusive DLC worth it. Or else the platform holder NEEDS TO COMPENSATE Activision for lack of consumers.

 

In other words, this goes to show that Microsoft was plainly aware that their small userbase was an issue, and Activision must do what is financially prudent for them to make the most amount of money.

 

I love how it actually PROVES THE OPPOSITE of what you were hoping for.

So they didn't think it was worth the value it would bring... which also adds to MS' argument, and of course Sony's ability to grow in that timeframe without it    

[jehurey 3,237]

Just now, Remij said:

So they didn't think it was worth the value it would bring...

What they "think" is irrelevant.

 

because we have ACTUAL NUMBERS for how CoD sold after 2015.

 

dumbass thought he could bring a THEORETICAL argument from circa 2015 against a reality in which we have real sale numbers

[jehurey 3,237]

oh...........and I forgot to mention the teensy weensy little fact that..............Phil turned down Activision..........and is now attempting to pay $70 billion for them today.

 

Kinda utterly destroys your entire theory about Activision/COD being insignificant, doesn't it.

[Remij 4,682]

5 minutes ago, jehurey said:

What they "think" is irrelevant.

 

because we have ACTUAL NUMBERS for how CoD sold after 2015.

 

dumbass thought he could bring a THEORETICAL argument from circa 2015 against a reality in which we have real sale numbers

It doesn't matter what happened after that fact.   That's completely irrelevant... what it reinforces is that MS didn't deem it as essential, and they're holding that same stance today  

 

If MS had kept the exclusivity... Sony would be using it as an excuse right now as to why MS fought so hard to keep it  

Edited November 28, 2022 by Remij

[Remij 4,682]

Just now, jehurey said:

oh...........and I forgot to mention the teensy weensy little fact that..............Phil turned down Activision..........and is now attempting to pay $70 billion for them today.

 

Kinda utterly destroys your entire theory about Activision/COD being insignificant, doesn't it.

No, because they're not buying "COD".... they're buying Activision/Blizzard/King  

 

OMFG this guy thought he had something... again  

Edited November 28, 2022 by Remij

[FIREPOWER 729]

3 minutes ago, Remij said:

So they didn't think it was worth the value it would bring... which also adds to MS' argument, and of course Sony's ability to grow in that timeframe without it    

You're not making any sense at all dude.

 

I'm not even trying to troll you here but jehurey's explanation makes perfect sense and is logical. This shit happens all the time in the business world. MS has a smaller userbase and therefore has to pay compensation for the lost revenue of having COD DLC exclusive to them for a period of time. MS didn't want to pay that compensation so Phil ended the deal. MS lost a lot of marketshare especially at the start of last gen and couldn't enjoy the benefits of having a large userbase like they did during the 360 gen. Sony swooped in and were able to leverage their much bigger userbase to get a sweet deal from Activision at an even lower price than MS was paying. It's not Sony's fault you lemshits lost COD timed exclusive DLC, it's Microsoft's fault for abandoning gaming and chasing after TV and Kinect at the launch of the FlopBox One 

[jehurey 3,237]

2 minutes ago, Remij said:

It doesn't matter what happened after that fact.

Yes it does.

 

Because that's called "reality"

 

And that's how this merger is being analyzed by: real-world facts and numbers.

 

Not by YOUR world, which is..............what you think Phil Spencer thought about Call of Duty circa 2015.

 

Oh my god, he's entering meltdown.

[jehurey 3,237]

3 minutes ago, Remij said:

No, because they're not buying "COD".... they're buying Activision/Blizzard/King  

 

the documentation has them talking about Call of Duty all over the place.

 

Sweetie..............they're not giving statements regarding what would happen to the market if Tony Hawk fell into Microsoft's hands.

 

I love how he's now trying to play stupid at this point.

[Remij 4,682]

1 minute ago, FIREPOWER said:

You're not making any sense at all dude.

 

I'm not even trying to troll you here but jehurey's explanation makes perfect sense and is logical. This shit happens all the time in the business world. MS has a smaller userbase and therefore has to pay compensation for the lost revenue of having COD DLC exclusive to them for a period of time. MS didn't want to pay that compensation so Phil ended the deal. MS lost a lot of marketshare especially at the start of last gen and couldn't enjoy the benefits of having a large userbase like they did during the 360 gen. Sony swooped in and were able to leverage their much bigger userbase to get a sweet deal from Activision at an even lower price than MS was paying. It's not Sony's fault you lemshits lost COD timed exclusive DLC, it's Microsoft's fault for abandoning gaming and chasing after TV and Kinect at the launch of the FlopBox One 

I'm not saying his logic is wrong  

 

Of course you have to pay more for exclusivity if you have a smaller market share.

 

My entire point is that MS has maintained the same stance.... which adds to their argument that it's not essential.  If MS had continued and paid an exuberant amount of money to keep the deal... Sony could point to that and say look... see how important COD is to the platform...

 

 

Can you understand that?  

[Remij 4,682]

Just now, jehurey said:

the documentation has them talking about Call of Duty all over the place.

 

Sweetie..............they're not giving statements regarding what would happen to the market if Tony Hawk fell into Microsoft's hands.

 

I love how he's now trying to play stupid at this point.

 

Because that's what Sony is crying about.  MS is even offering the game on their console for the next 10 years guaranteed..  

 

This deal isn't about taking COD away from PS babies  

[jehurey 3,237]

3 minutes ago, FIREPOWER said:

You're not making any sense at all dude.

 

I'm not even trying to troll you here but jehurey's explanation makes perfect sense and is logical. This shit happens all the time in the business world. MS has a smaller userbase and therefore has to pay compensation for the lost revenue of having COD DLC exclusive to them for a period of time. MS didn't want to pay that compensation so Phil ended the deal. MS lost a lot of marketshare especially at the start of last gen and couldn't enjoy the benefits of having a large userbase like they did during the 360 gen. Sony swooped in and were able to leverage their much bigger userbase to get a sweet deal from Activision at an even lower price than MS was paying. It's not Sony's fault you lemshits lost COD timed exclusive DLC, it's Microsoft's fault for abandoning gaming and chasing after TV and Kinect at the launch of the FlopBox One 

If the government regulators see this, and come to the conclusion "Microsoft turned down this deal...........and it clearly hurt the sales of Xbox, while Playstation console sales enjoyed immense success..........and now Microsoft is trying to buy out the owners of Call of Duty"

 

They could very well see a huge anti-consumer picture forming.

[jehurey 3,237]

2 minutes ago, Remij said:

I'm not saying his logic is wrong  

 

Of course you have to pay more for exclusivity if you have a smaller market share.

 

My entire point is that MS has maintained the same stance....

If they're willing to pay $70 billion for Activision.

 

They clearly HAVEN'T MAINTAINED THE SAME STANCE

 

 

I love how he thinks he can get by and hope we don't notice the "small" detail he leaves out.

[Remij 4,682]

Just now, jehurey said:

If the government regulators see this, and come to the conclusion "Microsoft turned down this deal...........and it clearly hurt the sales of Xbox, while Playstation console sales enjoyed immense success..........and now Microsoft is trying to buy out the owners of Call of Duty"

 

They could very well see a huge anti-consumer picture forming.

LMAO this idiot is arguing that regulators job should be ensuring that Sony doesn't get hurt by MS buying COD    

 

There's a million other factors which point to Playstation's success and Xbox's failure in that time