MS “Xbox's Activision Deal Is Fair Because PlayStation Has Way More Exclusives”

[Ike★ 2,922]

https://www.ign.com/articles/microsoft-exec-says-xboxs-activision-deal-is-fair-because-playstation-has-way-more-exclusives
 

Xbox is such shit.

[jehurey 3,299]

So in other words, they are clearly saying that the ultimate goal with this acquisition are to MAKE SOME ACTIVISION things exclusive.

 

The thing is Microsoft has already revealed themselves to go back on their word. They went back on their word with Starfield.

 

So when they say "Sony and Nintendo can have Call of Duty on their platforms for 10 years" They can make up some bullshit afterwards to change the meaning of that.

 

For example. They could split up Call of Duty single-player, and sell that for $70 on Nintendo and Sony platforms.

 

And then they declare that Warzone and all of Call of Duty multiplayer is a separate product, and they'll say "we never promised that to Sony and Nintendo" and they make it exclusive to GamePass.

 

This is why they want to buy the IP, so that they can make these types of changes.

[TLHBO 2,170]

What happened to all those new studios lemmings talked about? what about all the games being worked on? it sounds like MS know they're a bag of shit and thats why they now want to blow $70 billion on Activision.

 

They are such pathetic childish cunts to try and say its "fair". Using that 70 billion to make their own exclusives would be " fair" all they want to do is what they have done for the past 20 years - pay to take games away from other platforms.

 

MS execs are the sleaziest shits on Earth I wish the worst for every single one of them.

[Playstation Tablet 1,746]

Too bad Bungie's new IP is so far away.  That's the only MP I would liked

[FIREPOWER 765]

This is why they are getting sued by the FTC. All the "10 year deals" and bullshit are being rejected by Sony because they are ultimately meaningless when their main goal is to seize Activision's games and make them exclusive at the end of the day.

 

CMA and FTC should block the deal and make sure MS isn't allowed to consolidate the industry.

 

Baffling that a company with more studios than anyone else in the industry and enough money to buy their competition several times over has no exclusives. Who's fault is that? Sony or the idiots at MS who can't make games to save their lives?

 

 These are the retards that lemshits want to own half the industry? They can't even manage the studios they have now.

[Playstation Tablet 1,746]

They said they won't be taking away games. Then Starfall was pointed out, and they said it wasn't taken away because no PS5 version existed. Or they announce Starfall a bit later for PS5. That would be total fail on their part.

 

I don't get why getting this deal to go through is hard,

Edited December 17, 2022 by Team 2019

[jehurey 3,299]

I have a question, what was stopping Microsoft from going to Activision in early 2022 and saying "We will pay you a lump sum of money right now to get Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2 on GamePass when it releases in November. We want it on GamePass for six months."

 

And let's say Activision responds with "Okay, we expected to sell about 6 million copies on Xbox Series consoles and another 4 million on PC, so pay us for almost the full price of 10 million retail copies."

 

10 million x $60 price per each copy = $600 million dollars, one-time up front payment.

 

But that means that Modern Warfare 2, and its online mode and Warzone modes are now given to almost 30 million GamePass subscribers across Xbox and PC.

 

Which works in Activision's favor, because they sell things like booster packs, map packs, season passes. And instead of selling it to 6-10 million Xbox/PC buyers, they can now potentially sell those DLC items for 25-30 million people.

 

And $600 million dollars is less than 1 percent of the cost of having to buy Activision-Blizzard-King outright.

 

Why didn't Microsoft simply do that?

[Remij 4,717]

13 minutes ago, jehurey said:

I have a question, what was stopping Microsoft from going to Activision in early 2022 and saying "We will pay you a lump sum of money right now to get Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2 on GamePass when it releases in November. We want it on GamePass for six months."

 

And let's say Activision responds with "Okay, we expected to sell about 6 million copies on Xbox Series consoles and another 4 million on PC, so pay us for almost the full price of 10 million retail copies."

 

10 million x $60 price per each copy = $600 million dollars, one-time up front payment.

 

But that means that Modern Warfare 2, and its online mode and Warzone modes are now given to almost 30 million GamePass subscribers across Xbox and PC.

 

Which works in Activision's favor, because they sell things like booster packs, map packs, season passes. And instead of selling it to 6-10 million Xbox/PC buyers, they can now potentially sell those DLC items for 25-30 million people.

 

And $600 million dollars is less than 1 percent of the cost of having to buy Activision-Blizzard-King outright.

 

Why didn't Microsoft simply do that?

 

Don't they have a marketing deal with Sony?  Probably prohibits any type of thing.  And then on top of that Activision went on record saying they feel it would devalue their franchise by putting it on subscription services.

 

I guarantee you MS already tried very hard to get COD on GP.

[jehurey 3,299]

29 minutes ago, Remij said:

 

Don't they have a marketing deal with Sony?  Probably prohibits any type of thing.  And then on top of that Activision went on record saying they feel it would devalue their franchise by putting it on subscription services.

 

I guarantee you MS already tried very hard to get COD on GP.

if that marketing deal is the same one Phil Spencer is saying that he would honor, then that would also mean that if the Activision deal goes thru, the marketing deal still prevents Microsoft from putting it on GamePass.

 

unless they specifically do something to reneg on that part of the marketing deal, like some loophole.

[Remij 4,717]

35 minutes ago, jehurey said:

if that marketing deal is the same one Phil Spencer is saying that he would honor, then that would also mean that if the Activision deal goes thru, the marketing deal still prevents Microsoft from putting it on GamePass.

 

unless they specifically do something to reneg on that part of the marketing deal, like some loophole.

True, I suppose.  But then it just leads to the other point that Activision didn't want their games on any subscription services as they feel would devalue it.  The amount of money MS would have to pay for simple GP day and date would be astronomical, and not worth it.  They likely simply said "no way."  It wouldn't just be the cost of sales lost upfront.. but also a price for the risk of devaluing the franchise.. and Activision wouldn't want to take that chance.

 

That just also points to COD not being the only thing MS are after with this deal.  If we take Phil Spencer's statements as truth about the primary motivation for the purchase being King and Blizzard to expand in those markets, and look at all the concessions they're willing to make with COD.. then it becomes pretty clear MS wasn't willing to spend all that money just for COD GP deals.  At that point, they're better off trying to buy the entire thing.

[sugarhigh 519]

MS basically saying their 1st party is trash. Nobody needs Xbox to exist.