Microsoft buy Activision Blizzard for $70B. Officially confirmed. Bobby Kotick leaving MS on 29th Dec.

new ms interview just dropped guys

twitter.com/tomwarren/status/1491598131276005383

I don’t understand why some people are insisting Microsoft are being duplicitous when talking about CoD on PS and outright lying when talking about it on Nintendo. Just take off the tinfoil hat and take what they’re saying at face value. It just feels like the same kind of naïveté that was questioning why Sony bothered buying Bungie if they still have publishing autonomy and stay multiplatform. As “fun”(?) as it must be to think of these acquisitions as players signing for your team to compete in the big Fanboy Cup, it’s just business.

Tinfoil hat's a strong term for what would be common practice upon acquisitions in an industry.

I care about MS v Sony about as much as BP v Shell. The reality is that promises at this stage quite obviously mean very little unless written in legally binding terms. Which is strongly alluded to in the first tweet when mentioning regulators.

Afaik none of us work in a Sr level at MS so we're all guessing; their current strategy may well be to focus on category growth followed by increased market share, in which case titles such as cod may continue to appear on consoles beyond 2023 or whenever. Either way, though, of course they want to take steps towards a more monopolistic position from a % standpoint; which large company wouldn't? The only difference in the gaming industry is that MS is the only org with the realistic capital to make it happen.

Activision Blizzard will literally be under Phil Spencer and MS, it has no autonomy so it's completely different to the Bungie deal, vastly different in fact. That said, I think Phil will keep to his word until it makes sense to change it, and that's the wiggle room they have as the owner.

If Starfield lands and is a massive success and leads to more subscribers to GP then things could change...

Photek wrote:Activision Blizzard will literally be under Phil Spencer and MS, it has no autonomy so it's completely different to the Bungie deal, vastly different in fact. That said, I think Phil will keep to his word until it makes sense to change it, and that's the wiggle room they have as the owner.

If Starfield lands and is a massive success and leads to more subscribers to GP then things could change...

I think that's probably a fair summation of it all. Essentially until the first internal forecasts show keeping it exclusive would lead to long term profit gains I imagine!

Photek wrote:Activision Blizzard will literally be under Phil Spencer

Will he love it or list it?

BROKE - Activision Blizzard under Bobby Kotick
WOKE - Activision Blizzard under Phil Spencer
BESPOKE - Activision Blizzard under Kirsty Allsopp, no Gamepass for you until you've paid the deposit on your first home.

twitter.com/dinabass/status/1506016965105631235

This was expected but it is earlier than most people thought, wonder if they will seal the deal by the years end.

twitter.com/Kellen_Browning/status/1519719773159841792

98% of Activision shareholders voted for the Acquisition.

twitter.com/JezCorden/status/1527281111017017347

twitter.com/tomwarren/status/1544646604082249733

Xbox holds even less market share in the UK.

Didn’t realise the Unionised workers of America sent the FTC a letter of recommendation as well as the workers and unions that recently formed within Acti-Blizzard.

twitter.com/VGC_News/status/1548984907606761472

So, Diablo on Gamepass soon then.

Peter Crisp wrote:So, Diablo on Gamepass soon then.

If the FTC don’t ask for more info in next 30 days the deal is essentially done.

Ironic that the most expensive acquisition is the one that is the least interesting in terms of the games it brings into scope.

I guess I'm kind of up for playing some legacy Blizzard stuff like Starcraft but none of the headline games here appeal to me at all

Jenuall wrote:Ironic that the most expensive acquisition is the one that is the least interesting in terms of the games it brings into scope.

I guess I'm kind of up for playing some legacy Blizzard stuff like Starcraft but none of the headline games here appeal to me at all

I’m in the same boat, the Bethesda acquisition is far better for me personally. CoD games heading into GP will be big news for the service, I recognise that part at least.

Photek wrote:
Jenuall wrote:Ironic that the most expensive acquisition is the one that is the least interesting in terms of the games it brings into scope.

I guess I'm kind of up for playing some legacy Blizzard stuff like Starcraft but none of the headline games here appeal to me at all

I’m in the same boat, the Bethesda acquisition is far better for me personally. CoD games heading into GP will be big news for the service, I recognise that part at least.

Yeah it's definitely massive in terms of things like CoD and Overwatch which are hugely popular now, I just wish it meant more for me personally

Still, given what is now on the service overall it's hard to feel too bad!

Yeah, in terms of Bethesda being bought by Microsoft I was " :shock:

" but with Activision I was more " :shock:

...

".

I only really care about Diablo 4.

Microsoft buy Activision Blizzard for $70B. Officially confirmed. Bobby Kotick leaving MS on 29th Dec.

Who is online

Affiliates