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

Who remembers Rare?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpgwvrz2p94o

Hmm. That’s a decent surprise.

Last edited by Bertie on Sat Jan 22, 2022 1:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

‘Desire’ to keep it on PS. What is it going to cost from Sony for that ‘desire’ to be strong enough to keep it on PS. Dave did a good breakdown. This is all words at the minute, see if they get anything in writing.

Wedgie wrote:https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpgwvrz2p94o

Hmm. That’s a decent surprise.

Alas, Wedgie, I think that games will only appear on PlayStation formats for the duration of any existing contracts.

Phil Spencer wrote:"I confirmed our intent to honour all existing agreements upon acquisition of Activision Blizzard and our desire to keep Call of Duty on PlayStation."

As with the Zenimax purchase, existing games will be supported and all current contracts met but we are unlikely to see new Activision games appearing on non-MS formats.

That's an odd reading of the statement. Seems a clear Sony can have our games if they bend the knee. To me.

Captain Kinopio wrote:That's an odd reading of the statement. Seems a clear Sony can have our games if they bend the knee. To me.

Do you think that new Microsoft/Activision games will appear on PlayStation after the existing contracts have completed, CK?

If Sony are willing to jump as high as MS demand, then sure. Otherwise no.

What he said

Captain Kinopio wrote:What he said

It's not crazy to believe. They may just set up Activision as a subsidiary and with its size allow it to run as another entity (whilst clearing the decks and installing their own heads to bring it under the Microsoft way of things) but allow it to operate as usual and not 100% controlled in-house perhaps?

Superfurryfox64 wrote:Who remembers Rare?

The people that made avatars?

The more I think about this, the less sense it makes to me. With any acquisition in gaming, it feels like the only guarantee you get for your money is the IP. The people at the developers can walk away at any time. Okay, they're getting Call of Duty, which is perhaps the biggest one of all, but is the rest really worth all that much? Tony Hawk has to be a licensing thing that constantly needs renewing. They're never going to own the Tony Hawk name. Spyro and Crash are pretty popular, but not really top ten selling games of the year popular.

I feel like the Blizzard of today is already not the same company that put out those games in the late 90s and early 2000s, and if they need to get rid of even more bad apples there, and you're left with essentially a whole different set of people, what is the point? In 10 years people will say MS ruined Blizzard like they did Rare, but in both cases, the people that made the games people love from those studios had already gone.

Just seeing the value of other publishers, they've pretty much spent the same value of EA, Take Two and Ubisoft combined. Now I'm pretty sure they couldn't have just gone and bought those 3 instead if they was no desire to sell up, but I don't see how they get value out of this purchase.

GrinWithoutaKat wrote:The more I think about this, the less sense it makes to me. With any acquisition in gaming, it feels like the only guarantee you get for your money is the IP. The people at the developers can walk away at any time...

...I don't see how they get value out of this purchase.

It is a huge sum to pay and initially I was sceptical too, Grin. Thing is, they get a whole load of proven developer studios as a part of the deal as well as the various gaming IPs. Sure, people can move on, but with the amount of people they've gained it's unlikely all will go - especially when many would probably rather be in the position of working for Microsoft than Activision Blizzard!

Although Call of Duty has perhaps slipped from it's peak and not too many people here in GR seem to play now, it's still a huge game in the mass market. As I posted earlier in the thread, CoD profits continue to increase year-on-year.

Seventy billion dollars is crazy money but it brings key games, studios and - maybe just as importantly - the perception of being the main player in the market. Microsoft make Sony and Nintendo look small in financial terms and - to me - this is MS stepping up and flexing their muscles a bit. If they want to - and, going by their recent purchases, it seems that they do - they could become dominant in the gaming market.

Moggy wrote:
Superfurryfox64 wrote:Who remembers Rare?

The people that made avatars?

You must be thinking of James Cameron

ITSMILNER wrote:
Moggy wrote:
Superfurryfox64 wrote:Who remembers Rare?

The people that made avatars?

You must be thinking of James Cameron

Nope. He only made one and then spent over a decade threatening more.

jawa_ wrote:Although Call of Duty has perhaps slipped from it's peak and not too many people here in GR seem to play now, it's still a huge game in the mass market. As I posted earlier in the thread, CoD profits continue to increase year-on-year.

This. If they make CoD a main stay every 2 years instead of every year they can make each one feel like more of an event than they do now, the huge downside is the return of 5-10min trailers at the start of MS showcases!

Photek wrote:

That's ace!

Console warz :lol:

.

Superfurryfox64 wrote:Who remembers Rare?

twitter.com/MauroNL3/status/1450472445572521999

5m in sales on Steam!

I've installed that but not played it yet.

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

Who is online

Affiliates