It's Over, Microsoft Has Officially Acquired Activision Blizzard

It’s a very cold day in consolidation hell when it goes hand in hand with heat death.

@nintendolife will save us<3

What does Ubisoft owning the cloud gaming rights actually mean? Do AB have any games that rely on the cloud?

Life goes on. This will be a footnote in the overall history of video gaming.

I don't understand the Ubisoft part, what does this mean?

68.7 billion. Does the number even matter to them? I think they're maybe in a position to buy anyone and everyone who's prepared to sell.

Oh no! I’ll never be able to play a series that I dislike already anyways? A copy/paste war game.. what a loss 🤣

Now give me Bethesda back 😭

Congratulations Xbox and ABK.

I can’t wait to see how Call of Duty will run on the Nintendo Switch.

And Switch 2 is getting COD because of this deal. Lol

To be crystal clear, this is very bad news. It's just that I wouldn't have expected it to result in COD returning to Nintendo consoles when if you told me about this 22 months ago.

Woke up this morning to an interview with Kotick on CNBC. Ugh.😝

@gaga64 Ubisoft having the CoD cloud gaming rights in the UK means that everybody wanting to have CoD in their cloud gaming services in the UK have to ask Ubisoft for it instead of Microsoft.

Give us a modern warfare and black ops collection for switch please. Do nicely till switch 2 drops. Get feral or panic button on it.

@HammerGalladeBro it means that the rights to stream Activision games goes to Ubisoft instead of Microsoft.

@gaga64 Basically it means that cloud streamers have to go through Ubisoft for ABK games to be on their services (which then funnels to Microsoft anyways) rather than Microsoft having control over it.

So, essentially, the CMA created a middle man for people to get ABK titles on competing Cloud Services (few as they may be).

Maybe even a ww3 hd collection, 1 2 and 3, ww2

Cool, Bobby Kotick is also confirmed to leave the company by the end of this year.

A victory for gaming overall.

@dystome - Me and a friend were talking about how they have tried multiple other companies to buy. But we also saw a trend with the big buyouts with Bathesda and AB with harassment controversies that lower the price a bit and they scoop them up. There is theories that this could be a tactic MS played to do so, which companies of such magnitude have done before as well in other industries.

I think too big a deal has been made out of this, if they have a few bad years coinciding with another great game coming along and COD would be done.

Big day for those who want Call of Duty on Nintendo platforms.

Is Mr. Frodo, Kotick's nickname? Cause the guy sure looks tiny to me.

@fenlix FYI the streaming rights isn't just a UK thing. The deal with ubisoft is for the world wide streaming rights

@fenlix does it only affect the UK? I can’t find anyone else specifying the UK.

@GamingFan4Lyf Does it just mean their Cloud Games run off Ubisoft servers? Have they got many cloud games?

It's disappointing that anti-trust laws failed to prevent this. These companies/acquisitions have become far too big and are causing stagnation of creativity and innovation on the highest level. Luckily indie studios continue to flourish and will still fill the gaps.

So it's officially disgusting now.

I'm glad this is over because I'm just tired of seeing news about this. Now we can just let it be

A great day for market consolidation, yay. Just a matter of time before they start snapping up studios that make Nintendo exclusives like Capcom, Square and Sega.

Beginning of the end for video games 😭

It has begun. Say goodbye to your favorite developers and companies now.

Can't wait for the day when Microsoft pushes this spree too far and regulators roll it all back.

@gaga64 I have no idea, to be perfectly honest. As far as I know Ubisoft doesn't have any cloud games. There may be one or two on Game Pass Cloud - which is just a Cloud-based Series X.

I think this is more for like Cloud Services like GeForce Now - where a Cloud-based PC is used.

The CMA was just worried that Microsoft would keep all the games for itself on Game Pass Cloud that prevents others from competing - despite the fact Microsoft cut deals with GeForce Now and some others to allow games to be streamable on the service.

Plus, the Ubisoft thing only applies to the UK-based Cloud Services - not the rest of the world.

Shame on all the regulators around the world!!!!

Currently in the UK there is a massive hate towards many different regulators with good reason.

Everyone knows that for all their legal gymnastics and nice promises, Microsoft didn't spend $69 billion so they could help their competitors. Redfall, Starfield and Elders Scrolls 6 have become platform exclusives despite all the nice things they said at the time of the Bethesda acquisition. Expect Call of Duty to go through some kind of legal loophole so it will be a platform exclusive much sooner than the promised 10 years as well.

*Sad Pushsquare noises *

@JohnnyC Microsoft was actually pretty wish-washy with the Bethesda acquisition. It said "case-by-case" basis. It wasn't as concrete about things as it is with this acquisition.

Microsoft spent $69 billion for that Candy Crush and Call of Duty MTX - which is probably hand over fist more than any single game makes per year on Xbox.

Unfortunately for Microsoft, neither Redfall, Starfield, nor Hi-Fi Rush moved the needle much for Xbox. So, I doubt that is Microsoft's strategy going forward. It will make considerable more money keeping things third-party with this acquisition. I honestly look for Elder Scrolls 6 to go multi-platform in the end.

Starfield caused some boosts to sales and services, but we aren't talking market domination here.

Very good, Blizzard and Activision have been slipping for the last few years. With terrible decisions, and worse games. (Overwatch 2, Diablo 4, Diablo Immortals, "Don't you have phones?", etc). In the long run, this is going to be good news.

So Microsoft have brought themselves more game studios. Not one of their big console hits was made in house. It will only be a matter of time until they go after Ubisoft and swallow them as well.

Microsoft are definitely playing the long game here. 10 years is nothing to them, but the idea is that as soon as possible they lock the titles down to MS platforms. Just like they did with Bethesda. Made a lot of friendly talk pre-acquisition about games still being released cross-platform and once the deal was done it became clear that the only cross-platform games would be those that already had deals agreed. And it probably would have cost more than it was worth totry and rewrite those deals anyway.
Microsoft have a long history of doing this sort of thing. Anyone who doubts that should go and read the Halloween E-Mails.

@Woderwick and sony or Nintendo wouldn't have done the same?

Fact: of the 3 big console gatekeepers, only Microsoft has published games on third party consoles. (except for one licensed sony game)

And Sony is crying a puddle of tears since they couldn't stop the merger from going forward. Good riddance Sony.....

I don't really play any Activision/Blizzard games, and I'm definitely not gonna play them in the future either. Consolidations like this typically mean the publishers want even more profits and are less willing to take risks for the sake of art, so AAA games will become blander and less creative as a result.

Could you imagine what would happen if Microsoft had bought Nintendo like they wanted to? Probably we would never see more of those odder and more innovative titles Nintendo still puts out, like the Wario games or even Fire Emblem.

@sanderev

Just because other companies may do it doesn't make it any better.

What a ridiculous trailer that (for me) misses every single beat it's trying to hit lol. I mean, well done for Microsoft depriving gamers of a heck of a lot of games going forward, but spare me all the 'it's about time' and 'we are family' manure.

@Woderwick 10 years is more than enough for the other companies to prepare a response to the things that Microsoft own, their competition also accepted Microsoft offer because they are also being benefited in the long run.

Also, Microsoft never said the Bethesda games would remain multiplatform, they always used the word "case-by-case".

@Axecon The AAA model of bigger and more expensive games is what is causing stagnation of creativity, not companies buying other companies. Also, Microsoft netflix-like model can actually bring a little bit more creativity to the industry.

@Polvasti That talks was already talked about already MS doesn't have the capital and investor that will want to take the bad PR hit. Their own console is dead last in every market Regions also trying to buy Nintendo and the Japanese Government will step in so think long and hard what consequences this will have on MS PR and public outrage will do to their stock and Image - repair will not be so easy. And the buyout didn't start the AAA dumbing down it already start by itself-MS didn't need to do this. Just look at their game releases not a spectacular in it's own shares. The biggest Looser is Sony since they couldn't use EU regulators or the USA bought government to stop the merger - that should tell you how scared Sony really is when they had to use 3rd party to do their bidding and even in briefs they admitted so to torpedoing the talks but failed miserably.

I feel alone (and a bit dirty) for being happy about this.

As one that has lost interest in modern Activision fare and was primarily interested in their legacy, I think it somewhat more likely that we'll see Microsoft do something with Activision's extensive catalogue of classics.

Activision themselves were only interested in the blockbuster over the last 10-15 years. There was no room or desire to pursue something more modest like a classic compilation, even though past Activision releases like Activision Anthology have been successful (but hardly a license to print money).

While I feel for the Nintendo and Sony owners that worry about their favorite videogame franchises departing their platform of choice down the road, I'm optimistic we'll see some neat things done with the Activision back catalogue, including bygone firms like Imagic that they now own the IP of.

And not just their Atari era content, either. Maybe cool things like a deep dive by Digital Eclipse into the many iterations of Pitfall: The Mayan Adventure could now happen (like they've just done with Karateka), MS control of the final missing Xbox family Call of Duty's perhaps might lead to the reawakening of the backwards compatibility program (I'd love to see the original Xbox releases and Call of Duty Classic for XBLA joining the lineup), etc.

Let's hope this is a victory for Banjo kazooie fans. C'mon Xbox! Have Toys for Bob making a new entry!

Sells Activision cloud rights to Ubisoft...
Next Up: Microsoft acquires Ubisoft!

Not finished until I get my COD on switch/switch 2.

Hopefully with this acquisition, Microsoft won't be allowed to buy any more major players in the gaming industry, but I have my doubts...

At least there's a chance Toys for Bob can remake the original Banjo-Kazooie duology as they did for Spyro, right?

@UltimateOtaku91

Sony can also withhold games from Nintendo if Sony buys Capcom, Sega, Square Enix, etc.

@StarFox94 But Sony don't have the money to buy them, only Microsoft does hence why Microsoft is the only threat towards Nintendo at the moment. I would rather Nintendo step up and maybe buy Square as atleast Nintendo would continue with the smaller titles like Harvestella and Octopath Traveler. I'd much rather a japanese company buy these Japanese publishers.

@UltimateOtaku91

For Japanese gamers, Nintendo is better off buying Japanese developers than Sony because PlayStation games don't sell well in Japan. Sony is too Americanized. My opinion is that Tencent or Saudi Arabia will buy Japanese publishers rather than Microsoft.

Once a year, Metacritic takes all the games developed by studios owned by large publishers (EA, UBSoft, Sony, MS) and gives them an average rating. It's simple, if EA released 10 games, they take the total score and divide by 10. This effectively "rates" the best publisher each year.

If you take every year it's been doing this and add them up, the number one publisher, as chosen by both critics and players, is Microsoft. Sony is a close second. Nintendo is 9th ... but only because they release a lot of junk and filler, which brings down the average dispute them having some of the top rated games every year.

Now, this doesn't mean you are personally wrong if you hate MS games. Like what you like, don't like what you don't like ... you never have to justify your opinion. That' how opinions work! If you think all their games suck and you never want to play them, that's valid.

But if you think that MS is the bane to gaming, and that no one likes anything they produce, you are objectively incorrect. Period. Most people like MS games. In fact, as a whole, people and critics think they are the best. That's not option, it's a fact about opinions.

If this is a huge shock to you because you never hear anything positive about them, you should really question the objectivity of your sources of gaming information. You're living in a echo chamber where the algorithm is only showing you stories it knows you are going to agree with. That's bad.

If this information bothers you to you core or personally offends you ... maybe ask why? It should be pretty obvious that people really like both Sony and MS games. How else could they maintain their position in the industry?

@StarFox94 That's very true, I would hope if Microsoft do come in for Sega or Square then Nintendo would challenge them for it, would also be interesting to see how Nintendo would do Final Fantasy or Persona, I still think it's strange how Persona 3 Reloaded isn't on Switch considering the high install base the Switch has in Japan, it's like a certain company paid for it not to release on switch so that if people want to play it handheld they have no choice but to subscribe to a certain subscription.

Excellent news! Can't wait for more promises of older games rereleases that won't actually happen and monkey paws for those who do, all for the tiny, tiny price of less competition.

Back from Sarcasm Land, the writing was on the wall. If Microsoft was willing to spend close to 70 billion dollars for the acquisition, I doubt they would balk at a few more to evade any potential roadblocks.

@StarFox94 Hopefully Sony's new CEO can Un-Americanize them, though with the lead Nintendo has in Japan I'd give just up on that thought, probably whey are focussing on other Asian territories instead.

And nothing of worth was lost or gained

Finally the drama has ended.

Poor microsoft, got a studio of bad touchers with low creative skills

The only Activision IP I care about is Skylanders. C’mon Microsoft, save Toys For Bob and Vicarious Visions from the Call of Duty gulag!

But wait... when is Disney going to buy Microsoft? Or will it be the other way around?

It kind f funny to be Nintendo player. None of these deals affect to the quality of games we get. As long as Nintendo has their own first party stuff, Monolith and Retro it's all fine to me.

@GamingFan4Lyf @JohnnyC

I can understand where this take comes from, but there are some factually inaccuracies here and a disconnect between how you or I think and how Microsoft thinks that make the exact opposite far more likely.

Starfield was a HUGE success. Xbox sales were up 76% YTY after it's release. For context, Switch sales were up 38% after TOTK and the largest increase to PS sales this year came from a 3rd party game, Hogwarts Legacy (although Spider Man will likely blow that away). It is being credited for almost a million new Game Pass subscriptions. So not only did it move hardware, but it moved the most important product for Xbox in Game Pass. The only real disappointment is that it moved X series S units considerably more then X series X.

If you're living in a Sony positive echo-chamber you likely saw stories form sites like GameRant that ran headlines like "Starfield a HUGE DISAPOIINTMENT in selling Xbox units" that, if you clicked though, actually go on to say that while Xbox X sales increases missed targets, X and S combined increases were well above projections.

It also is one of, if not THE fastest selling Xbox games of all time despite 23 million people getting it for free.

So Microsoft's internal telemetry says it was a huge success within their own ecosystem. So the question becomes did they leave any money on the table not putting it on PlayStation?

Oh my god no. EVERYONE OUTSIDE XBOX HATES IT. They know Xbox owners like it because it sold so well, but every single Sony fan, every website that favors Sony, every news outlet, everyone on Sony game forums ... it's just people telling Microsoft they would rather watch their own children murdered in front of them then be forced to play what is, without question, not just the worst game ever made but the single worst piece of media ever created by humans. More so, they all hate Bethesda and will never buy a Bethesda game ever again. Microsoft is being told, load and clear, that no one has any interest in playing their games on PlayStation and it would be a complete waste of money to develop for that console.

This is going to send a clear message that they do not need to market games outside their own ecosystem in the future. Elder Scrolls 6's PS support was likely dropped immediately, and I would be shocked if we didn't see a drastic shift to MS first party only release on PC and Xbox moving forward.

@WeLiveInASociety
What about spyro 4 there are rumours they are about to show it soon

Nice, off to Twitter to read all the awesome takes from the armchair economists

Soon I´ll be playing Guitar Hero on my Samsung TV Game Pass Ultimate. Big yes!

From now on, every time the media reviews Activision games, we know that the rating is 2 points below reality. So just add 2 more points.

For example, if a website gives a rating of 7, we know it is a 9.

The 7 is just this anti-xbox mechanism, which doesn't mean anything...

@HeadPirate To be clear, I have nothing against Starfield selling well or being an exclusive. It seems like a decent game as well. My point is simply that Microsoft didn't spend a fortune for the selfless reasons they've stated in their arguments. To use an unfortunately common gaming term, this is pay to win.

About damn time. We already knew this was going to happen. Not sure what the fuss was about by stalling them.

This is awesome! Consolidation is best for competition and overall quality of goods made. Hopefully Microsoft acquires Nintendo next so that we can finally have better games on the Switch or Switch 2.

Also, I'm being completely sarcastic.

@JohnnyC

I feel ya.

I don't really see their press release as "Selfless". I mean, I think most people understand that as a privately traded company in the US, MS would be literally obligated by law to murder babies if they could make money doing that and a get away with it. A CEO who refused to implement "operation murder babies" would be replaced and investors could sue MS for lost opportunity.

There are no white hats in capitalism.

They are saying they are not going to remove games from Sony or Nintendo hardware simply out of spite if doing so will cost them in the sort term (which is important, because at the FTC trail we learned that Sony bought Bunge and Insomniac explicitly to keep their games off Xbox, not because they felt they provide any real growth opportunity for PlayStation), but they are obviously going to do what makes them the most money.

Sometimes, that's going to mean cooperation and cross promotion They host NOS and the Switch e-shop, and you can buy Nintendo licensed themes on Xbox Store. Increased Nintendo support from the studios they buy to grow that relationship might be a good idea, and is something we will likely see into the future.

But at the end of the day, you're right ... Microsoft will never make a decision that doesn't favor Microsoft. Sometimes it will favor other people as well, and as a company selling to gamers, they obviously think benefiting gamers is going to benefit Microsoft.

That's what I read from the press release.

digital gaming is the way to go as best buy has announced they will stop selling physical media including video games as early as the first quarter of 2024.. that is a huge blow to nintendo fans..

@Fighting_Game_Loser for real. I get that it's gaming news and we're here on a gaming news website reading about but, really, it gets old reading about these mergers and acquisitions with a tone of "what will this mean for this industry?" Because the answer is ALWAYS the same: the rich will get richer and we, the consumers of gaming media, will suffer as part of that deal.

@EaglyBird

If you're take is anti-monopoly, you should be extremely excited that MS is buying activation. This is some of the best anti-monopoly news we've gotten in a while.

Tencent and Sony have a stranglehold on game development. No one else is even close to either of them individually , and collectively they own 45% of the market! So, as you said, everyone losses and it's a horrible situation if they continue this near monopoly position.

While the Activision purchase is only a small step in the right direction, as even after this $69 billion dollar acquisition Microsoft will still be behind Sony and no where near Tencent, we should still be happy about what is, by your own logic, a player positive move towards a more level playing field.

In a perfect world, governments would be forcing Sony and Tencent to sell off some of it's studios. In a prefect world, Sony wouldn't have been allowed to buy 7 studios in the last 2 years despite being the second largest publisher and having more then double the gaming assists of the 3rd largest. And in that perfect world, MS wouldn't need to spend $69 just to remain competitive, and them doing so would be a bad thing.

But in THIS world, destabilizing an industry where only 2 companies control almost half of it is GOOD. The companies that own the majority of a industry convincing people that changes to the status quo are bad and should be challenged is how every monopoly ever came to be.

Good now all the “no way this can happen” people can move on.

@HeadPirate Christ, that second to last paragraph is some incredibly hyper-sensationalized hyperbole that has no basis in reality outside of Sony's fanboys, which aren't nearly as big as you make them out to be. Ironic, considering how often you call out others for doing the same thing.

The general consensus on Starfield that I've seen is that the game is good, but not the "game of the generation" type moment that it was hyped up to be. Most people like it, some were disappointed in it. Only the Sony fanboys took that and ran with the "STARFIELD IS GARBAGE HURR DURR" nonsense. But again, they're a minority and not reflective of the general consensus, and therefore, reality.

Oh, and news flash: Elder Scrolls 6 was always going to be Xbox/PC only ever since the Zenimax acquisition. Some Sony fanboys bashing Starfield was never going to influence that.

Awesome news!

Looking forward to what Microsoft brings to Nintendo console. 👍🏻

To be honest Activision/blizzard were already sinking and fast at that. I’m sure their games were Making a lot of money but I don’t think it was showing longevity regarding Diablo, wow, overwatch 2 and how all of those games losses of their respective community.

I miss old Activision

WTH Microsoft ! 😡
We will not getting Spyro, Crash Bandicoot, Skylanders on Nintendo and PlayStation anymore.
At the same time, their XBOX Series X just completely nothing. 🙄

@EaglyBird Sony is much more aligned with Microsoft in this regard than a potential victim of them. Nintendo would never sell to MS if they didn't sell to Sony already.

@HeadPirate On top of this, nearly the entire western market is owned by EA and Activision...who have been the most egregious monetizers out there. MS has never been as bad as either of them.

@johnedwin How is not selling physical media specifically a blow to Nintendo fans? I haven't bought a physical Nintendo game since the Wii, and I've practically bought everything they've published since that time digitally.

So what was it that xbox offered to Nintendo? What will Nintendo get out of it? I hope it's not just cod. I hope they get gamepass too.

@Anti-Matter if they make a game from that franchise, it will most likely be multiplatform.

Looking forward to some cross-platform Warzone on the Switch 2.

@Anti-Matter
They already said all activions game will arrive on all platforms(source multiplayer it)

COD 2024 on Switch 2 confirmed.

@Iconoclysm more people buy physical switch games then either sony or xbox.. and the new switch will continue to sell physical games going into 2032 or so..when another new switch might happen..

For me, it doesn’t matter much as the only current Activision franchise I care about is Geometry Wars. I enjoy the classic Activision franchises more give me a new Pitfall or River Raid or even Beamrider.

Could we get an atricle of the possibilities, the good and the bad. at this point different forms of media are getting monopolized by giants. But if there is any way for someone to paint a clear picture that would be great.

We got too cocky regulationbros.

Give the ring to Frodo!

Serious question, what do they make besides Call of Duty which I couldn’t be less interested in?

you can keep call of duty... let's see the Rare Replay collection on switch!

@JONOFTHEJONS That makes two of us! XD

Doesnt concern me. I dont play MS games and I dont play activision games... So ye... Couldnt care less

@MrGam3andBu1ld

Are there any specific questions or areas you're most infested in? I could give you a pretty decent rundown, and maybe even point you to more information.

@EaglyBird Here's what I don't get about buyouts. Why doesn't the other party just say no to the proposal? It's easy to blame Microsoft, but Activision executives are just as guilty of selling out.

Well, this is going to be interesting… i don’t like the activision execs, but they do have some franchises I love…
My hope is that the acquisition will improve the horrendous working conditions that we have heard about over the last few years.
It hurts when a franchise you love is stuck under one of the most disgusting companies, so hopefully things will improve

Nintendo is next!

@rjejr worst part about his departure is he's getting a fat check.

To the people who are saying this is good for Activision-Blizzard in the long run... Did the Rareware and Bethesda acquisitions improve their quality output?

@DarkDooDoo87 you're a real intellectual giant.

@dudujencarelli

"Microsoft" and "Activision" are not singular minded entities that decide to do thing, nor or they controlled by a single person with the power to make decisions like this.

This is how it happens:

-Someone suggests a buy out. This can be anyone who owns even a single share, but it's going to need a full business plan, feasibility study, impact study, and a bunch of things that cost a lot of money to be considered seriously ... so this is generally going to come from a board member who's job it is to look for acquisitions and who has resources to spend.

-If the plan has clear benefits after due diligence (all that stuff I mentioned) it must be presented to shareholders. This isn't a choice. In the US, you are legally obligated to disclose this type of opportunity as soon as you determine it has a high chance of providing value.

-The company's articles of incorporation will determine how a vote to proceed takes place. Most of that time, it's representative democracy. Share holders elect board members who vote on proposals like this. Some times it's direct democracy and each share you own gives you one vote. Sometimes it's direct but some "special" shares get more votes then others. Sometime, but rarely, the board elects someone who will have complete control over the company until the next election, so that person might have the finial word.

-The company is legally obligated to go with the results of the vote.

The process of decided to allow the buyout is the same, with some cavoites to consider.

Because shares equal votes, it's really hard to block a takeover unless a few people who are against the idea own most of the shares. The company that wants to buy you can gets votes by owning shares, and either vote for board members that will approve the deal (if the board is in control) or just use their majority or near majority stake to vote in favor of it directly (if it's a general shareholder vote).

When a deal happens despite the board and CEO not favoring the deal with it's proposed because someone buys up enough shares to win the vote, that's a "hostile takeover."

"Blame" doesn't really make sense here. Both parties are corporations that exist to make money for their investors, and no other propose. Nothing went wrong here. This is how it's supposed to work. This deal was insanely good for Activision share holders, and it's likely it will be a net positive for Microsoft as well.

This process is different for private companies, but both companies here are public.

@fenlix it is kinda a win, but Kotick is without a doubt departing with a nine-figure sum and no real accountability for what happened on his watch (or directly by his own hand). We'll see if Microsoft guts their entire C-suite for cause, but I don't hold a lot of hope.

@TheBoilerman
Yep, same as the first gaming industry crash. Total nothingburger.

@IronMan30 "worst part about his departure is he's getting a fat check."

Yeah I can feel a bit of my soul slipping away just trying to figure out how much of that $69B he'll be personally pocketing. 😫

@johnedwin There is certainly no guarantee of the next Switch accepting new physical games. It may keep the slot for backward compatibility and move to all digital. As for whether or not they have more physical sales vs. digital sales than the competition, we can’t know that as Nintendo does not release digital sales numbers.

The writing has been on the wall for this since 2001.

@EaglyBird Just because you know of a time Microsoft thought of this does not mean that Sony did not. They really did a lot worse, bribing third parties and attempting to starve Nintendo instead. Japanese companies are not big on selling nor buying each other, so they have that going for them.

Nintendo has repeatedly said they are a hardware company, if they no longer make hardware they will no longer make software.

All mergers are not bad, particularly when they eliminate bad companies like in this instance.

I'd be pretty happy if they did something with Crash, Spyro, THPS, etc etc, but they probably won't. Or they will, but they'll just be rough af. I was excited when MS acquired X Studio several times. Been burned before.

@NintendoWife They own Crash, Spyro, THPS, all things Blizzard/King (explains the stink lines coming off their logo), Tenchu, Prototype (meh), Singularity, Hexen, Blur, and Interstate 76. Sooooo, there's a few things in there that they could reinvigorate. I'd really like it if they did a new Spyro and Hexen? Tenchu too, but I sincerely doubt that is happening in any kind of way I'd be interested in.

@EaglyBird

You're arguing something called the "right hands" fallacy

You can't have it both ways. You can't say that the status quo, in which one party has near complete control over something is fine, but any challenges to that status quo are bad because people shouldn't have the level of control ... that already exists.

You can argue that Sony, Tencent and Microsoft should be forced to sell assists, but the argument you are making is just picking a side. What you're really arguing is that an industry controlled by Sony is in "the right hands" and one controlled by Microsoft wouldn't be, so we should stop Microsoft from reaching the same footing as Sony.

If you want a level playing field, letting the smaller players catch up by buying assists is the only want to level the playing field ... period.

Sony didn't "found" it's great IPs. They BOUGHT Naughty Dog. They bought Quantic Dream. They bought Bluepoint Games. They bought Firesprite. And they bought all of them after they had already done work on what are now "Sony's" flagship IPs. They are also trying to buy From Software and Warner Brothers as we speak. They only reason they don't own From Software already is that Tencent blocked the acquisition with it's own stack of cash.

Sony bought Uncharted, Horizon, God of War, Shadow of the Colossus, Killzone, Last of Us, Uncharted, Jak and Daxter, ... so the argument that Microsoft is the only one buying well known IPs completely inaccurate. Sony already bought all their big IPs and no one had a problem with it when they were doing it And it's GREAT that they did. If they hadn't, they would have never been able to drive competition with Microsoft in the late 2000s, and gaming as a whole would be much worse off today. The only difference is Microsoft is buying big IPs NOW, because they need to catch up, and all of a sudden competition is bad, actually.

If you want to argue " I don't want a level playing field, I want my team to be ahead" .. that's perfectly valid. Just say that. Don't hide behind a disingenuous argument where you support the status quo of near monopoly but don't support further consolidation because it's bad for everyone.

@electrolite77 I think Amid Evil and Graven might be the closest we get, but I'm pretty psyched for them. Project Warlock has a few similar trappings, but definitely not as interesting level design. It's like if there was a prequel to Heretic in the Wolfenstein (90 degree walls, little variation in elevation) engine with Brutal mod weapons.

And now we'll see if MS are still around in the console market in 4 years time.

@Iconoclysm Sony undeniably has many crappy business practices - but bribing companies for exclusives is not, in fact, “a lot worse” than spending more than $75 billion to buy up two of the largest video game companies in the world responsible for five or six of the most iconic franchises in gaming.

I have an Xbox Series X that I play and enjoy. I’m not a Sony or Nintendo fanboy - but you can’t really plausibly spin acquisitions this massive as anything but a bad thing for gaming and gamers.

@Sondheimist

Not only can you, it's not even that hard.

Microsoft and Sony both wants exclusive games, but there is a HUGE difference. Play Anywhere. All MS first party games come to PC and an extremely accessible $300 system.

Sony excusive games that target model consoles are available to be played by 17 million people, and if you want to become one of them you need to drop $600. While some come to PC, it's rare and it's almost never day and date.

MS game for this generation, according to Steam's data on PC that can run games on the level of the series S, can be played by 400 million people, and if you want to become one of them the worst case is you need to buy a $300 console, although a $150 video card is an option for a lot of people.

Clearly one of those is better for gamers in general and clearly it's not even close. That's why the FTC lost it's case SO HARD. It's basically exactly what the Judge said ... the deal is bad for Sony, that can't be questioned, but it's not bad for gaming.

You also need to look at the way they seek exclusive games. Sony has tossed literally billions at Activision in the past to gain some level of exclusivity. They have tossed 100s of million at Square and will keep doing so. In the FTC trail we learned that Sony spent $3.6 billion on Bungie to keep it's games off Xbox, not because they felt it offered any value to PlayStation. They actually moved most of the senior staff to the 12 live service, loot box focuses games are currently working on (I guess 11, now that TLOU multiply player is scrapped) because Destiny 2 was seen as the model for games going forward.

The only reason that COD is still on Xbox and PC is that Sony can't afford to keep it exclusive. They've tried! No one benefits from that type of mindset; Sony customers are paying higher prices for Sony Online services and the begets of games they make are lower because they spend billions just to keep games off a competing console. MS is going to keep COD on Sony hardware for 10 years, while also brining it to Switch. And everything else will be on PC even if Microsoft decides to make it "exclusive".

The "consolidation is bad" argument just doesn't work. Sony and Tencent own 50% market share. If you can't put that genie back in the bottle, and you can't argue that allowing that status quo to continue by preventing MS from competing is a good idea. All you can argue is who's going to be the better owner.

It's not spin. It's just reality. There are 100s of millions of people who play "high end" games. When Sony makes a game exclusive, all but 17 million of them are locked out unless they spend $600. When Microsoft makes a game exclusive, the only real negative for the gaming community is the 17 million people who own a PS5 can't play it on their console of choice. And while, YES, that sucks a lot for them ... there is simply no way to argue that the second option isn't the better one for gaming as a whole.

The biggest thing for me is Crash Bandicoot and Spyro The Dragon, I have no interest in Call of Duty, but I love those two franchises. I would hate for them to be X-Box exclusive, so if we can get any future releases on Nintendo systems (even if we have to wait a year), then great.

@sanderev only Xbox offers backwards compatibility from their first generation. If you bought a game for original Xbox you can STILL pop that into the newest console. Only Xbox has smart delivery, if you buy a game it works in your current console and you get the best possible version. They’ve been open to activision blizzard union. To act like they’re the harbinger of gaming’s downfall is ridiculous

@Reptilio I never said they were.

However MS still only does that because they don't really have many unique games on every console. Halo 1 and Halo Infinite are basically the same game. Where Nintendo and Sony have a lot more unique games on each console.

@Sondheimist Oh, it's certainly better for gamers to eliminate companies who focus on monetization over making good games. Microsoft has virtually nothing first party wise, Sony now owns the best first party Microsoft ever owned. There's little lost for gamers in this acquisition and a lot less gained for Microsoft than you seem to be leading on. With Blizzard having been my favorite gaming company for nearly 30 years, watching them change hands to Activision who nearly ruined them, I'm ecstatic to see the company bought out. And I wouldn't feel any different if Sony were who bought them.

Ultimately, I think most of what the company owns will just be gone for good similar to Lionhead or Rare. Also, this is probably one of the riskiest moves for the Xbox division as well, there's plenty of bad to be had from buying a company...rather than just paying for their best games to be exclusives as Sony likes to do. MS now has to be good stewards to these employees - and those employees will be given all of the perks and benefits of every other MS employee, perks that make them one of the best companies to work for in the world for decades. Compare that to Activision, who has been rated as one of the worst many times over.

Yes, bribery is worse than an acquisition. It's dirty, it's backroom dealing - this is up front and legal.

Dont think either will happen. Also Disney couldnt afford to buy Microsoft even if they wanted too. Disney is a 200 billion company. Microsoft is a close to 3 trillion dollar company. @kurtasbestos

@Iconoclysm

Like I say in post #60, the top game publisher rated by players and critics on Metacritic is Microsoft, based on how often they have won and their average placement in the yearly "best publisher" rating, which is based on the average score of 1st party games. You can read that post for details.

I'm not telling you to like Microsoft games or stop liking Sony games, but you should really stop using the line that Microsoft has nothing first party and they don't "focus on good games". Your opinion that you don't like their games is completely valid, but these statements are simply factually incorrect and makes your argument weaker.

As for "focus on monetization" ... Sony has 11 live service games in production right now and TLOU multi-player was just scrapped because it's such a loot box microtransaction fueled nightmare that it's not even legal to release in any area that has video game gambling laws. That came out at the FTC trail. I don't even blame them, the focus of every game is to make money and their fans have been telling them they can do not wrong and that they well always see them as the good guys for so long .. why not exploit that?

The GOOD news ... it actually looks like that shift might be the reason Jim Ryan is out at COE, so at least some people over there understand how awful an idea that was. Still, they need to retool almost every game they are currently working on, or it's going to be years of nothing but live service from Sony. I really hope that doesn't happen. It's important to note that they didn't shift away from live service because of some moral awakening ... it's simply because the last few live service games didn't make any money.

@HeadPirate So what you're saying here is that Microsoft has better "quality" according to Metacritic. And you're ignoring that paid exclusives don't fall under the first party reviews, so anything Sony has there isn't counted. FYI, I love all games, I don't care who makes them...until they stop being games.

Yeah, Sony went the monetization route...Activision INVENTED it.

@HeadPirate Also, I looked into your metacritic claim. Microsoft was 6th in 2020. Microsoft had 1st place in 2021 with Metacritic based on Forza Horizon, Psychonauts 2, and Flight Simulator. Sony had 12 titles. Then in 2022: "Sony becomes Metacritic’s top publisher of 2022, while previous champion Microsoft fails to make the list". Microsoft's library of first party titles is incredibly small until purchasing Bethesda, which might hamstring them as Bethesda's games this year did not perform well.

So the claim that Microsoft has the highest rankings there was only true for one year, because they only released three games.

Hopefully we get the back catalogue of COD games brought to Switch while we wait for Switch 2.

@Iconoclysm Also a false claim from him is that sony bought bunjie to keep their games off xbox, yet was confirmed straight after the deal finalised that bunjie games would remain multiplatform.

Why anybody thought this deal was not going to go through. is beyond me, far too much money involved.

It's funny how Sony have pretty much had a monopoly in the core videogaming space for years now, and of course that was O.K, now Microsoft are fighting back and it's all of a sudden anti-consumer.... give me a break.

@DarkDooDoo87 I'm sure you warmed it up for me.

@Iconoclysm

That's simply incorrect. If you add up the rating everyone gets every year, , then take an average, Microsoft has the highest average. Sony has the second highest, lower by 2.2 points. From there it's a big of a drop off, with everyone grouped together in the 3rd to 10th range. No where did I say this was a rating based on who won first the most. In the total time this rating has existed, Sony has won first 3 times to Microsoft's twice, but their average is still slightly lower. Nintendo also got first twice, but they are overall in 9th. Also Bethesda won in 2018 and is now part of Microsoft, but I'm sure you have a reason that doesn't count as a reason the current Microsoft is any good. And all the times Sony got a really high rating off 2 or 3 titles ... we just just ignore that. Those years still count.

But the important part here is that even if it was one year with 3 games, the statement that MS sucks and no one likes them is still incorrect. It's like saying a sports team is awful because they only one the world championship once.

You're simply unable to shift your world view to one where Microsoft isn't the worst. You make excuses for Sony like saying that paying someone for an exclusive game should up their score, but I'm sure if I bought up all the highly rated Microsoft exclusives from 3rd parties, they wouldn't count because MS didn't make them.

You take the news that they are turning all their most popular IPs into live service games like it's no big deal.

You hear that they cancel a "The Last Of Us" game because it's so exploitative it's literally illegal in half of the world, and instead of that tempering your opinion of Sony, you go out try and find a way to spin the Metacritic data to still support you belief that MS is bad.

That's a sign of indoctrination dude. It's not healthy.

Just try and look at things objectively. Sony just released it's mid-cycle refresh. It is charging more money for a system that cost them significantly less to make in the new digital sku and also want people to pay $30 for a cheap plastic stand. So you REALLY think you can still trust this company? You really think they have the gaming communities best interests at heart? Or are they just doing anything they can to make money, even if it hurts their customers, because that's exactly what they are supposed to do as a large corporation?

Microsoft and Sony are basically the same. Equally great, equally awful, that's really up to how you feel about capitalism. But equal, more or less.

@HeadPirate Who made the statement that MS sucks and nobody likes them? My statement was that they don't have enough first party games. And they don't. Having the highest rating based on releasing less than a fifth of the games is like saying the Gamecube was in first place that generation. The games were great, but if that continued Nintendo wouldn't even exist right now.

No, I'm not going to shift my world view to where Microsoft is the worst...expecting that has to be the most biased thing I've ever read.

That wasn't an excuse for Sony, it was pointing out that your data is flawed if you're looking at first party games and not console exclusives. The rest you're seriously putting words in my mouth - I don't even like Sony let alone make excuses for them.

LOL look at things objectively? Come on man, there has been nothing said that points to praise for Sony and you're acting like I'm some kind of PlayStation zealot...this entire rant is a strawman. I'm not even sure who you're talking to at this point you've put so many words in my mouth.

I'm not going to fall into a false equivalency of bad with you...but if your disdain for capitalism makes you unable to differentiate between any of this, I think it's you that needs to be more objective.

@HeadPirate I just caught that indoctrination part. Do you know what's not healthy? Projecting the way you are. I'm not even a fan of Sony and you claim I'm indoctrinated. Do you understand how absurd that is?