PCG Article Nvidia & Google come out against Microsoft's Activision/Blizzard buyout

[mainer]

Nvidia and Google come out against Microsoft’s Activision Blizzard buyout | PC Gamer

We've talked a bit about this acquisition before, but it seems like the opposition to the buyout is increasing, so I'm wondering if this buyout/acquisition will ever actually happen. I think that any single company having a monopoly on games and/or gaming services is concerning, but MS also seems to have taken a "hands-off" approach with the game studios it acquires, at least so far, so I'm hopeful that the acquisition will eventually be approved by the FTC. Do you think it will happen, even with this new opposition?

 

[Pifanjr]

I think that any single company having a monopoly on games and/or gaming services is concerning

I don't see how Microsoft obtaining Activision Blizzard would get it even close to having a monopoly on either games or gaming services, considering the amount of other developers and services available. At most they might try to push their own store and services by making their games exclusive, but I kinda doubt that will work very well.

It would suck if they would do that though. Microsoft has a long tradition of trying to force themselves onto consumers, so it's not unthinkable they would try something like that again.

 

[Zloth]

I think that any single company having a monopoly on games and/or gaming services is concerning, but MS also seems to have taken a "hands-off" approach with the game studios it acquires, at least so far...

"So far" isn't really relevant. They could turn that whole idea around a week after the merger if they wanted, and suddenly they have their Halo back with Call of Duty and Overwatch.

They may not even have to do that. If your entire gaming world is Call of Duty, do you want to buy the console owned by the same company that owns the game or their biggest competitor?

It's hard for me to really care about this issue as I rarely play anything from ActiVision, so I'm not going to worry in the slightest if the deal goes through, but it doesn't seem real "pro-consumer" to me.

 

[danthegamer]

Microsoft has a long tradition of 'If you cant beat 'em, buy 'em' (or sue 'em)

I think this is terrible. MS sees the writing on the wall: MS is not the only option for OS.

Sure other OS'es have been around for ages, but I think Googles Android is beating their brains out on devices. And I believe there is alot of ARM processors being used which if Im not mistaken MS does not have any (or much) software compatibility.

So, acquiring a software house can broaden the foothold of a company. Windows phone, flop. Windows desktop, ehh, I suppose people are still buying, buy with user-freindly no cost offerings, I suspect that is waning. People are tired of security breaches, and high costs, I think governments aswell. I suspect NT server is doing alright, and Xbox is still around, so I guess they are ok. But what better way to force users to buy an XBOX? Own the software house.

Ok, Take something that Activision owns. I dont know what they own so I will just say a 'Spiderman' game title. So MS then has Activision create a new Spiderman title 'Exclusive on XBOX' Its exactly what the TV streaming services are doing right now. Want to watch Yellowstone? Better get a Paramount plus subscription. You can only find it there, until...

The license it out. So MS pays nothing to get the new Spiderman title on XBOX, but everyone else does, and they will not license it out right away. Keep that in your hip pocket, because anyone that wants to play the new Spiderman title, will what? Have to buy a Xbox. Its Hardware they want to sell you. Once your stuck on the hardware platform, your locked in. "What am I going to do dude I have $1000 machine, and $4000 worth of games? It would cost me a ton of money to buy a playstation and a bunch of games"

Its a brilliant divisionary tactic, that in IMHO is very anti-consumer.

Nuff said. Rant for the day over Happy gaming!

 

[Alm]

I think Microsoft’s long term goal, if they can get it to work, is to get games to be a subscription based - stream to any device - service. So no hardware, no game ownership, and as little latency as possible.

 

[Brian Boru]

Do you think it will happen

Probably, but with delays and concessions. Last month's deals with Nintendo and Steam might be a template.

No surprise Nvidia & Google are against, since they're in the game too and likely view it in mostly a zero sum way—ie anything good for a competitor is bad for us.

They could turn that whole idea around a week after the merger

Yeah, that's the point. I'm pretty happy with MS's behavior in most areas for the past 5 years or so, but a bad year or management change and it's a new ball game. Same as other companies, MS will play nice as long as that helps—or at least doesn't hinder—their goals.

I don't see how Microsoft obtaining Activision Blizzard would get it even close to having a monopoly

Overall no, but maybe dominance in specific areas—concern seems to be around the cloud side of things.

Overall, based on 2021 revenues, it would make MS #2 in gaming, with Tencent still well clear at #1. Sony, Apple, Google, NetEase, Nintendo and EA would still be in the same big league, with plenty of significant smaller players also in the game.

$Millions:

 

[Brian Boru]

Its Hardware they want to sell you

No. That's the mistake IBM made in the 80s, thought hardware was the thing. MS knew better, and I expect they still do.

Consoles are generally sold at a loss, they work on the razor blade principle.

 

[danthegamer]

@BRIAN
We are saying the same thing I think, though in a different way. I wasnt suggesting they want to sell hardware, to turn a profit per se; rather that once you own the hardware you buy the games that work on that platform. That is the hook If you own 5k worth of playstation games, what is the liklyhood that your next console will be an XBOX? Or anything else for that matter.

 

[sydoer]

MEGA DRAMA