Microsoft to buy game giant Activision Blizzard for $68B US

[RARusk]

On 1/19/2022 at 1:34 PM, trip said:

Freeway?  River Raid?

H.E.R.O. and Robot Tank?

[Space Cowboy]

17 hours ago, trip said:

I've been hearing/reading a different story I guess.

https://tech.hindustantimes.com/gaming/news/heres-why-the-xbox-game-pass-is-so-important-for-microsoft-it-s-the-only-thing-that-is-making-profits-in-gaming-71620400051073.html

I was referring more to a scenario in which Microsoft continues to buy more studios who are known to make high budget games. I can see gamepas working in its current state for mid-budget games or older games in general, but I can't see it being profitable for titles like RDR2, assuming that Microsoft continues with their strategy of making 1st party games available day one on gamepass.

It's a great model for many types of games, but I am not sure if it's the best for every game. I don't want to see some games scaled down just because they want to make money off gamepass, which wouldn't be possible if those games had bigger budget. Sure, Microsoft could increase the price of gamepass, but I am not sure if it would be that popular.

https://www.videogameschronicle.com/news/former-playstation-exec-questions-the-xbox-game-pass-model/

[Zello]

After this purchase I think it's going to be difficult for Microsoft to go after more companies before the government is forced to step in. If they wanna acquire another company they gotta choose wisely because it might get blocked. I don't think they go after another big publisher.

Edited January 22 by Zello

[Ivan1997GTA]

1 hour ago, Zello said:

After this purchase I think it's going to be difficult for Microsoft to go after more companies before the government is forced to step in. If they wanna acquire another company they gotta choose wisely because it might get blocked. I don't think they go after another big publisher.

Yeah, and besides, Microsoft owns dozens of game studios now. I don't think another acquisition is in the cards for them anytime soon.

[Jason]

4 hours ago, Zello said:

After this purchase I think it's going to be difficult for Microsoft to go after more companies before the government is forced to step in. If they wanna acquire another company they gotta choose wisely because it might get blocked. I don't think they go after another big publisher.

 

I think they could purchase Take-Two, EA and Ubisoft still honestly. Not that they will, but they could easily do that without creating a monopoly because the games industry is still that vast.

 

They aren't the number 1 game company out there still, even with Acti Blizz, they release their games on multiple platforms (PC and Xbox) and on multiple storefronts (Steam, owned by a direct competitor who are in the hardware space) and are open to releasing their games on PlayStation.  They could also copy and paste a list of the hundreds of Steam exclusive games that release every year, throw in the PS exclusives, and go "here's all the games you can't play on our platforms" and job done. There's not much of a difference between AAA and indie in the eyes of the law, so as long as there's loads of games not playable on Xbox it'll likely be fine.

 

MS buying Acti Blizz is consolidation for sure but it's no where near a monopoly because of just how big the industry is, I think for anti-trust stuff to really be able to do something they'd have to purchase a platform, ie PlayStation or Nintendo.

 

I don't think we'll see anything else on this scale for a while, if ever, but MS aint done yet, not even close I imagine.

 

Or to put it another way, Microsoft are no where near what Disney are in their industry and yet Disney still bought Fox without issue.

[DarksunDaFirst]

On 1/21/2022 at 9:05 AM, Jason said:

It's no secret they want GP on every platform especially PlayStation and this is definitely a move where part of the reason for the purchase is to put a lot of pressure on Sony and PlayStation into making their plan a reality. They 100% are looking to box Sony into a corner with moves like this. No doubt the play will be something like let us put GP on PS5 and we'll give you your cut or something, making it feel like a win-win for them.

 

The writing on the wall has been there for a while honestly, and I've said this a few times over the past year or two now, the future of gaming isn't platforms, it's services. Xbox is becoming increasingly platform agnostic and is becoming more of a service, one you can play on any platform you want be it console, PC, mobile or streaming. PlayStation banked on the old ways still being the future but they... were wrong. They aren't in danger of collapsing or anything, but they'll be holding crisis talks right now to figure how to go forward cause their plan A isn't looking viable long term.

This has been the goal of all the companies in the last 10 years is to build up substantial subscription services that can congregrate all the games revenue in one spot, so that that service has control over funding of all the IP's in it's umbrella.  Now was the first iteration, and Gamepass followed with an even better model (and the infrastructure behind it).  

With Sony expanding into the PC with their library, and whatever "Spartacus" is to come, and with Stadia being Google's attempt (it isn't dead yet and could still be saved), and MS getting the jump - it's easy to see where it's all going.  The tech companies see what happened with the video streaming services.  There was 1 big player and now there's several big players, and a lot of smaller niche ones too - and they're all thriving.  Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime, Disney+, HBO, Paramount Plus, Crunchyroll (this one belongs to Sony), Peacock, ESPN+, and so on and so on...Sony isn't banking on old ways, they just have to do it in a way that is best for them because the parent corporations (MS and Sony) operate on two different levels - where as Sony Games and Xbox Gaming work at the same level.

So I don't see Sony getting boxed into a corner by any stretch.  They're diversified so much that even if they get passed on the gaming front (which is debatable on the likelihood because they are so spread out already and and can still grab a lot more), they'll maintain their success in their own right and be known for what they do.  Look at Netflix - still the big dog on the block.  But all their competitors, big and small, are doing well.  Even the smaller niche ones like AMC and Discovery.

What we're going to see is a continued "walling off" of the industry into these various streaming services - and more than likely, they'll give app access on various platforms in some form or another.  It wouldn't shock me in this generation to see Gamepass available in some form on a PS5 or a Switch (or whatever is next for Nintendo in a few years).  I won't doubt that some titles would be limited to say Xbox or a Playstation, or that they'll be limited to streaming only on certain devices, or a combination of timed exclusivity.  Because in the end - you don't need to sell one of these consoles in the future to have access to the Xbox Gaming umbrella, or the Playstation Umbrella.  You don't need a console to access Stadia - but what you can have is subscription service available on all of them.  Think about it - if someone buys a Playstation, they obviously want access to Sony's atmosphere (which includes their games).  So Sony gets a sub from them.  That won't stop that person from also subbing to Gamepass.   So now Sony has a platform with a subscriber which is what they want, and gives them access to Gamepass and a subscription to it which is what Microsoft wants...everybody wins.
Now reverse that.  Now switch that out for Stadia or any other future streaming gaming service.

Activision being bought is not a shot Xbox took at Playstation, it's a shot Microsoft is taking at future game streaming services sphere.  And I'm willing to bet that the future is the metaverse that they're all looking at right now.  So MS is putting their foot in against Google.  Against Facebook.  Against Apple.  Remember - that's the company sphere that Microsoft as a complete company operates in.  Xbox and Sony Games operates in a smaller sphere.  Sony Corp operates in many spheres like that but they're more segregated and diversified that Microsoft.  The way things are going, it's easy to see Microsoft has set themselves up for success across multiple facets of what the future could be, and Sony is doing the same in their own way.

Edited January 22 by DarksunDaFirst

[DarksunDaFirst]

7 hours ago, Ivan1997GTA said:

Yeah, and besides, Microsoft owns dozens of game studios now. I don't think another acquisition is in the cards for them anytime soon.

Microsoft spent half of their warchest on Activision.  Not Xbox Gaming's warchest - Microsoft's warchest.  

They could still acquire more smaller acquisitions.  They don't have to, they can wait until another company gets into that value and size that they want to buy.  This has been the difference between Sony and MS when buying adding devs and publishers to their gaming companies:  the latter seems to be buying these big companies that are wide and long lived on their own while the former has been doing it for a long time and growing them (or growing them to a point where they seal the relationship with an acquisition after years of working together - see Insomniac and Guerilla).  Each model works and has provided both companies with successful IP's under their name.  Sony could probably make one big final splash for something comparable (SE would, imo, seem the most likely due to decades of history together).

The big question is - will the biggest publishers like T2 or EA eventually go under that wing - or do they continue to go off on their own?  As I mentioned above, the video streaming services has many players - some bigger than others.  I could especially see that with T2 and EA considering their size (hell, Activision was looking to EA to buy them before they sold to MS).  

Time will tell.  

[Jason]

49 minutes ago, DarksunDaFirst said:

So I don't see Sony getting boxed into a corner by any stretch.  They're diversified so much that even if they get passed on the gaming front (which is debatable on the likelihood because they are so spread out already and and can still grab a lot more), they'll maintain their success in their own right and be known for what they do.  Look at Netflix - still the big dog on the block.  But all their competitors, big and small, are doing well.  Even the smaller niche ones like AMC and Discovery.

 

I think with the Acti Blizz purchase they're already in that corner honestly.

 

You said it your self, you can see GP on PS5 in the future. That's only possible because MS has put them in a corner. Sony have been fighting off cross-platform stuff as much as possible while Xbox under Spencer have as I've said sorta moved on as Xbox as a platform and onto Xbox as a service.

 

Sony still have a very successful console and an amazing fleet of first party studios, they aren't doomed, they aren't going to fall over, but their traditional approach to console game which has worked great for them for ever and especially last-gen as Xbox botched their launch is now looking like it's in dire need of modernising, not to benefit today or tomorrow but for 10 years from now. MS are going early and strengthing while they're top dog in the game subscription space, while Sony are still figuring it out. Their "Spartacus" according to rumours doesn't include day 1 1st party stuff which is... worrying. They're a huge, huge source of value for these services which MS have realised, hence their acqusitions.

[Craigsters]

What if they go after steam and try and purchase them next? would digital games be tied to a monthly subscription fee and how much  would they charge? we'd probably see the end of steam sales with 85% off deals?

Edited January 22 by Craigsters

[Zello]

I just wanna see the deal close soon so Microsoft can get their hands on all the Activision IPs and get to work.

Edited January 22 by Zello

[Jason]

1 hour ago, Craigsters said:

What if they go after steam and try and purchase them next?

 

If it was even allowed (Valve/Steam might be a case for anti-trust), I doubt Valve would be interested in selling. They're privately owned and have shown zero interest ever in any sort of take over and they're in no short or long term danger. So it's extremely unlikely just for that.

 

1 hour ago, Craigsters said:

would digital games be tied to a monthly subscription fee and how much  would they charge?

 

MS plan isn't subscription or nothing, game purchases aren't going away, but the subscription is the core to their strategy.

 

1 hour ago, Craigsters said:

we'd probably see the end of steam sales with 85% off deals?

 

We saw the end of those maybe 10 years ago lol. Steam sales are some of the worst sales on PC these days.

 

1 minute ago, Zello said:

I just wanna see the deal close soon so Microsoft can get their hands on all the Activision IPs and get to work.

 

Was watching Jeff Grub the other night talking about it and he said he wouldn't be surprised it's wrapped up by March or something. Think the "by June 2023" date is just the latest it could be done. Personally I think they'll want it done for their big summer event (E3's not a thing this year I don't think?).

[DarksunDaFirst]

4 hours ago, Jason said:

 

I think with the Acti Blizz purchase they're already in that corner honestly.

 

You said it your self, you can see GP on PS5 in the future. That's only possible because MS has put them in a corner. Sony have been fighting off cross-platform stuff as much as possible while Xbox under Spencer have as I've said sorta moved on as Xbox as a platform and onto Xbox as a service.

 

Sony still have a very successful console and an amazing fleet of first party studios, they aren't doomed, they aren't going to fall over, but their traditional approach to console game which has worked great for them for ever and especially last-gen as Xbox botched their launch is now looking like it's in dire need of modernising, not to benefit today or tomorrow but for 10 years from now. MS are going early and strengthing while they're top dog in the game subscription space, while Sony are still figuring it out. Their "Spartacus" according to rumours doesn't include day 1 1st party stuff which is... worrying. They're a huge, huge source of value for these services which MS have realised, hence their acqusitions.

Sony pushed off cross platform during the 8th gen because they didn’t need it with the models that existed for the past two decades.  However in 7th gen the roles were reversed until very late in the generation.  
 

The funny thing is, Sony has no problem with cross-platform.  Any title that actively supports cross-platform with PC, Sony does.  So they haven’t resisted cross platform, just cross-console.  Same as MS did in 7th gen.

 

But these actions are based on models that as I said worked for the last 2 decades.  Only time cross-console was spoken of, the “accepting” company paid it lip service.

 

That model is being outdated, quickly.  It started to be outdated towards the end of last gen.  MS has been moving faster, doesn’t mean they’ll be ahead forever.  And going forward, I don’t see either needing each other’s apps.  But it would benefit both financially.  Name a machine, hardware permitting, that doesn’t carry Netflix or Hulu or Amazon Prime or HBO Now (or is it Max)?

[Jason]

38 minutes ago, DarksunDaFirst said:

Sony pushed off cross platform during the 8th gen because they didn’t need it with the models that existed for the past two decades.  However in 7th gen the roles were reversed until very late in the generation.  
 

The funny thing is, Sony has no problem with cross-platform.  Any title that actively supports cross-platform with PC, Sony does.  So they haven’t resisted cross platform, just cross-console.  Same as MS did in 7t

 

They didn't need it with their models which may have brought them success in the short term but looks to have left them in a poor position long term. Developers were begging for cross platform but Sony resisted it heavily, even charging for it if I rcall. There is the argument that the "losing" side were in favour for cross-plat for good PR and that's fair, but Xbox under Spencer have never waivered in their belief for cross platform and have openly spoke about wanting it with other platforms, even Nintendo who they really don't compete with, and have worked with directly with Minecraft and Steve in Smash Bros.

 

Sony on the other hand were coming out with some really strange stuff among their lack of support for cross platform, such as their lack of interest in backwards compat with that now famous quote from a Sony exec whose name escapes me about not wanting to play old games and many reports from indies that they are hell to work with. This isn't directly related to subscription services and all that, but it does add more evidence to the pile for me that Sony were completely out of touch with where the industry was going and, to me, trying to block pro-consumer moves (such as cross platform, BC) in order to keep people locked into PlayStation, if you wanted to play with yer mates on other platforms, tough luck etc.

 

I don't suspect MS will be the only player in future, there's already numerous companies including Sony who are starting to adapt to the future but I do feel that by the time Sony get to where they have to be that MS will have put them in a position they didn't want to be anywhere near - and again, I'd wager they're already in that, or at least are close. Sony simply cannot match Microsoft's bankroll and if Apple, Amazon and Google get in on the act and start acquiring publishers and studios, Sony's 1st party is going to have to carry a lot of weight if they are to remain a closed platform.

 

The real key to these subscription services is getting brand new games on there day 1, right now they're all heavily reliant on already released games to fill it up, and they'll always play their part, but brand new titles coming on day 1 is the real meat and gravy. Doing that through third parties is likely to prove expensive and as a result the subscription services will be looking to build up a 1st party portfolio to carry the weight - what I'm describing is exactly what happened to Netflix. Microsoft's moves right now are them getting in early and picking up the studios they want before they're snapped up.

 

Also while if we look at TV numerous subscription services are doing well there absolutely is the danger of subscription fatigue, ie too many subscriptions leading people to either cancel them and return to piracy (due to being priced out, the ol' piracy is a service issue stuff) or they stick to 1 or 2 at most. This is slowly becoming an issue on the TV/film side of things and on the gaming side of things EA already saw the writing on the wall with EA Play on Xbox and PC, realising they're not going to be able to compete there so they made a deal with Xbox to fold EA Play into Games Pass. Ubisoft+ is coming to Xbox in the future and it's long been rumoured that's going to fold into Games Pass as well, but no confirmation on that yet of course.

 

Simply put, Sony look fine where they are now but in 10 years when subscription services are built into the juggernauts we see in the TV/film side of things, I'm not so convinced my self Sony have the resources to be able to compete with MS (and potentially Amazon, Apple and Google) and thus it seems inevitable to me they'll partner with them. At that point I strongly suspect gaming will either be or almost be entirely service based, play your games anywhere through the service you enjoy. The Last of Us 3 on Xbox, Halo Infinite 2 on PlayStation or Mario Galaxy 3 on PC, etc.

 

In that sense, the future of gaming does sound really good. It'll be dominated and in large parts ran by the megacorps... but we should have a lot more choice in where we play our games at least.

[Zello]

3 hours ago, Jason said:

Was watching Jeff Grub the other night talking about it and he said he wouldn't be surprised it's wrapped up by March or something. Think the "by June 2023" date is just the latest it could be done. Personally I think they'll want it done for their big summer event (E3's not a thing this year I don't think?).

The Zenimax deal took about 6 months. Activision may take a bit longer but who knows.

[Jason]

1 minute ago, Zello said:

The Zenimax deal took about 6 months. Activision may take a bit longer but who knows.

 

Yea I think by March is optimistic but in the same talk he mentioned hearing that Phil Spencer and others at MS were working overtime over Christmas, something they never do, so this does sound like it's been in the works for a while.

 

I do think summer at the earliest my self though, which fits with the Bethesda time line.

[Ivan1997GTA]

Hopefully, Microsoft will allow studios owned by Activision to work on other projects instead of constantly relegating them to yearly Call of Duty entries.

 

That franchise had a good run, but I think it's time to put it on hiatus.

[Space Cowboy]

12 hours ago, Jason said:

Their "Spartacus" according to rumours doesn't include day 1 1st party stuff which is... worrying. They're a huge, huge source of value for these services which MS have realised, hence their acqusitions.

Since Sony recently increased the price of 1st party games from 60 to 70 dollars, and given the nature of those games (almost all of them are singleplayer games with no monetization), I don't think it would make sense for them to sell those games on their own version of gamepass. Imagine how it would hurt the sales of games like God of War, which most people played through and stopped playing... because it's a fairly linear singleplayer game. Not to mention the budgets are increasing, which makes this strategy even less viable.

It would be nice however, if Sony somehow managed to make ps3 titles compatible with ps5 via backwards compatibility and offer them via "Spartacus". If they did that, I think the service would be very successful even without having day 1 1st party games available.

[Jason]

4 hours ago, 0909090 said:

Since Sony recently increased the price of 1st party games from 60 to 70 dollars, and given the nature of those games (almost all of them are singleplayer games with no monetization), I don't think it would make sense for them to sell those games on their own version of gamepass. Imagine how it would hurt the sales of games like God of War, which most people played through and stopped playing... because it's a fairly linear singleplayer game. Not to mention the budgets are increasing, which makes this strategy even less viable.

 

And yet, by all accounts, this is exactly what Microsoft are doing.

 

The justification, or more like the excuse, for Sony is that their first party is amazing and sells well, which is true, God of War, Horizon, Ghost of Tsushima, all games I absolutely loved, they make great games... but if MS get to that same level and going by their acquisitions it's difficult to see them not then Sony have no excuse. I'd personally argue they have no excuse already and if rumours are true about their PS Now overhaul codenamed Spartacus, it's already disappointing. I mean, Starfield is coming this year barring delays and it's Games Pass day 1 on PC and Xbox lol, that's as big budget as you're going to get without going Rockstar level.

[Space Cowboy]

21 hours ago, Jason said:

 

And yet, by all accounts, this is exactly what Microsoft are doing.

 

The justification, or more like the excuse, for Sony is that their first party is amazing and sells well, which is true, God of War, Horizon, Ghost of Tsushima, all games I absolutely loved, they make great games... but if MS get to that same level and going by their acquisitions it's difficult to see them not then Sony have no excuse. I'd personally argue they have no excuse already and if rumours are true about their PS Now overhaul codenamed Spartacus, it's already disappointing. I mean, Starfield is coming this year barring delays and it's Games Pass day 1 on PC and Xbox lol, that's as big budget as you're going to get without going Rockstar level.

You see, I don't think Microsoft's and Sony's situation can be compared at all. Microsoft is banking on having certain number of subscribers in the future, so that their gamepass model can be profitable (it reportedly still isn't), but can Sony do the same? Maybe they can, but it would take them very long time to get even to the number of subscribers Microsoft has now. Also there is another problem. If you look at the selection of Sony's first party titles, you could see that a lot of them do not necessarily have the longevity of Xbox's titles. Titles like Demon's Souls remake, Spiderman, God of War etc. are all high budget singleplayer releases, as far as I know almost none of them have microtransactions and some of them don't even have any dlc expansions. Sony would need to have an insane number of subscribers to their own gamepass to make it worth it. Compare it to the most of Xbox 1st party titles, and you would see a lot of them have long term support in terms of dlcs (like Halo), or are mid-budget titles.

If Sony ever adopted this model of day 1 first party titles on their version of gamepass, I'd start to worry it would severely affect how games are developed, how much budget they have etc. Sure, I could see it working if they decreased the budget, implement more microtransactions and/or dlcs. But with how their games are developed now, it wouldn't work imo.

In my opinion, Microsoft, even with its acquisitions, won't make the same style of games as Sony does. I'd bet that the gamepass model will definitely influence their decisions when developing these games, either by pushing more dlcs, monetization etc. Maybe existing games that were developed prior Microsoft's acquisition won't be affected, but we are yet to see how new games like Perfect Dark, Fable etc. will look.

Don't get me wrong though, I like gamepass and what Microsoft is doing in general, I am just skeptical whether it's good for high budget AAA titles to be available there day one.

[Zello]

Since they own Radical now please Microsoft remaster/remake this classic

 

[Ivan1997GTA]

29 minutes ago, Zello said:

Since they own Radical now please Microsoft remaster/remake this classic

Or remaster/remake the Simpsons: Hit & Run...as soon as EA loses the rights to make Simpsons games like the did with Star Wars.

[Jason]

1 hour ago, 0909090 said:

If you look at the selection of Sony's first party titles, you could see that a lot of them do not necessarily have the longevity of Xbox's titles. Titles like Demon's Souls remake, Spiderman, God of War etc. are all high budget singleplayer releases, as far as I know almost none of them have microtransactions and some of them don't even have any dlc expansions. Sony would need to have an insane number of subscribers to their own gamepass to make it worth it. Compare it to the most of Xbox 1st party titles, and you would see a lot of them have long term support in terms of dlcs (like Halo), or are mid-budget titles.

 

I know exactly what you're trying to say and I get it... but all signs point to Microsoft doing exactly what you say is the reason Sony are not doing their own straight up Games Pass equivalent. Sure, MS do have a lot of service based games now (Halo, Forza, Sea of Thieves, Minecraft, Grounded, etc) and will no doubt have more going forward, but they're also making Avowed, Fable, Starfield, Elder Scrolls 6, Hellblade 2 and no doubt more unannounced. 

 

As for the scale/budget of these games, that's an iffy argument cause we also don't know the budgets of Sony's stuff. Sony's approach is also very formulaic for the most part, there's a lot of repetition in their game design (particularly open world) which is generally done to save time/money, as it is with Ubisoft. I mean look at Netfix and HBO max etc. Now TV is the biggest entertainment industry and thus has significantly more money, but we're seeing bigger and bigger budget projects from those companies. It's going to be no different here. Hell, they just bought Call of Duty, that's one of the most expensive titles around budget wise. Then you have Blizzard stuff, Diablo 4, WoW, etc.. All of these are likely costlier than anything that Sony puts out lol.

 

MS are absolutely going to be using mid-budget titles and service titles to bolster Games Pass but they're also, by all accounts, going to be doing exactly what Sony's model with 1st party games is. Big budget single player stuff. Just like Netfix and other TV subscriptions, Games Pass needs variety and the variety includes the big blockbuster stuff.

 

 

[Rm93]

 

 

[Shadowfennekin]

On 1/22/2022 at 2:36 AM, Zello said:

After this purchase I think it's going to be difficult for Microsoft to go after more companies before the government is forced to step in. If they wanna acquire another company they gotta choose wisely because it might get blocked. I don't think they go after another big publisher.

The gaming business is huge, it's not like if Disney tried to buy Sony or Universal cause that'd be a literal monopoly

 

I can see Microsoft buying up more studios and getting away with it as it's not a monopoly, there's still plenty of developers out there unlike the film industry.

 

Microsoft and Ubisoft are rather friendly, I could see them being the next 'big' one. Doubt Taketwo is gonna sell after they JUST bought Zynga otherwise they might target them for GTA VI

 

[Mister Pink]

It's only mistakenly mildly close to a monopoly if you think PlayStation and Xbox are in their own industry bubble and they're merely competing with each other. That may have been true last few gens but MS is going after the worldwide gaming market; Mobile, tablet, PC, console -  not just PS/Xbox lovers.

[Zello]

On 1/25/2022 at 8:12 AM, Rm93 said:

 

 

T2 is just Rockstar lmaoo.

 

[Craigsters]

 

Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway perfectly timed an out-of-left-field investment

 

The rich get richer

[1whitebuddah]

Apparently Nvidia couldn't buy arm because of fears that it would reduce competition, yet Microsoft is allowed to buy Activision? Bill gates owns nearly everything. Lol

[Jason]

8 hours ago, 1whitebuddah said:

Apparently Nvidia couldn't buy arm because of fears that it would reduce competition, yet Microsoft is allowed to buy Activision? Bill gates owns nearly everything. Lol

 

Very different industries.

 

MS buying Activision is consolidation but it's not a monopoly, the video game industry is simply too massive and too diverse for the Acti Blizz acquisition to be able to be argued as a monopoly. MS can (and are) pointing at the fact they're still not top 2 with this purchase, and they can point to the bajillion games not on their platforms as proof it's not a monopoly. MS could most likely purchase Ubisoft and Take-Two before regulators could have a serious case to stop them, and even then I doubt it'd hold. I think the only way the alarms will go off is MS tried to buy Nintendo or Sony, maybe could throw Valve in that ring too. I doubt they'd be allowed to acquire any of those w/o issue.