A Formal Thread about Activision/Blizzard
- Thread starter CriticalGaming
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Sure, but Microsoft doesn't really care about gaming or gamers. As long as the money flows in, Microsoft is fine.
So for instance buy Activision, strip out the really useful stuff - good revenue generators (think something like Candy Crush, which will just reliably rake in many millions a year), staff, IP - to keep the money rolling in, leave the rest to die.
Over the course of ten years, Activision might disappear, and Microsoft's gaming output might have shrunk to pre-Activision levels. But it doesn't really matter, because other companies will have swollen to fill Activision's place, and Microsoft can just buy one or more of them.
Last edited:
And most smaller and indie companies want nothing to do with them after seeing the results. MS can never buy Nintendo, and Japanese companies want nothing to do with them, aside from putting their games on all consoles and PCs. Even then, the smaller or more niche Japanese games either stick with Sony, Nintendo, Steam, or all three leaving XBOX in the dust or only getting a port years after the fact.
That's not how it works, though.
Imagine you're running a mid-size studio with 100-200 employees. Every game may be your last: one failure, and you're telling all those employees they are fired. Even worse, maybe you need a few million to get your next game out in good condition so it will sell, and it's looking hard to get finance. You're looking for security, and Microsoft says "Hey, here's our millions."
Imagine a studio founder/owner - that studio is your life's investment. Studio goes bust, you've lost almost everything. Microsoft arrives and says "Hey, here's our millions." Even if Microsoft shuts down the studio and fires you tomorrow, your future is secure. Your kids will definitely be able to afford university. Hey, you could use some of the money to set up a new studio.
Imagine you're a developer with massive dreams of a blockbuster, but you need resources. You can't get enough backing, whether Kickstarter or venture capital or whatever else for your ambition. Then Microsoft says "Hey, here's our millions."
Or imagine a large company, developer or publisher. This is probably going to be owned by professional shareholders. They think just like Microsoft, it's all about the money. If they think the company is worth millions and Microsoft says "Hey, here's our more millions", they sell.
Thus in many cases it doesn't really matter how much they hate and fear Microsoft. They will sell.
I am more than aware of that. Any studio that's not affiliated when microsoft doesn't have to be bought out by them. Yes, it depends on the shareholders or if the companies publicly or privately owned, but every place is different. Microsoft can't exactly just force their way in on people who don't want it or dont want anything to do with them.
Then the people below who can't make the financial decisions should probably make their own decision and leave before things get worse or they get replaced for something dumb ai stuff. The people in charge can always sell to somebody else that's not Microsoft. More than likely, most of them that is. Microsoft can't buy everything they want. No matter how much they try. Especially to the bigger boys who are already financially, successful or main base of operations aren't in the states.
I appreciate the explanations, but these sound like nothing more than excuses with some of your reasoning, or you're just gonna assume that's always going to be the case.
Last edited:
Sometimes i feel that a lot of those studio-buy outs are just basically the founders wanting to quit or start something new anyway. And then selling the studio seems better than shutting it down. They get money for it and those employes who don't want to quit have something to stay a bit longer.
However if that is true, it would explain a lot of the "studio suddenly fail after being bought" stuff.
Sure, they don't have to go Microsoft. There is also Tencent, Embracergroup, EA and (until recently) Ubisoft.
The times of pandemic level investor money are over.
All things work well because the team is good. The wrong individuals go and if there's no-one with the right stuff to replace them, or the team is disrupted in other ways by reorganisations or churn, it can start to break down.
In some cases, the studio is bought out and the new owner sort of "plunders" it: some staff are fired for efficiency savings, some are reassigned to other divisions and projects that the parent company wants. Then, perhaps, plenty more leave voluntarily just because the churn and losses damage morale. So the studio is still there with some of the original staff, but really it's now just a brand and its IP. The team who came together to make great games is gone.
Great news: they don't have to go to those either. Tencent is going through a lawsuit and getting sued by Sony. Embracergroup fucked up too hard and lost a lot of money, because Saudi Arabia deal didn't go through. Ubisoft is burning and shifting at the same time, most smaller or mid sized studios have no interest in them either. Plus, there is that whole being possibly bought out by Tencent. So no ones wants to deal with that. EA has that partnering program with indie studios, but those aren't buyouts. Most indie and smaller devs don't want to be bought by them either, and EA pretty much doesn't buy much stuff out anymore. All they care about are sports games or Battlefield when doing things in-house. So it's at least kept at partnership, and that's it.
I'm going to defend Obsidian here. Sure, the big releases you might think of like Avowed and Outer Worlds demonstrate modest value added, but they have also recently created Pentiment and Grounded, so there's still life in them yet.
Actual good news for once:
cwa-union.org
Raven Software Workers Secure First Contract at Microsoft
The contract builds on the recent organizing momentum by Microsoft video game workers organizing with CWA to raise standards across the video game industry.
How long until half of their workforce gets "laid off", I wonder.Actual good news for once:
Raven Software Workers Secure First Contract at Microsoft
The contract builds on the recent organizing momentum by Microsoft video game workers organizing with CWA to raise standards across the video game industry.
There'll be a loophole somewhere: there always is.
For instance, one might notice the current kerfuffle around Subnautica 2. The studio that made its predecessor and now it, Unknown Worlds, is owned by Krafton. Krafton recently fired three of Unknown Worlds's founders/executives, allegedly for some sort of incompetence (not taking leadership and getting their new game done). The ousted execs are suing with a rather different story.
What's interesting is that the studio was due a $250 million bonus for their success. Apparently, this was to be split 90% for the leaders, and 10% for the rest of the staff. Except if those leaders have been fired, they won't be paid a bonus any more, saving Krafton $225 million. And therein lies the loophole to that contractual obligation.
Of course, we have no idea who's in the right here, and as is often the case, there may be some truth on both sides. But...
We will cross that bridge if it ever happens. Hopefully, the people at Raven have back ups for the back up plans in place. As for Krafton, if they even think of fucking over Tango Games, then they will have to deal with me.