Microsoft-Activision-Blizzard Discussion Thread (Part 1)

[hexbacon]

@Jorge_Alexander_Acos

…

Do you think theres a possibility of this deal closing this year? I would say early next year at worst

Definitely not a 100% but it sure seems close to be.

[Jorge_Alexander_Acos (Jorge Alexander Acosta Duarte)]

@hexbacon

Definitely not a 100% but it sure seems close to be.

Thanks for the answer! Another REALLY important question…is that kitty from your profile picture yours or just a ramdom image of a kitty from the internet? Just noticed the painted eyebrows of it mimicking that image of the rock looking susupicisouly at the camera

Now on topic. So China regulators would be the only one left from the 4 that MS cared about the most to say something about the deal then?

[hexbacon]

@Jorge_Alexander_Acos

Thanks for the answer! Another REALLY important question…is that kitty from your profile picture yours or just a ramdom image of a kitty from the internet? Just noticed the painted eyebrows of it mimicking that image of the rock looking susupicisouly at the camera

Now on topic. So China regulators would be the only one left from the 4 that MS cared about the most to say something about the deal then?

Hahaha, glad you noticed. It isn’t my cat, it’s just a meme picture.

And yes china is left, but i dont think they publish stuff.

[Jorge_Alexander_Acos (Jorge Alexander Acosta Duarte)]

@hexbacon

Hahaha, glad you noticed. It isn’t my cat, it’s just a meme picture.

And yes china is left, but i dont think they publish stuff.

Its a really funny pic

Yeah I dont know how it works in regards of how China regulators work or speak about deals but I found and article some time ago from what it seems to be a chinese lawyer’s take on the acquisition.

He thinks it will pass there:

https://inf.news/en/economy/31a7a4c150e90257b689568b2970cd55.html

Some interesting tidbits from the article:

1. What are the legal basis and standards for Chinese government censorship?

The legal basis is Article 21 of the Anti-Monopoly Law: If the concentration of business operators meets the reporting standards stipulated by the State Council, the business operators shall declare to the anti-monopoly law enforcement agency of the State Council in advance.

There are two criteria for whether or not to declare a transaction between Microsoft and Activision Blizzard. If both are met, they should be declared:

1. Did the combined global turnover of the two companies in the last fiscal year exceed RMB 10 billion?
2. Did their turnover in China exceed RMB 400 million in the last fiscal year?

2. Did Microsoft and Blizzard meet the review standards?

both Blizzard and Microsoft’s global turnover and China’s turnover far exceed the reporting standards stipulated by Chinese law, and this transaction needs to fulfill the obligation to declare the concentration of operators.

3. Who might disrupt the situation?

At present, the review authority for the review of concentration of business operators in China is the State Administration for Market Regulation. According to the “Interim Regulations on the Examination of Concentration of Business Operators” promulgated by the bureau, a lot of documents need to be submitted for the declaration of this transaction, but the core of the review is the review of the concentration of business operators. A description of the impact of competitive conditions in the relevant market.

Theres a lot to unpack there so obviously Im not going to copy paste everything! But it gives insight on how chinese regulatirs view mergers and acquisition.

[DARK-PARADISE]

Do we think once the acquisition is through they’ll want to separate Blizzard from Activision, each becoming their own division? Maybe something like that would make it easier to restructure and rebuild based on the differences in culture and development environments etc.

[Hue]

@DARK-PARADISE

Do we think once the acquisition is through they’ll want to separate Blizzard from Activision, each becoming their own division? Maybe something like that would make it easier to restructure and rebuild based on the differences in culture and development environments etc.

That’s how I imagined it would work, they are so big that I feel that it almost needs that division.

[TheBrightestSun]

@DARK-PARADISE

Do we think once the acquisition is through they’ll want to separate Blizzard from Activision, each becoming their own division?

How that is gonna look like though? Without pressure from stakeholders, I don’t think there are other ties between A/B/K.

[hexbacon]

@DARK-PARADISE

Do we think once the acquisition is through they’ll want to separate Blizzard from Activision, each becoming their own division? Maybe something like that would make it easier to restructure and rebuild based on the differences in culture and development environments etc.

Unlikely, AB as a brand is strong, I assume they would want to capitalize on it. I imagine Blizzard would be given a lot of freedom and autonomy but it’s not going to be separated from Activision, at least not any time soon.

[TheBrightestSun]

@hexbacon

AB as a brand is strong, I assume they would want to capitalize on it.

Is it though? I think not many people think about Blizzard when talking about COD, while not many people think about Activision when talking about WoW. Much less with King who exists in its own plane.

[hexbacon]

@TheBrightestSun

Is it though? I think not many people think about Blizzard when talking about COD, while not many people think about Activision when talking about WoW. Much less with King who exists in its own plane.

In way it is. AB is more of corporate structure holding both Activision Publishing (CoD, Tony Hawk…) and Blizzard. Having that name alone does create a bigger impression on how massive and strong the brand is. In the last few year Activision has indeed become more associative with Blizzard primarily by releasing their game exclusively on their launcher. Zenimax Media is another example, your average player will 100% know about Bethesda for sure but they kept the branding. Someone who searches for Zenimax Media will end up finding that they are more than Bethesda.

[TheBrightestSun]

@hexbacon

Zenimax Media is another example, your average player will 100% know about Bethesda for sure but they kept the branding

Didn’t Zenimax use Bethesda Publishing label though? Rather than Zenimax. A lot of people was not aware that Bethesda was owned by Zenimax due to that.

[hexbacon]

@TheBrightestSun

Didn’t Zenimax use Bethesda Publishing label though? Rather than Zenimax. A lot of people was not aware that Bethesda was owned by Zenimax due to that.

Same situation as before, Zenimax Media is a corporate entity that houses Bethesda Softworks the publisher for all studios owned by Zenimax.

It’s tricky because people confuse Bethesda Softworks with Bethesda Game Studio.

But to original point, I don’t think they’ll separate Blizzard , at least not now. They might limit what Activision can do on Blizzard, but since Phil is taking charge I don’t see any changes to their corporate structure any time soon.

[TheBrightestSun]

@hexbacon

But to original point, I don’t think they’ll separate Blizzard , at least not now. They might limit what Activision can do on Blizzard, but since Phil is taking charge I don’t see any changes to their corporate structure any time soon.

I don’t believe they will separate them either. I think that even in the future they won’t separate them too. I think the influence over Blizzard was mainly coming from stakeholders of Activision, but now it won’t matter.

[pg2g]

I think it would make sense to separate Activision/Blizzard because it’d make it easier to place proper management there when you no longer have someone like Kotick at the top. Be much easier to have Mike Ybarra (and whoever his Activision equivalent is) play a similar role to Matt Booty and report directly to Phil.

Don’t really see what is gained from them being combined either. There doesn’t appear to be much in the way of synergy.

[BRiT]

@pg2g

Don’t really see what is gained from them being combined either. There doesn’t appear to be much in the way of synergy.

Especially when they never did cross-over events in COD. Imagine COD Horde mode where its Warcraft or Diablo or Starcraft based enemies.

[shingi_70]

@Jorge_Alexander_Acos

…

ZPJflZB824×1094 185 KB

Is this a good number for immortal in a month?

[TheBrightestSun]

@shingi_70

Is this a good number for immortal in a month?

Good because it is without Chinese launch (due to some trouble there)

[Cairnst (Bill Cairns)]

@shingi_70

Is this a good number for immortal in a month?

Probably a lot smaller than what they were hoping for - the likes of Genshin and PUBG Mobile dwarf this. But it’s still good by not mega success numbers, and there’s very little drop off in the revenue week to week so it would be safe to say 50 million is only the start.

[PoderickPayne (Travis Norris)]

I honestly don’t see a benefit of seperating Activision from Blizzard. Nor do I really see the benefit to not doing so

I imagine they would just keep it all under the same publishing arm, except now they own it all. And it’s not likey they will ever want to sell one of them away. And if somehow they do, they still can

[AllianceOfficer]

@PoderickPayne

I honestly don’t see a benefit of seperating Activision from Blizzard. Nor do I really see the benefit to not doing so

I imagine they would just keep it all under the same publishing arm, except now they own it all. And it’s not likey they will ever want to sell one of them away. And if somehow they do, they still can

The easiest to recognize is the individual focus that could then be placed on each one. If kept together, could it result in say Call of Duty receiving more focus, attention, marketing and it getting all the investment instead of Blizzard and their IP?