Indeed. ABK is the biggest gaming publisher that is not a tech company or platform holder right?
1 Like
Yep I believe so!
I think it will go through with no blocking from the FTC. Sentiment seems to be Microsoft believes it will go through and theyâd fight it if not. The FTC doesnât have much of a case to block it and I canât see them wasting their resources battling Microsoft on this one.
1 Like
Just looked this up and youâre right.
ABK have a even bigger market cap then Nintendo!
Outside of Sony, Nintendo and Tencent I suspect the nearest publisher by gaming revenue is EA with 6.9B. Bandai Namco made 7.3B but a big chunk of their revenue isnât gaming.
I canât find upto date values for Epic Games (private company) but I would imagine they are next.
I imagine Take two would be up there
1 Like
Surprisingly not. Last time they had around 3.5b
Take Two ($3.37B) and Zynga ($2.8B) will take them up to $6.17B when the acquisition completes so they are getting there with all that mobile revenue.
Is there a list ranking by MAU? I wouldnât be surprised if ABK is right after Tencent. ABK is the full package when it comes to those metrics, they have top performing games on console, PC, and mobile.
Not that I can find but I suspect your right.
Tencent has to be number 1 with League of Legends, Valorant, PUBG, CrossFire, Dungeon Fighter and GKart.
The nearest I can find is a wiki but Iâm not sure how trustworthy it is:
Once the ABK acquisition completes I wouldnât be surprised if Microsoft is number 2 with Minecraft, CoD, Candy Crush and the Blizzard properties.
There are quite a few lists for mobile publishers which seems to vary substantially each year.
1 Like
His opinion may sound uhmmmâŚa bit âextremeâ I would say? but ultimately says how ridiculous it would be for the FTC to challenge the MS-ABK deal (he thinks it will be another massive defeat for the FTC like AT&T-Warner merger was for the FTC of trump era)
Interesting parts:
Only the 1982 AT&T breakup produced a clear payoff for the public, dismantling a long-distance monopoly fostered by public policy. The yearslong government pursuit of Microsoft and, before that, IBM cost millions and famously ended in whimpers. This column once amused itself with federal lawsuits alleging monopolization by âsuperpremiumâ ice cream makers or office-supply stores. All had their defenders but none were so tasteless as to claim the American people would notice any benefit from these cases.
A distinctly new era of ridiculousness, though, may have been inaugurated with the Trump administrationâs failed case to break up the merger of AT&T and Time Warner, a meritless lawsuit launched (and disposed of by the courts) for political reasons that only began with then-President Trumpâs animus for CNN (a Time Warner cable channel).
Is Lina Khan, the Biden administrationâs Federal Trade Commission chief, about to commit a similar folly over Microsoftâs videogame deal?
But though the Activision deal qualifies as big and Microsoft qualifies as tech, a case would hardly fit the bill in any other way. In desperation, advocates of a lawsuit point to Microsoftâs incentive to make certain games exclusively for its own Xbox platform. But even so, Microsoft would have every incentive also to make games for rival platforms and the worldâs six billion-plus smartphones. How is this even a fit concern for the coercive powers of the state?
In the busybody work of the postwar regulatory state, trustbusting has steadily declined into one of the most consistently unproductive activities of the U.S. government. If it didnât hit rock bottom with the Trump administrationâs embarrassing lawsuit to block the AT&T-Time Warner merger, it may do so with a Biden administration lawsuit to stop Microsoft from acquiring Activision.
Of all the things to worry about, the maker of Xbox buying a video game maker should be at the bottom of the list. How about we focus on important matters, like being able to produce our own medicine and depend on China and India to make them for us? How about dealing with the inflation that is crippling middle and working class families? How about a forever low federal funds rate that destroys savers/pensioners so that Wall Street can make inflated profits? How about ending the war against of fossil fuels, which produce not only many of the thing we need, plastic, fertilizer, but also good union jobs? But no, instead we will focus on video games.
What do you think?
4 Likes
Totally agree the FTC would simply end up a with a black eye that is sure to on devastate them in the long run. There is nothing that i see stopping this deal. There is no case here and more so this is entertainment not a basic necessity for life or socializing. If there is anything to look at it will be the care of workers which doesnât fall under FTC jurisdiction. I have to say though with the FTC scrutiny going on I get the feeling Xbox is knowingly laying low which could affect their showing as I doubt they want to stand out too much.
1 Like
I wonder, if there was a hypothetical choice and MS has to only acquire ONE company out of ABK, either Activision, Blizzard, or King, which will you choose
- Activision
- Blizzard
- King
0 voters
Blizzard. Mainly because of Diablo IV but they could have some other stuff that interests me. I had my fill of COD last generation so Activision doesnât really do much for me. And King, I will be shocked if anyone votes for them. lol
Itâs actually really like a candy crush game for box that charges up front.
Blizzard is too PC focused right now for me to care much about them and mobile games dont interest me in the slightest
While CoD peaked for me over a decade ago with MW2 itâs still very nice to have on GP and assuming some of those teams got back to making something other than just CoD i.e. Spyro, Crash, Tony Hawk then Activision is an easy choice for me
1 Like
Iâm a simple man, I want Toys for Bob to make more Crash Bandicoot games. I voted Activision.
1 Like
If MS were to be forced by regulators to pick one I think they would choose eatiher activision or king, the moneu makers.
My heart will be with blizzard 1000%
Really? Because Activision only has CoD while Blizzard has multiple big franchises
It i s not CoD. It is CoD
Second only to GTA basically at this point.
Because they choose to ignore the other ones they own. There are plenty others Microsoft could do more with
And only COD is a pretty damn valuable only