Dude, you made a irrefutable fact that it will take 27 years in profits to pay back ABK in full, based on their current financials. People made counters as to why it’s a bigger picture then just individual returns on assets. What more do you want them to say?
1 Like
I simple did math… Simply trying to tell how big this acquisition is. Don’t know how it went into this type of discussion.
People looked into my comment more then I tried to make it look like 
I think your framing is backwards though. They don’t owe anyone $68bil. They already raised that $$$. This was how they spent it. It isn’t debt or anything.
1 Like
Anyone listening to the podcast? Nick is 100% correct.
1 Like
nah
Will listen later but
1 Like
He’s had a lot of awful takes so far, but he’s right about this. 
1 Like
Yeaaahhhhh. >.>
Nick’s view is…something. He essentially thinks MS can get away with telling the FTC one thing and then going back on that down the road without repercussion. I am guessing he is not aware the FTC can and will sue companies to retroactively nuke deals if they feel they were defrauded with deliberately misleading lobbying.
1 Like
He doesn’t, he thinks the language in the blog post and interview are very clear and mean something that others disagree with.
3 Likes
What he says that language means is diametrically opposed to the clear common English used. The FTC isn’t going to take kindly to being led to believe one thing and then the polar opposite happening. That blog post is not PR. It is lobbying, just as they are telling the exact same thing to Congressman like Ken Buck and to the think tanks in Washington they are talking with and the various outlets interviewing them. The audience for all of this is not the public, it is the FTC and Congress.
Someone should find the Parris Lilly tweet which Phil agreed with when Bethesda was acquired and post a screenshot here.
Im paraphrasing but “When you spend 7 billion you don’t do that to not have exclusives and keep the status quo”
1 Like
Lol I ain’t going down this path again
I see you typing @TavishHill don’t do it
5 Likes
That deal wasn’t made for the same purpose as ABK was.
2 Likes
And same as Bethesda, Exclusives will be where gamepass is.
MS will happily have Gamepass on Switch/Playstation, the choice is for these other companies if they want MS exclusives.
Xbox wont waste dev resources natively doing dev for switch or ps, it will be via xcloud.
It’s Call of duty the king of shooters for the last 15 years. If you make it exclusive you invite another shooter to take it’s spot and tank the value of the franchise into the oblivion.
There is probably going to be exclusive stuff from A/B, it’s just not going to be cod.
6 Likes
I still don’t see the logic here, and Nick is right.
Whats stopping Microsoft from making a “spiritual successor” to CoD once the acquisiton goes through? Same devs, same gameplay, new name. They can’t be forced to make CoDs for the rest of time on competitor platforms. Thats just stupid.
Technically they won’t be going back on what they said (if you believe they said CoD will remain multiplat). Old CoDs still exist…
They could absolutely do that. But spiritual successors don’t have the brand power that the CoD IP has. It would be a tiny fraction of the value of the CoD IP as is.
2 Likes
But the paperwork they file will plainly state everything and their plans. The wording used 100% backs up what Nick has said. It leaves a ton of wiggle room right now and ties them to nothing until they actually file.
2 Likes
The box of Fruit Loops and the box of Fruit Rings on thy shelf at the grocery store probably taste the time. Nobody wants the fake ass fruit loops though
People need to remember the arguments when Bethesda was acquired… Its the same thing here.
Anyone thinking otherwise is delusional. 70 BILLION ! 10x more than Bethesda.
Someone post the Parris Lilly tweet ! Phil agreed with it ! (Didnt he retweet it?)