Rumor: MS is looking into acquiring EA
- Thread starter Rollins
- Start date
Wouldn't.
As I said before, the exclusive stigma for MS isn't quantity, it is new big IPs. If they bought EA the stigma would be the same.
https://www.polygon.com/2018/1/30/16932860/xbox-microsoft-exclusive-games-acquisitions-ea-valve-pubg
If you want to save the click they go over why they probably aren't buying any major publisher
If you want to save the click they go over why they probably aren't buying any major publisher
As someone who flip flops on their gaming device of choice, I haven't really touched my Xbox in maybe a year or possibly more? I bought Gears 4 but ended up playing that on PC. Quantum Break is probably the last exclusive I played on the console. That said Crackdown 3 and Sea of Thieves are on my radar and if it wasn't for Spider-Man on PS4 I'd say for me the list this year is pretty even. Plus I'm guessing Forza Horizon 4 this year and since I skipped the last one I would be interested in getting it this year, but most likely it would need to be Play Anywhere for me to bother.
MS buying EA doesn't really make sense to me but maybe they should go back to buying exclusives through the, like they did with the first Mass Effect.
MS buying EA doesn't really make sense to me but maybe they should go back to buying exclusives through the, like they did with the first Mass Effect.
And here's the one-sentence version: "None of four analysts we spoke to considered it a likely proposition."
Horizon4 will be 'lay anywhere.
Shocking! Took 4 analysts to tell them what most off us knew anyway.
The 'stigma' changes to whatever is convenient.
It cant be power or indies or legacy software anymore so that leaves....exclusives. but only from 2017 onwards.
Its not new IP.
Yeah the EA deal flat out wont happen. It wouldn't be cost effective at all. Valve makes more sense in being bought by Microsoft.
Last edited:
Just speaking hypothetically, but if they were to buy controlling share of EA, the money would be on the back end and not the front end no? I don't think they would buy EA to make them exclusive to Xbox. They would want the crapload of money brought in from Nintendo, Sony, and PC.
I figure if they were to do such a thing it would be more about their cloud business than the gaming business.
You would have all EA published games running on Azure servers now, including games on Playstation, Nintendo, and PC.
I figure if they were to do such a thing it would be more about their cloud business than the gaming business.
You would have all EA published games running on Azure servers now, including games on Playstation, Nintendo, and PC.
EA barely supports Nintendo as it is (could change) so their loss of business is negligable especially with the 3DS on the way out.
Origin would likely be merged into Windows store and EA games being somewhat popular would just benefit Windows store growth....as would the fact all formerly EA games would be play anywhere. Its no steam but it would be a considerable asset.
PS4 losses would be moderate, but generally the virtue of EA games being Xbox Only would only increase Xbox sales and diminish PS4 sales so after a year or two they would be back to normal. Especially if they reduce the quality or cut the online.
Its unlikely casual gamers would sit out the lack of football or Soccer year on year for the rest of eternity on the 'promise' of days gone.
An Xbox would be required owning for sports fans. Boom.
Generally though, theres a chance Halo could sell 20 million instead of 12 if i were on Playstation and Nintendo...they arent for reasons. EAs library would be the same, but there could be a transition the same way Fox will still release Xmen movies until Disney completes the buy.
It would eliminate EA as a competitor (EA access would roll into XGP) and Microsoft would have an unmatched roll of content (some of which is annual) which you would need to be the Netflix of games.
Not just regular games. HUGE regular games. No end in sight. Forever.
Last edited:
I haven't seen a good argument as to why it makes sense. I see people playing armchair CEO, as if they know what they're talking about. I don't see anything that is credible or persuasive, whereas the arguments on the other side are pretty clear. I think it's mostly just wishful thinking.
It doesn't, but you keep playing that card, fella. I'm sure that will change the issue.
Doesnt seem at all important. The GOTY was Zelda followed by Mario. Old IP wins.
ARMS and 1-2 switch are the lowest selling Nintendo games on switch. Wheres the fallout there?
Just guessing that Call of Duty is this years best selling game. Red Dead 2 is the goty and im just gonna play that Halo is the biggest Microsoft game. Nintendo something with Mario and that god of war and spiderman perform much much better than dreams and days gone.
Last edited:
I feel like most people just feel like they have the money so why not? But they have the money to buy Sony and Nintendo so that isn't much of an argument.
If its about being competitive with Sony they don't really need anything near that big to do it
Frankly, I'm not sure its going to happen. However, this rumor has spread at a rapid pace. It's incredible to me that Microsoft has not come out to debunk this rumor just yet. What is the purpose for that? This is quite simply too big of a rumor to let fester and build without some kind of response to keep expectations in check.
Typically they would respond right off. Just like they did when the rumor was going around for The Coalition making a new IP. It didn't take too long for them to come right out and shoot it down. Surely an EA acquisition bests a new IP rumor from a first party dev?
Typically they would respond right off. Just like they did when the rumor was going around for The Coalition making a new IP. It didn't take too long for them to come right out and shoot it down. Surely an EA acquisition bests a new IP rumor from a first party dev?
Hi, Andy ! I know you were gone for a while, so you might have missed out on this whole new thing called the Internet. Yes, it's a stupid name. We never got a resolution about whether it was a series of tubes or a highway for trucks or Al Gore's homebrew hair plugs achieving self-awareness, but it's here and it's apparently here to stay. As you acclimate yourself to this brave new world, you may have to learn that some things we have commonly held to be facts, such as, you know, facts are now secondary to "I believe this because I want to believe this and that's why it's happening, see if it doesn't".
It would be a match made in heaven but not sure it would go over well with gamers and actually gain Microsoft the goodwill they desperately need. When people think Xbox they think shooters and sports games so might as well do it if they can pull it off. Most people hate on Madden and EA in general so it would be fun to see those same people complain that they have to buy an Xbox just to play the games they supposedly don't care about.
Simple. It isn't cost effective.
You pay several billion for a company. That right there is a substantial revenue loss. You won't be able to offset that because if EA games go Xbox Only that means no more revenue from PlayStation sales or Nintendo sales. That is another loss of revenue.
Now one can argue that eventually an EA buyout would turn a profit for Microsoft but it won't be anytime soon. That is the problem. A buyout like this would only add more net loss to Microsoft in the form of lost revenue from other consoles and the buyout itself.
People let's not trivialize the amounts of money we are casually talking about. Billions in net loss. That isn't good for any company.
This is why I think a Valve buyout would make more sense for Microsoft. They would bank on immediate profitability through Steam.
It would be very good for Microsoft if they owned EA. It would be very good for Microsoft if they owned EA, Activision, Take-Two, Nintendo, and Sony. It would be very good for Microsoft if they owned every game developer and publisher on Earth.
But that's not the question. The question is whether it makes sense for Microsoft to spend 40-50 billion dollars to acquire EA. Or in other words, is it likely? The answer to that, it seems to me, is pretty clearly no. There are much better things for them to spend 40-50 billion on (assuming they are willing to spend that much just to bolster their gaming division).
Getting EA would just be a band aid solution. You still need to heavily invest in your own first party studios and build some from the ground up. Unless the EA devs are suddenly going to put out magical IPs that we haven't seen in the last 30 years. Dead Space was good. Mass Effect was good and could still be good. They don't need any more shooters or racers so what's the point of Battlefield and Need for Speed.
Just don't see it doing much for them in the long run. Valve would definitely be better to go for. EA might get them through the gen and the early part of next gen but then it's like what's next? By next gen Battlefield is going to be forgotten just like Call of Duty. Not forgotten but they're not going to be the big draw they once were. Same thing happened to Halo. You need new IPs. Is EA the company you want to bet the farm on?
Just don't see it doing much for them in the long run. Valve would definitely be better to go for. EA might get them through the gen and the early part of next gen but then it's like what's next? By next gen Battlefield is going to be forgotten just like Call of Duty. Not forgotten but they're not going to be the big draw they once were. Same thing happened to Halo. You need new IPs. Is EA the company you want to bet the farm on?
Has nothing to do with putting Sony out of business, that'll never happen and it'd be bad for the industry as a whole if it did. I just don't see the financial benefit in acquiring a company as large as EA that probably has no real growth left in it. It's a very sort of long term plan that could make money way down the road but it seems like it's pretty risky. EA has awful PR, they never seem to introduce any new IP's that catch on, they are stuck with the same series of games many of which are licensed and cost a lot of money just to have the rights to and they'd have to keep EA working as a multiplatform dev as it is now or there would be no value at all in buying them.
Buying Valve only benefits Microsofts PC endeavours, which only really benefits their Xbox endeavours if they make it policy that any steam releases must be accompanied by an Xbox version.
All that means is a s*** load of sub par indie drek......but a lot of console exclusive sub par indie drek. But more recently Microsofts already won the indie war any way so its moot.
Its doubtful they would expect to see a return on EA year 1 (or Minecraft or Linkedin)
They buy s*** for a diverse porfolio. Not because they need the money (haha) but because they can probably leverage it to make more money than that money would in a bank gathering interest with the rest of the monies.
You also can't really denote a loss of revenue because a multiplatform game goes exclusive as a negative. If Microsoft got a real offer to buy CDProjekt (for example) they wouldnt hesitate because of the 100% reduction in PS4 sales. Thats the point of the acquisition.
Last edited:
The size of the investment is what makes it unlikely, as Andy says it's going to be around $50 Billion, that's about double what the entire retail gaming business does in a year. It just seems unrealistic to think that spending that kind of money has any real benefit long term. Especially with a company like EA who without their licensed content would have nothing but battlefield, Dragon age and the likely dead Mass Effect.