Top
500°

Activision Blizzard CEO Bobby Kotick and Microsoft Gaming CEO Phil Spencer Speak with CNBC

Following is the unofficial transcript of a CNBC exclusive interview with Activision Blizzard CEO Bobby Kotick and Microsoft Gaming CEO Phil Spencer on CNBC.

The story is too old to be commented.
Orbilator128d ago ShowReplies(7)
DigitallyAfflicted128d ago

This will make all gaming things more interesting...

monkey602128d ago

Damn I cant stand either of those two!

monkey602128d ago

Nope. The pair of them are just slimey

127d ago
1nsomniac128d ago

Big business seems to breed these super creepy dudes. It comes across mainly as an American thing but it’s not we’ve got them here in the UK too.

Gamer79127d ago

Seem to be a certain section of people on here that don't like Phil Spencer, same as digital foundry. I've never seen him talked about that anywhere else with channels like easy allies for example saying how good he is.

CJQNSNYC127d ago (Edited 127d ago )

Should that really surprise you?

Didn't you know that this site has LONG doubled as a Sony/Playstation lovefest site? It's been that way for many, many years. Anything that could possibly be construed as positive in favor of Microsoft is instatntly and immediately followed by at least a dozen or so articles in opposition.

Nothing new really.

I can almost gurantee that if it had been Sony that was purchasing Activision-Blizzard, it would have been met with rejoicing on this site, as if some new holiday had been announced!

eaze2013127d ago

yeah it's genuinely odd they are hating him on the same level as the slimey predator...

Silly gameAr128d ago

Man, If I really said what I wanted to about these 2 industry breaking clowns, I think I would rightfully get the banhammer asap. All, I'll say is, even if you're a huge xbox fan, but consider yourself a gamer, this is nothing to celebrate. MS is getting closer and closer to that monopoly that they want soooo bad, and I don't believe a word that comes out of either one of their mouths.

Acting like Phil swooped in at the last minute to save poor ol Activision from big bad facebook seriously makes me want to throw up.

gangsta_red128d ago

https://venturebeat.com/202...

MS wants a monopoly by providing games on their console, PC and any device that has streaming capabilities...lol, okay.

Magog128d ago (Edited 128d ago )

Through their own service that they own and operate. Yes, that's a monopoly.
Microsoft Windows PC
Microsoft Xbox
Microsoft Gamepass Streaming

So many choices and guess what they have in common?

Orchard128d ago (Edited 128d ago )

@Magog But you can get Microsoft games on Steam... so you aren't locked to their store/gamepass/streaming - if anything, this might be an improvement for PC gamers in that Activision/Blizzard games may return to Steam.

gangsta_red128d ago

"Through their own service that they own and operate. Yes, that's a monopoly."

That is definitely not a monopoly

CaptainHenry916128d ago (Edited 128d ago )

I expect the quality of games to drop as well. Activision hasn't made a great game in over 5 years unless you count Call of Duty yearly releases great. Imo it's not anymore

S2Killinit128d ago

Oh look whose back! Lol gangstared where you been?

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 128d ago
128d ago
LOGICWINS128d ago

You'd be dancing in the streets if Sony bought Square Enix tomorrow morning lol.

Crows90128d ago

Id be quite sad personally. It would be a horrible purchase. Id rather they go for something more iconic like capcom or from software. But either of those purchases would be bad for gamers.

Dont get why people dont see the problem with Microsofts stream of multiplatform dev purchases.

Silly gameAr128d ago (Edited 128d ago )

Oh, hi Gangsta red. Hope you've been well.

And, yes. MS wants to dictate what the future of gaming is by buying instead of building. It's not as innocent as providing games on their console and PC, it's OWNING, and dictating what streaming device gets those games, games that have been on Playstation for decades, and in fact do better on PS.

gangsta_red128d ago

Hello Silly

MS is buying and building, this is what companies do if they want to stay relevant in an industry that has been making more money than Hollywood for the last decade. You do this by doing both.

"..it's OWNING, and dictating what streaming device gets those games,"

Which basically means playing the games on PC, Xbox and every other streaming device out there, sounds innocent to me.

"..games that have been on Playstation for decades, and in fact do better on PS."

Ah yes, here is the real concern, the real issue. Has nothing to do with the illuminate conspiracy theories of MS controlling everything or dictating how you play, it's just as simple as the games not being on PS anymore. If they truly did better on PS, why didn't Activision approach Sony for a buy out?

Christopher128d ago

How it affects existing customers is pretty important.

343_Guilty_Spark128d ago

How are you going to prove monopoly with hundreds of gaming companies along with thousands and thousands of user created content. Grow up.

ABizzel1128d ago

It's not about multiple companies existing. That's not an issue. The issue happens, when some of the largest companies in the industry merge or combine together because that often leads to monopoly tactics.

That's why big mergers like this are often blocked. AT&T is a prime example. There are PLENTY of cellphone carriers, however, when AT&T tried to buy T-Mobile it was denied regardless of all the other carriers out there, because it would cause AT&T to be a near unrivaled company in the telecom industry with Sprint nearly out of business at the time it would be AT&T with over 60% - 70% of the market share, Verizon knocked down to less than 30%, and all the other hundreds of carriers sharing a tiny portion. At that point AT&T can charge all the smaller carriers to purchase space on their towers to use their service since it would have the largest coverage nationwide, and then Sprint would be dead, and Verizon would slowly be against the walls as well. Yet T-Mobile was able to merge with Sprint simply because Sprint was dying and filing for bankruptcy, and it would allow the 3rd and 5th largest players to merge together and still be 3rd in marketshare, but bringing more competition.

This is setting a similar precedent. If Microsoft and Activision merge, that does still leave other companies, but what it also does is pave the way for Microsoft to strong arm other developers and publishers into submitting to GamePass being the new industry standard, because their games may not sell otherwise as their fanbase has clearly shown they will flat out not support some games if they aren't on GamePass already without the Activision Blizzard boost. It also stifles competition with the other major players as well.

I personally think this has a good chance of going through, sine Xbox is the 4th and AB is the 6th largest publisher, and even merged they're still going to be ranked as 3rd on paper. However, where the monopoly comes into play is Sony now loses a large part of the revenue from Activision which will likely drop their overall earnings, and realistically put Xbox as the 2nd largest and if sales increase due to player bases having to swap to Xbox exclusively it puts them at Number 1, and that is the legal issue they face and why lawyers are already trying to block this.

343_Guilty_Spark128d ago

It's not going to be blocked. Sony and Tencent are still larger.

porkChop128d ago

It would be difficult to legally argue that they have a monopoly, even with this purchase. They've literally said they would bring all their games to PS and Nintendo if Game Pass was allowed on those platforms. They also put their games on Steam, a service they don't own.

I don't personally think MS needed to make this purchase. But I am glad for the devs that will finally have a supportive and safe workplace. I think the devs are the ones who benefit the most here.

DarXyde127d ago

What irritates me the most is that Kotick is an industry parasite and human garbage, yet Spencer is sitting here, being diplomatic because he wants the company. He's allegedly stepping away, and the fact that they're giving him the chance to resign with grace is gross.

But then, why am I acting surprised? The head of a branch of a company founded by someone who was friends with Jeffrey Epstein and has effectively murdered hundreds of thousands of people to promote his covax program is defending someone like that, and for a company for income to protect shareholders and his job, no less.

Super scummy move, Spencer.

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 127d ago
Show all comments (71)
The story is too old to be commented.