Phil Spencer’s passive aggressive tactic in managing theacquisition of Activision Blizzard shows a remarkable ability to react on the part of the division Xboxes. There is nothing sincere, as always in these cases (they are business, therefore nothing serious for which concepts such as justice or truth are worth spending… they are people with money who want to make more money), except in the willingness for the transaction to go through.
From an image point of view, Microsoft is simply trying to corner Sony and its claims of jus primae noctis on the series call of Duty. Does the Japanese multinational accuse Microsoft of wanting to monopolize one of the strongest franchises in the industry? Here Xbox not only offers him a ten-year agreement, but also opens COD to Nintendo platforms, where the series has been absent for years. Then emerges a proposal also made to Valve, which of its own refused the agreement, but not out of hatred towards Microsoft, but out of a kind of total trust in Phil Spencer, defined as a man of his word and someone who knows where to publish the games. Is Newell in love with Phil? Who knows, meanwhile his words are as heavy as boulders.
In doing so, Spencer has not only responded with great intelligence to Sony’s allegations, which have strangely been accepted uncritically by some antitrust bodies, but he has also found a powerful ally in Nintendo, the family-friendly video game company, which could assume considerable weight in the whole affair, where up to now he had had a very secluded role. For example, Mario’s house could start defending the acquisition, if not publicly, at least in the relevant offices. Which would be no small thing. Valve’s endorsement is also important, given that we’re talking about the software house that owns the main digital store for PCs.
The concept that Microsoft wanted to pass should be clear enough: by acquiring Activision Blizzard not only COD will not disappear from Playstation, where indeed it will be guaranteed for the entire PS5 generation and for the following one, but it will also expand to other platforms and reach players wherever they are. Which is equivalent to a punch straight in the face to Sony and his theses, only given with a smile on his lips and arms outstretched as a sign of peace.
It almost seems that Spencer is applying a Gandhi-like non-violent strategy to get what he wants: the more Xbox is attacked, the more he collects and makes concessions to show that the bad guys are the others, while remaining firm on the point. Of course, in Gandhi’s case the confrontation was essentially political, while here there are only multinationals pursuing their own goals, but they are details in context.
Sony of its own is cashing in and currently, if it remained firm on its positions, it would pass as the one that feigns concern for the market, when in reality it acts only for itself: if the acquisition were rejected, it would inevitably be accused of having prevented the arrival of the COD franchise on Nintendo consoles, that is, of having gotten in the way by going against the interests of millions of gamers.
At this point comes the suspicion that even Jim Ryan has raised the bar simply to get the Call of Duty series to remain on PlayStation in the best possible condition, but the fact remains that he is getting significant backlashes to the image of Sony, which many now they see as the “crying” multinational, despite being the first in the class.
Let’s talk about it is a daily opinion column that offers a starting point for discussion around the news of the day, a small editorial written by a member of the editorial staff but which is not necessarily representative of the editorial line of Multiplayer.it.
#Acquisition #Activision #Blizzard #Microsoft #lines #Nintendo #Valve #Sony #increasingly #crying