Microsoft’s Activision acquisition should be allowed to pass
By Bryan Nelson
![ANKARA, TURKIYE - JANUARY 18: In this photo illustration, the logos of Microsoft and Activision Blizzard are displayed in Ankara, Turkiye on January 18, 2022. (Photo by Hakan Nural/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images) ANKARA, TURKIYE - JANUARY 18: In this photo illustration, the logos of Microsoft and Activision Blizzard are displayed in Ankara, Turkiye on January 18, 2022. (Photo by Hakan Nural/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images)](https://images2.minutemediacdn.com/image/upload/c_fill,w_720,ar_16:9,f_auto,q_auto,g_auto/shape/cover/sport/b0f0219fa84c16f00adb46776dcf4e1161b3f4b11c6a5dc30c137806b9a12268.jpg)
Activision cannot survive on its current trajectory
Activision has had quite the fallout over the last few years for the toxic work environment that has pervaded its walls. Its revenues while seeing some growth, have stagnated over the years. The technology that it has built is groundbreaking, but only on a level that Microsoft or Sony could make use of.
Activision/Blizzard is aware of its place in the gaming community as the people who make Call of Duty and have one of the strongest relationships with professional gaming as we know it today. These relationships, and their technology for cross-play, skill-based-matchmaking (SBBM), their cloud infrastructure, and more are all things that benefit their games and their consumers but could be used on a larger level to benefit the industry as a whole.
Sony can pitch a fit that this is about Microsoft attempting to steal games away from competitors, but perhaps it was never about the games and more about the talent behind them. The games are what made the value of the company so high when Microsoft made an approach, but there’s more to every acquisition than “I want what you have”.
Activision/Blizzard’s leadership is not equipped to handle the direction of the industry and has been slow to react to subscription-based gaming and streaming, as well as the demands from consumers which are changing rapidly. The company doesn’t have the capital to make the investments needed but has the existing infrastructure and intellectual property to be valuable to someone who does.