Support NeoGAF

[Three]

NoMS isnt a Japanese company. They never had a chance to begin with.

I'm not sure how much nationalism is engraved into Japanese culture (I'm not an expert) but Iphone beats Sony Ericsson and Fujitsu no problem. Windows is the most used OS in Japan too. I think that's a copout. They just failed at catering or supporting Japanese developers and games. Especially as Japan was less into the multiplayer games MS were making like Gears, or Halo.

Games which works on their home turf.

Exactly and in their home turf MS did well in the past. What's that got to do with competition laws though? They catered to an audience and had sales for that audience. That's competition and the consumer decided.

Sony benefited massively from global audience.
MS without COD marketing still competed with PS on UK and US. The rest of world, MS had no presence due to OG being home box, x360 being their starter to success, just for x1 to bring them down without reaching that global success.

But Sony built that audience, that's the point. Until the Series consoles MS didn't even do global console releases well. Again the fact that they failed with XB1 was their own doing and consumer competition and not because regulators turned a blind eye to something.

Again, MS has no chance for big Japanese games.
Those games audience are Japanese people. MS needed at least xbox to have some presence their in Japan.
It didn't. X360 sold 1m, while x1 sold 144k.

Because on xbox 360 at least they were trying a little with developing Japanese games. On XB1 they were too busy getting Japanese devs to make western games then cancelling them. This is on MS, not on regulators. Series I think is doing better there again.

You cant expect those 3rd party publishers to put their big games on xbox. It doesn't make it financially possible.

If they built an audience why not? Did Elden Ring fail on xbox? They just failed to build an audience for specific types of games or franchises and that's on MS, its marketing, its sales in regions and its game funding.

If they funded and developed new Japanese centric titles they could, they didn't. They could have paid for marketing rights on several Japanese multiplatform games over the years, they didn't. It's because they didn't build that global audience by competing for Japanese publishers or consumers attention very well. It's not because Square want less game sales or ransom money.

 

[xHunter]

This argument that Sony is the only company complaining never made sense to me. Who else would complain? What other company's traditional business model is negatively impacted by the potential acquisition? This wouldn't even be an issue if Microsoft didn't sell consoles. Sony and Microsoft are essentially operating in a duopoly; Microsoft has failed to organically produce blockbuster games/services that elevate their position in the marketplace so they have resorted to purchasing goliath publishers. That is an antitrust concern, regardless of your opinion on free markets (and if you check my history, I've always been in support of deal strictly from a free market perspective.)

Other than Valve or Epic there is not really anyone that would complain about it. And people that keep on parrotting tha Sony is the only one also know this, but i guess some people need to defend their plastic box.
I mean why would EA or T2 be against this? They probably greenlit a new FPS game the moment this deal was announced. With Sony losing marketing rights to CoD there is going to be a big budget for a new title to take its place. And i would bet that EA and T2 know this and want to fill this gap.

 

[Drewpee]

PC is the one console future.

PC gamers underestimate the value of ease of use.

I've been a hardcore gamer my entire life and have 0 interest in switching to PC. I love what PC gaming has done for the industry, it just isn't for me. Most gamers feel the same.

 

[CatLady]

Can you explain to me:

• As far as COD is concerned who else are the likes of the CMA and EU supposed to be looking to protect?
• Are they not supposed to be protecting the company whom by their own admission owe much of their recent success to a franchise under the control of Activision Blizzard?
• Is the purchasing party in this scenario not deemed to be the aggressor, especially considering the cost is beyond anything the party this deal most affects is capable of feasibly affording?

Are you serious? They sure as hell are not supposed to be protecting the very dominant market leader from any competition.

They are supposed to promote competition which this deal would do much to Sony's disapproval. It has been stated about a million times CoD would still be on PlayStation just not with all the anti-competitive advantages they've enjoyed the last 8 years once their contract expires.

They are also charged with the protection of ALL consumers not just Sony's customers. This deal would make CoD available to more people with xCloud, Samsung TVs, possibly Nintendo and with Game Pass.

 

[GHG]

Yes, they've made mistakes. Are you advocating that they just fall on their sword and disappear? Would that be better? Or can we actually discuss pragmatic solutions that help foster and cater to more balanced competition right now. Taking all the past failings into account and realise yes, they've found themselves in a considerable hole - much of their own doing, not denying that. Yet understanding and recognising the course correction required is more substantial than just the meek suggestions of "create your own".

Not suggesting they disappear or even "create your own". I'm not even saying they shouldn't spend that money. $70 billion gets you a lot, in any industry and I've already suggested other ways in which it could be utilised.

However if you're going to argue their whole business model and existence hinges on a $70 billion publisher which requires a level of questioning and scrutiny never seen before in this industry, then I'd tell you that that's a poor business model.

There are many ways to improve and compete without buying out companies that have proven to be integral to your competitors' recent success. With that kind of mindset it begs the question, where do they go from here if the deal goes through and they are still in the same position? Say fuck it and attempt to buy Sony?

Are you serious? They sure as hell are not supposed to be protecting the very dominant market leader from any competition.

They are supposed to promote competition which this deal would do much to Sony's disapproval. It has been stated about a million times CoD would still be on PlayStation just not with all the anti-competitive advantages they've enjoyed the last 8 years once their contract expires.

They are also charged with the protection of ALL consumers not just Sony's customers. This deal would make CoD available to more people with xCloud, Samsung TVs, possibly Nintendo and with Game Pass.

It would be disingenuous to suggest Sony are "dominant" based on recent sales trends.

The regulators exist for cases like this to ensure Microsoft are being sincere with their words and are not attempting to pull the wool over anyone's eyes. If they are indeed being truthful with their intentions then they nor anyone else should have anything to worry about.

 

[Three]

For all intents and purposes, the CMA and EU authorities have determined Call of Duty is important input, that needs feature and release parity protected. They have investigated and will further scour and scrutinize the industry to make this determination.

Are you saying that it's reasonable for them to publicly share this position and protect all competitors subsequent to their investigations, while also harboring the view its 'competition' when half-decade exclusive deals are struck? You don't have any problem with that?

No I don't have a problem because at the very least a third party is in control and can decide. As much as you or I might not like it, it is still competition for the independent publisher. They are more likely to offer a partnership if they are behind with a franchise. Once it becomes one entity that competition for input is gone. Gone from console competition and gone from subscription competition and you had absolutely no say in it. Not even influencing the market slightly. Competition laws are not flawed.

 

[ChiefDada]

Yes, they've made mistakes. Are you advocating that they just fall on their sword and disappear? Would that be better? Or can we actually discuss pragmatic solutions that help foster and cater to more balanced competition right now. Taking all the past failings into account and realise yes, they've found themselves in a considerable hole - much of their own doing, not denying that. Yet understanding and recognising the course correction required is more substantial than just the meek suggestions of "create your own".

Very fair points, but how is it viewed from a regulator's perspective? Antitrust laws are focused on two things: maintaining a competitive environment that upholds fair prices AND improves quality of goods and services (emphasis on AND; not an either/or situation). The irony is Microsoft can make the case that they offer competitive prices with GP focus, but they would fail miserably to convince anyone that they are able to maintain high quality of a CoD franchise under GamePass model based on recent history. Halo Infinite is the closest real-world example we can point to, and I hate to draw attention to how it's fairing. If I'm a regulator and I see that Microsoft's own internally generated game isn't doing so well under GP, what deserved faith would I place in them taking ownership of a historically successful CoD franchise enjoyed by consumers from many platforms and maintaining/improving upon it's quality with an unproven revenue model/tighter budget? (In M&A, this would be destroying customer value)

 

[ReBurn]

Can you explain to me:

• As far as COD is concerned who else are the likes of the CMA and EU supposed to be looking to protect?
• Are they not supposed to be protecting the company whom by their own admission owe much of their recent success to a franchise under the control of Activision Blizzard?
• Is the purchasing party in this scenario not deemed to be the aggressor, especially considering the cost is beyond anything the party this deal most affects is capable of feasibly affording?

Please answer honestly.

• As far as CoD is concerned the CMA and EU aren't supposed to protect any one company. They are supposed to be regulating competition. As such they have to prove that the acquisition would provide Microsoft and unfair advantage in the market as a whole, not just an advantage over Sony. If Sony were to drop to number 2 it wouldn't mean they aren't able to compete. It would just mean that they weren't number 1 any more.
• No, they are not supposed to be protecting the company that owes their success to CoD. It's not their job to protect companies. Sony doesn't have an inherent right to the top spot in the market, and they don't have an inherent right to CoD.
• No, the purchasing party is not the aggressor. This acquisition is not between Microsoft and Sony. It is between Microsoft and Activision. This is a consensual sale between Microsoft and Activision, not a takeover. Sony stands to lose something, sure. But Sony doesn't have an inherent right to market domination. Sony is not the party this deal affects most. Activision and Microsoft are the parties affected most.
  

I don't understand why you or anyone believes that Sony is somehow entitled to government protection to maintain their number 1 position in the market.

Is it your opinion that Sony would go out of business without Call of Duty?

 

[CatLady]

Other than Valve or Epic there is not really anyone that would complain about it. And people that keep on parrotting tha Sony is the only one also know this, but i guess some people need to defend their plastic box.
I mean why would EA or T2 be against this? They probably greenlit a new FPS game the moment this deal was announced. With Sony losing marketing rights to CoD there is going to be a big budget for a new title to take its place. And i would bet that EA and T2 know this and want to fill this gap.

Sony is not the entire industry. There are tons of other companies in gaming and their input should be considered as well NOT just Sony's. I haven't seen anywhere that Valve or Epic are objecting to this deal. I haven't seen anyone objecting or making demands except Sony.

I mean why would EA or T2 be against this? They probably greenlit a new FPS game the moment this deal was announced.

So, you're saying this acquisition would increase competition in the FPS market, so this is good for the industry and would foster MORE competition.

 

[Menzies]

No I don't have a problem because at the very least a third party is in control and can decide. As much as you or I might not like it, it is still competition for the independent publisher. They are more likely to offer a partnership if they are behind with a franchise. Once it becomes one entity that competition for input is gone. Gone from console competition and gone from subscription competition and you had absolutely no say in it. Not even influencing the market slightly. Competition laws are not flawed.

Conveniently, you bypassed the hypothetical situation where; -

1. Two-parties solicit anti-competitive behaviour with long term deals to control markets
2. A competitor is exerting market power - through position for deals not available to all competitors.
3. The competition is not a trillion-dollar conglomerate and is less able to compete for input.

Well, I look forward to all the competition laws are not flawed and well-reasoned posts should this deal fail, and Microsoft just buys Call of Duty exclusive for 10 years.

 

[GHG]

• As far as CoD is concerned the CMA and EU aren't supposed to protect any one company. They are supposed to be regulating competition. As such they have to prove that the acquisition would provide Microsoft and unfair advantage in the market as a whole, not just an advantage over Sony. If Sony were to drop to number 2 it wouldn't mean they aren't able to compete. It would just mean that they weren't number 1 any more.
• No, they are not supposed to be protecting the company that owes their success to CoD. It's not their job to protect companies. Sony doesn't have an inherent right to the top spot in the market, and they don't have an inherent right to CoD.
• No, the purchasing party is not the aggressor. This acquisition is not between Microsoft and Sony. It is between Microsoft and Activision. This is a consensual sale between Microsoft and Activision, not a takeover. Sony stands to lose something, sure. But Sony doesn't have an inherent right to market domination. Sony is not the party this deal affects most. Activision and Microsoft are the parties affected most.

I don't understand why you or anyone believes that Sony is somehow entitled to government protection to maintain their number 1 position in the market.

Is it your opinion that Sony would go out of business without Call of Duty?

They don't need to protect Sony's suggested "dominance" or current top spot but they do have a duty to protect Sony as a company and their ability to continue to do business as they currently do.

The reason being is simple - Sony have customers, tens (if not hundreds?) of millions of them, many of whom are concentrated across Europe and the UK.

These are customers who need to be considered in this. Even on a basic level, customers who selected PS5 consoles for a new generation under the assumption that COD would be (and would continue to be) available need to be considered. I don't know why this is a difficult concept for some people here to grasp but if you protect the competing platforms affected by this deal then you are also protecting the customers of said companies. This is why 10 years (whatever that looks like) is now suddenly being offered, all of this is dawning on Microsoft.

As far as the regulators are concerned Xbox customers are not the ones who need to be "protected" or considered in any way. If the deal doesn't go through nothing changes for them, they still get access to ATVI's library in the same way that they always have done and will continue to do so. This is why Microsoft can be seen to be the "aggressor" here. As a business yhey have everything to gain while Sony and their customers have everything to lose.

Do I think Sony go out of business if this deal goes through? No. But this is literally their (the regulators) jobs. They exist to ensure that wouldn't be the case and they have access to far more information than anyone else does in order to make that decision. If they allow it to go through and it results in Sony's ability to compete and serve both new and existing customers across their jurisdictions completely eroding then they end up looking wholly incompetent.

 

[xHunter]

Sony is not the entire industry. There are tons of other companies in gaming and their input should be considered as well NOT just Sony's. I haven't seen anywhere that Valve or Epic are objecting to this deal. I haven't seen anyone objecting or making demands except Sony.


So, you're saying this acquisition would increase competition in the FPS market, so this is good for the industry and would foster MORE competition.

The cma documents clearly outlines that more companies than just Sony is against this deal. You should maybe read the document before you go on another of your fanboy rants.

 

[ReBurn]

They don't need to protect Sony's suggested "dominance" or current top spot but they do have a duty to protect Sony as a company and their ability to continue to do business as they currently do.

The reason being is simple - Sony have customers, tens (if not hundreds?) of millions of them, many of whom are concentrated across Europe and the UK.

These are customers who need to be considered in this. Even on a basic level, customers who selected PS5 consoles for a new generation under the assumption that COD would be (and would continue to be) available need to be considered. I don't know why this is a difficult concept for some people here to grasp but if you protect the competing platforms affected by this deal then you are also protecting the customers of said companies. This is why 10 years (whatever that looks like) is now suddenly being offered, all of this is dawning on Microsoft.

As far as the regulators are concerned Xbox customers are not the ones who need to be "protected" or considered in any way. If the deal doesn't go through nothing changes for them, they still get access to ATVI's library in the same way that they always have done and will continue to do so. This is why Microsoft can be seen to be the "aggressor" here. As a business yhey have everything to gain while Sony and their customers have everything to lose.

Do I think Sony go out of business if this deal goes through? No. But this is literally their (the regulators) jobs. They exist to ensure that wouldn't be the case and they have access to far more information than anyone else does in order to make that decision. If they allow it to go through and it results in Sony's ability to compete across their jurisdictions completely eroding then they end up looking wholly incompetent.

You are incorrect that they have a duty to protect Sony's ability to do business as they currently do. Any number of legitimate factors could affect Sony's ability to do business as they currently do. You are suggesting Sony has a right to government protection of their business model and I don't know of any country where they would have that protection.

The customers have been considered. Microsoft have publicly committed multiple times to keeping Call of Duty on PlayStation. Even today we have news that Microsoft have reaffirmed that commitment for probably longer than PS5 will be produced. So Sony and regulators will need to prove that existing customers will be disenfranchised and there's no material evidence to suggest they will, only speculation from people like us. This is not suddenly dawning on Microsoft. They know that there can be no legal requirement to keep Call of Duty on PlayStation forever. Government regulators can't require that any one game be produced forever. They're extending the offer to try to address Sony's primary concern.

Regulators should be concerned about Xbox customers as much as they are about Sony's customers. If they aren't then are they impartial? Isn't that what regulators should be? You can't sit here and say what Sony's customers will lose access to. First, there's no clean delineation between who is a Sony customer and who is a Microsoft customer. On the console ownership Venn diagram no doubt there is overlap. Second, which specific titles will Sony customers lose access to? Is there a list? It's possible that PlayStation may not get future titles in existing franchises, but what games have Microsoft stated will be removed from PlayStation? They're still supporting previously released titles from past acquisitions on PlayStation and Switch. Which Zenimax franchises have been delisted on those platforms?

It is not the regulators' jobs to keep Sony in business. It is Sony's job to do that. It's the regulators' jobs to foster an environment where Sony has a fair opportunity to continue to do business.

 

[CatLady]

The cma documents clearly outlines that more companies than just Sony is against this deal. You should maybe read the document before you go on another of your fanboy rants.

name them with links.

 

[feynoob]

I'm not sure how much nationalism is engraved into Japanese culture (I'm not an expert) but Iphone beats Sony Ericsson and Fujitsu no problem. Windows is the most used OS in Japan too. I think that's a copout. They just failed at catering or supporting Japanese developers and games. Especially as Japan was less into the multiplayer games MS were making like Gears, or Halo.

The stuff you listed is what everyone in the world uses, so i dont think that is an argument.
Xbox is a western entertainment system, and it was new to this market.
The games that you listed is what western people play, unlike japanese who were more in to japanese games. And that where the issue is. Xbox lacked japanese games simply due to platform numbers in japan, and lack of devs to support this system.
You had more guarentee success with PS and Nintendo than Xbox.

Exactly and in their home turf MS did well in the past. What's that got to do with competition laws though? They catered to an audience and had sales for that audience. That's competition and the consumer decided.

MS doesnt a fair competition in japan. Its like PS being mainly a japanese product. It wont have much success with western audience, who want to play western games.

But Sony built that audience, that's the point. Until the Series consoles MS didn't even do global console releases well. Again the fact that they failed with XB1 was their own doing and consumer competition and not because regulators turned a blind eye to something.

Sony had an affect with that too. While Xbox one was recovering from their mistake, Sony actively tried to kneecap Xbox, with timed exclusive games, which essentially made consumers pick the other platform.

Because on xbox 360 at least they were trying a little with developing Japanese games. On XB1 they were too busy getting Japanese devs to make western games then cancelling them. This is on MS, not on regulators. Series I think is doing better there again.

That is when the console was selling good. X1 demolished all of that x360 good will.
As I said before, Japanese devs needed enough users to make games for that console. With x1 having 144k, there was no reason to make games for the system. X360 had 1m in comparision.

If they built an audience why not? Did Elden Ring fail on xbox? They just failed to build an audience for specific types of games or franchises and that's on MS, its marketing, its sales in regions and its game funding.

ER is global. Xbox is being carried by US and UK, which allows western japanese to be on console.
The issue is however the japanese games, that arent western games. You need japanese audience for that. But with that pathetic console sales, it was difficult getting those games.

If they funded and developed new Japanese centric titles they could, they didn't. They could have paid for marketing rights on several Japanese multiplatform games over the years, they didn't. It's because they didn't build that global audience by competing for Japanese publishers or consumers attention very well. It's not because Square want less game sales or ransom money.

Again, userbase matters more here. Those developers want to see home success.

TLDR: Japanese devs cant put their games on xbox, due to minimum xbox users in japan. MS needs to do more to attract those audience. Big japanese titles are impossible to do timed exclusive, due to userbase not meeting the criteria.

 

[feynoob]

They don't need to protect Sony's suggested "dominance" or current top spot but they do have a duty to protect Sony as a company and their ability to continue to do business as they currently do.

That isnt regulators job. Their job is fair market and consumers first.

The reason being is simple - Sony have customers, tens (if not hundreds?) of millions of them, many of whom are concentrated across Europe and the UK.

That shouldnt be the reason. Regulators shouldnt take a side. Their job is to make sure no company disturbs the market. Your case is protecting a platforms userbase.

These are customers who need to be considered in this. Even on a basic level, customers who selected PS5 consoles for a new generation under the assumption that COD would be (and would continue to be) available need to be considered. I don't know why this is a difficult concept for some people here to grasp but if you protect the competing platforms affected by this deal then you are also protecting the customers of said companies. This is why 10 years (whatever that looks like) is now suddenly being offered, all of this is dawning on Microsoft.

Regulators have to take in account for Xbox users too. MS is making the game a gamepass game. It also affects consumers choice.

As far as the regulators are concerned Xbox customers are not the ones who need to be "protected" or considered in any way. If the deal doesn't go through nothing changes for them, they still get access to ATVI's library in the same way that they always have done and will continue to do so. This is why Microsoft can be seen to be the "aggressor" here. As a business yhey have everything to gain while Sony and their customers have everything to lose.

The fuck? You are saying PS users have be accounted for COD, but Xbox doesnt? Dont you think those users have suffered enough under Sony marketing deals?
I dont have a bone to pick here, but your comment isnt making a sense.
Regulators have to account both userbase here. Not just 1 userbase.

Do I think Sony go out of business if this deal goes through? No. But this is literally their (the regulators) jobs. They exist to ensure that wouldn't be the case and they have access to far more information than anyone else does in order to make that decision. If they allow it to go through and it results in Sony's ability to compete and serve both new and existing customers across their jurisdictions completely eroding then they end up looking wholly incompetent.

How do you think this deal would erase PS? PS enjoyed massively from tons of 3rd party games, with too many timed exclusive games, yet 1 game is enough to bring all those down?

 

[xHunter]

name them with links.

Im not going to spoon feed you, since, looking at your posts, you are not interested in having a normal discussion.
You will have to comb throught this thread and the CMA documents on your own.

 

[CatLady]

Im not going to spoon feed you, since, looking at your posts, you are not interested in having a normal discussion.
You will have to comb throught this thread and the CMA documents on your own.

You made the claim let's see some receipts or you've got nothing.

 

[xHunter]

You made the claim let's see some receipts or you've got nothing.

I'll pass thanks.

 

[feynoob]

The cma documents clearly outlines that more companies than just Sony is against this deal. You should maybe read the document before you go on another of your fanboy rants.

That is google, which complained about bethesda.
You know the dude who sunk down ps3, x1, and now stadia. Yes that dude blame MS bethesda purchase on stadia foreclosure.

Aside of that, no other company objected to them. Everyone was agreeing with the deal.

 

[xHunter]

That is google, which complained about bethesda.
You know the dude who sunk down ps3, x1, and now stadia. Yes that dude blame MS bethesda purchase on stadia foreclosure.

Aside of that, no other company objected to them. Everyone was agreeing with the deal.

So thats already more than "just Sony", right?

 

[feynoob]

So thats already more than "just Sony", right?

Are you going to believe the words of that guy? The guy who literally failed his platform?

 

[Menzies]

Not suggesting they disappear or even "create your own". I'm not even saying they shouldn't spend that money. $70 billion gets you a lot, in any industry and I've already suggested other ways in which it could be utilised.

However if you're going to argue their whole business model and existence hinges on a $70 billion publisher which requires a level of questioning and scrutiny never seen before in this industry, then I'd tell you that that's a poor business model.

There are many ways to improve and compete without buying out companies that have proven to be integral to your competitors' recent success. With that kind of mindset it begs the question, where do they go from here if the deal goes through and they are still in the same position? Say fuck it and attempt to buy Sony?

Not arguing their whole business model and existence hinges on this deal. However, if the interest is more balanced competition, than I haven't met a single person yet who argues that console sales will be further apart post-merger - or are you the first?

 

[GHG]

You are incorrect that they have a duty to protect Sony's ability to do business as they currently do. Any number of legitimate factors could affect Sony's ability to do business as they currently do. You are suggesting Sony has a right to government protection of their business model and I don't know of any country where they would have that protection.

The customers have been considered. Microsoft have publicly committed multiple times to keeping Call of Duty on PlayStation. Even today we have news that Microsoft have reaffirmed that commitment for probably longer than PS5 will be produced. So Sony and regulators will need to prove that existing customers will be disenfranchised and there's no material evidence to suggest they will, only speculation from people like us. This is not suddenly dawning on Microsoft. They know that there can be no legal requirement to keep Call of Duty on PlayStation forever. Government regulators can't require that any one game be produced forever. They're extending the offer to try to address Sony's primary concern.

Regulators should be concerned about Xbox customers as much as they are about Sony's customers. If they aren't then are they impartial? Isn't that what regulators should be? You can't sit here and say what Sony's customers will lose access to. First, there's no clean delineation between who is a Sony customer and who is a Microsoft customer. On the console ownership Venn diagram no doubt there is overlap. Second, which specific titles will Sony customers lose access to? Is there a list? It's possible that PlayStation may not get future titles in existing franchises, but what games have Microsoft stated will be removed from PlayStation? They're still supporting previously released titles from past acquisitions on PlayStation and Switch. Which Zenimax franchises have been delisted on those platforms?

It is not the regulators' jobs to keep Sony in business. It is Sony's job to do that. It's the regulators' jobs to foster an environment where Sony has a fair opportunity to continue to do business.

I didn't say anything about business models, it's about their existence as an entity and their ability to continue to employ people and serve customers across the UK and Europe. If the regulators believe that the deal has the ability to cause harm in such a way that makes their existence as a business difficult then it needs to be looked into and/or adjusted (or blocked if necessary).

It's not about anything being delisted. They look at where output from the publishers in question would typically end up if not for the acquisition. Hence this:

Like I said, they have access to far more information that we do, such as who is a customer of playstation/xbox/both etc. They have done and will continue to formulate complex models that will provide indications of what the outcome will be for a variety of scenarios. That will aid them in their decision making process.

Literally everything I've stated so far is exactly how regulators in most regions go about doing their jobs. Xbox customers do not get preferential treatment or consideration here because if the deal fails to go through nothing changes for them. They aren't going to sit there and consider gamepass, xcloud or anything else Xbox currently offer extensively when Microsoft are free to change their business model at any point. Zunepass was once a thing until it very suddenly wasn't.

I don't know where this idea that they need to be "impartial" comes from. One company is making a $70 billion dollar acquisition and the other isn't. One company is under scrutiny because of this deal, the other isn't. This deal doesn't happen the other way round hence it's being looked over with a fine tooth comb, particularly from the perspective of how it impacts the party without the means to make such an acquisition. If Xbox want to fly under the radar and do things that will make life difficult for playstation (along with expanding their offering for current and prospective customers) then there are much easier ways to go about it.

How do you think this deal would erase PS?

See above, and based on this snippet you clearly aren't reading so until you do it's not worth me responding to you on an individual basis.

 

[feynoob]

I didn't say anything about business models, it's about their existence as an entity and their ability to continue to employ people and serve customers across the UK and Europe. If the regulators believe that the deal has the ability to cause harm in such a way that makes their existence as a business difficult then it needs to be looked into and/or adjusted (or blocked if necessary).

It's not about anything being delisted. They look at where output from the publishers in question would typically end up if not for the acquisition. Hence this:

Like I said, they have access to far more information that we do, such as who is a customer of playstation/xbox/both etc. They have done and will continue to formulate complex models that will provide indications of what the outcome will be for a variety of scenarios. That will aid them in their decision making process.

Literally everything I've stated so far is exactly how regulators in most regions go about doing their jobs. Xbox customers do not get preferential treatment or consideration here because if the deal fails to go through nothing changes for them. They aren't going to sit there and consider gamepass, xcloud or anything else Xbox currently offer extensively when Microsoft are free to change their business model at any point. Zunepass was once a thing until it very suddenly wasn't.

I don't know where this idea that they need to be "impartial" comes from. One company is making a $70 billion dollar acquisition and the other isn't. One company is under scrutiny because of this deal, the other isn't. This deal doesn't happen the other way round hence it's being looked over with a fine tooth comb, particularly from the perspective of how it impacts the party without the means to make such an acquisition. If Xbox want to fly under the radar and do things that will make life difficult for playstation (along with expanding their offering for current and prospective customers) then there are much easier ways to go about it.



See above, and based on this snippet you clearly aren't reading so until you do it's not worth me responding to you on an individual basis.

How the hell does that shit erases PS? CMA is clearly drunk here.
Are you telling me the studio, which literally takes big 3rd party games from big publishers as timed exclusive for their platform, would be affected by this?

I am sorry, but this shit is hillarious. Its indeed a shit clown deal from all the side. If these are big takes.

 

[CatLady]

That is google, which complained about bethesda.
You know the dude who sunk down ps3, x1, and now stadia. Yes that dude blame MS bethesda purchase on stadia foreclosure.

Aside of that, no other company objected to them. Everyone was agreeing with the deal.

I KNEW he was talking about Phil Harrison; I just wanted him to say it and admit it was all B.S. since he couldn't back it up since there is NO direct quote from Harrison, and assuming it's even true, it is in reference to Bethesda NOT Activision and allegedly occurred before the Activision acquisition. How pitiful, but understandable why he wouldn't back up his claim.

 

[ReBurn]

I didn't say anything about business models, it's about their existence as an entity and their ability to continue to employ people and serve customers across the UK and Europe. If the regulators believe that the deal has the ability to cause harm in such a way that makes their existence as a business difficult then it needs to be looked into and/or adjusted (or blocked if necessary).

It's not about anything being delisted. They look at where output from the publishers in question would typically end up if not for the acquisition. Hence this:

Like I said, they have access to far more information that we do, such as who is a customer of playstation/xbox/both etc. They have done and will continue to formulate complex models that will provide indications of what the outcome will be for a variety of scenarios. That will aid them in their decision making process.

Literally everything I've stated so far is exactly how regulators in most regions go about doing their jobs. Xbox customers do not get preferential treatment or consideration here because if the deal fails to go through nothing changes for them. They aren't going to sit there and consider gamepass, xcloud or anything else Xbox currently offer extensively when Microsoft are free to change their business model at any point. Zunepass was once a thing until it very suddenly wasn't.

I don't know where this idea that they need to be "impartial" comes from. One company is making a $70 billion dollar acquisition and the other isn't. One company is under scrutiny because of this deal, the other isn't. This deal doesn't happen the other way round hence it's being looked over with a fine tooth comb, particularly from the perspective of how it impacts the party without the means to make such an acquisition. If Xbox want to fly under the radar and do things that will make life difficult for playstation (along with expanding their offering for current and prospective customers) then there are much easier ways to go about it.



See above, and based on this snippet you clearly aren't reading so until you do it's not worth me responding to you on an individual basis.

But you just said that Sony wouldn't go out of business if they lose CoD. Now you're saying that some people may lose their jobs if Sony loses CoD. That may be true, but people in the EU and UK lose their jobs every day. It is not government regulators' job to make sure nobody loses their job. If it were then why did the EU allow these people to lose their jobs?

Tech company layoffs in Europe: the list

A regularly updated list of the startups and tech businesses in Europe that have recently laid off staff as part of the tech company layoffs

sifted.eu

They also can't predict where content from third parties will end up in the future. Sony spends a lot of money to drive content to their ecosystem as well. There's a chance that any of those titles listed would have ended up exclusive to PlayStation via a moneyhat or marketing deal, either perpetually or in a timed manner.

Regulators having access to more info that we do doesn't mean that that their overall responsibility isn't clearly articulated. We can only speculate about what they know so there's no sense bringing that up. Nothing they know changes what they have to prove. There's also an argument to be made that Microsoft can't compete fairly in the market because of Sony's business practices. Regulators need to use their info to determine which argument is true. The answer is likely somewhere in the middle.

Pretty much nothing you've said is representative about how regulators do their jobs. If it were then why was it approved already in some jurisdictions? Their job isn't the same everywhere, but in most jurisdictions their job isn't to protect the power of the current market leader.

We're just going to keep going in circles. You think these regulators exist to protect the market leader and I don't. So no sense in us going back and forth on that any more. We'll just have to see what happens.

 

[feynoob]

GHG maybe CMA should also look at Insomniac, which gave Sony spiderman, miles, now spiderman 2, and wolverine all thanks to MS investing on insomniac, which made the engine that is used for these games.
Or maybe bungie, which MS helped put them where they are now.

We can talk all this shit nonstop here.

 

[bender]

Things I learned today: Insomniac owned Marvel licenses.

 

[3liteDragon]

Things I learned today: Insomniac owned Marvel licenses.

Thread's getting hilarious by the minute.

 

[bender]

Thread's getting hilarious by the minute.

The lack of perspective and corporation ball washing in these threads is something else.

 

[feynoob]

Things I learned today: Insomniac owned Marvel licenses.

Not the game, but the engine that is used for those games.
Sony basically got free engine at expense of MS.

 

[DeepEnigma]

How the hell does that shit erases PS? CMA is clearly drunk here.
Are you telling me the studio, which literally takes big 3rd party games from big publishers as timed exclusive for their platform, would be affected by this?

I am sorry, but this shit is hillarious. Its indeed a shit clown deal from all the side. If these are big takes.

The cracks are starting to show.

 

[feynoob]

The cracks are starting to show.

What cracks?
I am showing how dumb that argument is.

 

[DeepEnigma]

What cracks?
I am showing how dumb that argument is.

Is it? Or are you acting like it’s never been open season in that business aspect for everyone?

 

[FalsettoVibe]

Not the game, but the engine that is used for those games.
Sony basically got free engine at expense of MS.

They didn't get anything free. They paid what Insomniac + their engine was valued at the time.

 

[feynoob]

Is it? Or are you acting like it’s never been open season in that business aspect for everyone?

the point is that CMA document is also being done by Sony too.
If Sony losses these studios, they can get replacement, as the market has more studios.
The market isnt only dependent on few companies. You have new players, which bring new products.

Sony wont get impacted by that much, considering they also got the better deal with bungie and insomniac, compared to MS with those studios.

 

[bender]

Not the game, but the engine that is used for those games.
Sony basically got free engine at expense of MS.

Let's throw out licensing and contracting for a minute and work with your absurd premise. What was the name of that engine? Let me help you out: Insomniac Engine 4.0. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that wasn't the first engine that Insomniac developed and you'll probably see version 3.0 and 2.0 of that engine used for games like Resistance and Ratchet and Clank. Does that mean that Microsoft basically got free engine at the expense of Sony?

 

[feynoob]

They didn't get anything free. They paid what Insomniac + their engine was valued at the time.

MS funded insomniac, which allowed them to make that engine for Sunset overdrive. without their investment, doubt Insomniac would have had that engine.
So Sony got the better result from MS investment.
Edit: Insomniac had the engine already. MS investment allowed them to advance it.

 

[DeepEnigma]

the point is that CMA document is also being done by Sony too.
If Sony losses these studios, they can get replacement, as the market has more studios.
The market isnt only dependent on few companies. You have new players, which bring new products.

Sony wont get impacted by that much, considering they also got the better deal with bungie and insomniac, compared to MS with those studios.

These are entire publishers, not just “studios,” hence why the CMA is taking notice.

They purchased one of the largest publishers in the world, and are now in the process of purchasing the very largest publisher in the world, and already made comments that they weren’t going to stop.

Let’s not be disingenuous about the CMA and their roles.

 

[feynoob]

Let's throw out licensing and contracting for a minute and work with your absurd premise. What was the name of that engine? Let me help you out: Insomniac Engine 4.0. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that wasn't the first engine that Insomniac developed and you'll probably see version 3.0 and 2.0 of that engine used for games like Resistance and Ratchet and Clank. Does that mean that Microsoft basically got free engine at the expense of Sony?

Sunset overdrive.

 

[bender]

Sunset overdrive.

That's the name of the game, not the engine.

 

[xHunter]

I KNEW he was talking about Phil Harrison; I just wanted him to say it and admit it was all B.S. since he couldn't back it up since there is NO direct quote from Harrison, and assuming it's even true, it is in reference to Bethesda NOT Activision and allegedly occurred before the Activision acquisition. How pitiful, but understandable why he wouldn't back up his claim.

Expected reaction post from you. Thats why i dropped the discussion. No point in answering any of your hysterical posts.

 

[feynoob]

These are entire publishers, not just “studios,” hence why the CMA is taking notice.

They purchased one of the largest publishers in the world, and are now in the process of purchasing the very largest publisher in the world, and already made comments that they weren’t going to stop.

Let’s not be disingenuous about the CMA and their roles.

I am not blaming CMA for that. I completly agree with on activision part, as that $68b is too much on gaming market.

 

[GHG]

But you just said that Sony wouldn't go out of business if they lose CoD. Now you're saying that some people may lose their jobs if Sony loses CoD. That may be true, but people in the EU and UK lose their jobs every day. It is not government regulators' job to make sure nobody loses their job. If it were then why did the EU allow these people to lose their jobs?

Tech company layoffs in Europe: the list

A regularly updated list of the startups and tech businesses in Europe that have recently laid off staff as part of the tech company layoffs

sifted.eu

They also can't predict where content from third parties will end up in the future. Sony spends a lot of money to drive content to their ecosystem as well. There's a chance that any of those titles listed would have ended up exclusive to PlayStation via a moneyhat or marketing deal, either perpetually or in a timed manner.

Regulators having access to more info that we do doesn't mean that that their overall responsibility isn't clearly articulated. We can only speculate about what they know so there's no sense bringing that up. Nothing they know changes what they have to prove. There's also an argument to be made that Microsoft can't compete fairly in market because of Sony's business practices. Regulators need to use their info to determine which argument is true. The answer is likely somewhere in the middle.

Pretty much nothing you've said is representative about how regulators do their jobs. If it were then why was it approved already in some jurisdictions? Their job isn't the same everywhere, but in most jurisdictions their job isn't to protect the power of the current market leader.

We're just going to keep going in circles. You think these regulators exist to protect the market leader and I don't. So no sense in us going back and forth on that any more. We'll just have to see what happens.

You're not getting it. I'm not saying Sony may anything (in particular your reference to jobs). Please read over my posts again. I am simply referencing the points regulators will be looking at in these posts. Unless it's clearly stated its not about my personal opinion since that doesn't matter in a situation like this.

Example - if their models suggest the deal going through will result in Sony losing XX% of their customers along and the financial impact means a potential job loss of XX% of people they currently employ across Europe/The UK then they will look at what scenarios result in that not being the case or for the losses to be much less severe. That's what I'm getting at here. Nowhere in these models will they be looking at the impact on Microsoft if the deal does go through - that's Microsoft's own responsibility since they are the ones agreeing to and pushing for this deal.

It's approved in some jurisdictions because they will look at how it impacts customers and competition in their countries. Hence places Brazil and Saudi Arabia will have different considerations and concerns to the UK and Europe. The videogames industry is wildly different across the aforementioned countries/regions. Hence, as I've previously stated in response to other people, it's asinine to bring up what CADE said when talking about the potential impact of the deal in the UK and EU - the markets are not the same neither from the perspective of how videogames companies do business there or from a consumer landscape perspective. All individual regulators can do is oversee and take care of the people in their jurisdiction, nothing more nothing less.

GHG maybe CMA should also look at Insomniac, which gave Sony spiderman, miles, now spiderman 2, and wolverine all thanks to MS investing on insomniac, which made the engine that is used for these games.
Or maybe bungie, which MS helped put them where they are now.

We can talk all this shit nonstop here.

Nothing you've said here is of any relevance to the most recent discussions in this thread nor does it even make any sense.

 

[feynoob]

That's the name of the game, not the engine.

What I mean is that sunset overdrive is what helped spiderman and their current games.
If MS havent invested on them, we wouldnt be able to play spiderman now.

 

[bender]

What I mean is that sunset overdrive is what helped spiderman and their current games.
If MS havent invested on them, we wouldnt be able to play spiderman now.

That's a pretty stupid assumption, even by your standards.

 

[HoofHearted]

Hopefully all Bethesda titles stay on PlayStation. I'd love to see the day that Halo is on a Sony console. I HATE what console wars have done to gaming. We spend 85% of our time arguing about a piece of hardware and tearing down amazing pieces of work just because its not on our preferred console.

Cannot wait for the day console exclusives die.

I agree with your sentiment here, but i think it’s ultimately going to be up to Sony to either accept whatever MS is willing to offer or just move on.

I think the deal will eventually be approved - especially considering all the recent updates that clearly show MS is willing to make some form concessions that are quite honestly fair and reasonable…

At some point they’ll all get in a room, fight it out, then hug it out and sing kumbaya…

I own all three consoles and really could care less which way this goes. Add to this the fact we have a 160 page thread arguing about a game that isn’t really worth all the chatter (at least IMHO).

The last time I paid full price for COD was easily 10+ years ago. I know I’m in the minority but it’s really not that great of a game IMHO….

Used to play it a good deal with my friends but even they don’t play it that much … they spend more time playing single player games or Fortnite…

 

[feynoob]

That's a pretty stupid assumption, even by your standards.

how is that?

 

[feynoob]

bender

This isn’t the first time Insomniac has given credit to Sunset Overdrive for Spider-Man‘s development. Back in 2018, creative director Brian Intihar told GamesRadar that making Sunset Overdrive gave the studio “a leg-up in terms of getting things started” on Spider-Man. “We thought, okay, we know how to build an open world, we knew how to build New York, we knew how to make a game based on traversal, and we wanted Spider-Man to have kind of the same sense of flow and overall style that we had in Sunset,” he said.