Support NeoGAF

[SenjutsuSage]

This has been very useful for gaming, the discussion around this acquisition one way or the other regardless of which side you fall upon in terms of block or accepted. People are learning more about the regulatory process, we're getting to see the kinds of detailed high-stakes arguments made by these companies in an industry we all care about. It's fantastic.

 

[feynoob]

This has been very useful for gaming, the discussion around this acquisition one way or the other regardless of which side you fall upon in terms of block or accepted. People are learning more about the regulatory process, we're getting to see the kinds of detailed high-stakes arguments made by these companies in an industry we all care about. It's fantastic.

Are ou OK? What did you do to SenjutsuSage ?

Guys, did we break his mind?

 

[MasterCornholio]

Are ou OK? What did you do to SenjutsuSage ?

Guys, did we break his mind?

 

[ShaikhCroft]

I can't read all the replies! Is anything major happened in last 48 hours or so?

 

[feynoob]

I can't read all the replies! Is anything major happened in last 48 hours or so?

Ftc is trying to build a case, CMA wants a concession, and activision is trying to get in to action.
Other than that, everything is fine.

 

[ChuckeRearmed]

Ftc might or might not be building a case, CMA looks into cloud gaming, and activision is trying to get in to action.
Overall, nothing has changed

Fixed

 

[feynoob]

Fixed

They say chickens can fly, but that doesnt mean they can actually fly.

 

[Swift_Star]

Incase you don't realize, Activision makes more than what they make on Sony devices, thnx to COD mobile, not to mention there other titles.


It's why they accepted this deal. They know MS is Sony competitor, and there is exclusive risk. They care so little about Sony. It's business opportunities. And losing that means consequences in future businesses.
Activision-Blizzard's is going to lose alot from this deal. From stock fall, to losing money from the result of stock downfall.

So? They still value Sonys revenue. Irrelevant point.

 

[Swift_Star]

Fixed

 

[adamsapple]

I can't read all the replies! Is anything major happened in last 48 hours or so?

No.

 

[Cheezewizz]

It does. You wont see it, if you argue on behalf of MS.

They never had COD for years. They arent impacted by this deal.

MS does Day1 on steam. Battle net would be part of MS.

There. This is what you need to know.

Based on the replies I've read here so far, you seem to be pretty up to date on this whole ordeal. While it does appear as though you're actively spending the time and effort to research this process. I'm curious as to how exactly you came to the conclusions you have, and what lead you there.

I see much of your knowledge comes from Idas, seeing as you reference them so often. So if that's the case, then what lead you to such a different take on the whole ordeal? Now I may have misread something, or misattributed a statement to them, but his takes seem pretty far off from yours. While I haven't parsed through all his posts... My take was that he/she believes that the acquisition absolutely should be looked into and investigated. But that so far Sony's and to an extent the CMA has yet to really introduce any compelling arguments for requiring any concessions, much less anything beyond that. They seemed far more impressed with MS's latest response compared to Sony's. To go even further, Idas' take on the whole ordeal generally falls in line with the opinions of most of the other people who are covering this such as Hoeg's Law and the like.

Now I know that their opinions are just that, opinions. But I'm curious as to why you so readily point people to Idas for info, while simultaneously reaching the conclusions you have. Furthermore, based on what little I've seen from some of your posts. It would appear that not only does your opinion differ from the person you so often reference, but that you don't offer up a rational explanation to justify your position.

Attitude often doesn't come across well in formats such as this, so just to be clear... I'm not trying to be rude or insulting and if I come across as such, let me apologize now. I'm just interested in why you believe what you do, and what lead you to that conclusion.

 

[feynoob]

I see much of your knowledge comes from Idas, seeing as you reference them so often. So if that's the case, then what lead you to such a different take on the whole ordeal? Now I may have misread something, or misattributed a statementto him, but his takes seem pretty far off from yours. While I haven't parsed through all his posts... My take was that he/she believes that the acquisition absolutely should be looked into and investigated. But that so far Sony's and to an extent the CMA has yet to really introduce any compelling arguments for requiring any concessions, much less anything beyond that. They seemed far more impressed with MS's latest response compared to Sony's. To go even further, Idas' take on the whole ordeal generally falls in line with the opinions of most of the other people who are covering this such as Hoeg's Law and the like.

Idas is breaking down the process, and updating it, for every new info he gets. For example, the concession part comes from the three main argument of cma, which are COD, cloud gaming and gamepass (Sub services) theory of harm. Latest document from both company delve in to this topic very well, even though their takes are wildy different.
The later 2 are hard to get concession, due to MS response. But CMA can get concession from COD.

The concession part for COD is the contractual agreement between MS and Sony (From a phone call, to 3 years to 10 years now). That is where me, hoeg, Idas, and R reksveks all agree on. MS has to make a concession on that part, if they want smooth deal. They can argue against the rest.

For example, Cloud gaming theory harm from MS, is that FPS dont run very well on xcloud. And that the service doesnt generate money for Azure (Cost of running Xcloud on Azure.). That mean Xcloud is negative money for them.
2nd one, which is gamepass. And their argument is basically that Activision(Kotick) doesnt want put their newer title on sub services. So gamepass isnt gaining advantage from other sub services. Because they arent getting those games at all.

Now I know that their opinions are just that, opinions. But I'm curious as to why you so readily point people to Idas for info, while simultaneously reaching the conclusions you have. Furthermore, based on what little I've seen from some of your posts. It would appear that not only does your opinion differ from the person you so often reference, but that you don't offer up a rational explanation to justify your position.

He is a lawyer, while my points are from rational logic. My points are sometimes wrong, because I dont have the neccessary info, like idas (Lawyer knowledge). So I update my info, when ever he breaks down new info, or when ever I get new info from the investigation or other sources.
Its better to have a lawyer info first, that way, we have the correct info.

Attitude often doesn't come across well in formats such as this, so just to be clear... I'm not trying to be rude or insulting and if I come across as such, let me apologize now. I'm just interested in why you believe what you do, and what lead you to that conclusion.

Its fair question. Sometimes, its better to be sure, about the sources. People here dont really have all the info. We all have different opinions due to our background.

The only expert in this field I can vet are GHG and R reksveks . The rest of us dont have their level of expertise.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

We don't remember just a few years ago and Crash remastered coming out. All of the is it or isn't it exclusive bullshit?

This stops that.

Everyone says they are getting games they would already be getting, but this insures they get them day one instead of day 365 or 784 or whatever else.

It will be interesting to see if Sony backs off a bot from these deals or goes all in after the results of this.

So basically you want either more mass consolidation or platforms to intentionally cripple themselves. No middle option where a platform can secure exclusive content while devs and pubs remain independent and free to be as flexible as needed?

Uh, cool I guess :/

 

[R3claimer117]

@Topher
Here is where he explains about concession or remedies.


Edit:
Also ftc issues

The FTC thing is more so if they want concession they have to sue. Since they don’t approve or deny deals. They have to actually prepare a lawsuit to file if they want concession cause if they don’t after a certain time period Microsoft can go ahead and close its merger. If they wait till that happens there’s no way to get concessions afterwards.

 

[CatLady]

That's okay. If they pay enough money to secure COD into PS+ Extra/Premium, Microsoft should offer them the chance.
But of course, Sony is stingy and they would argue that if Microsoft can get COD into Game Pass "for free," they should be able to do the same too...

Which is horseshit.

I'm laughing but they probably would actually demand CoD on PS+ for free. They have other demands and arguments even more ridiculous.

 

[Kagey K]

So basically you want either more mass consolidation or platforms to intentionally cripple themselves. No middle option where a platform can secure exclusive content while devs and pubs remain independent and free to be as flexible as needed?

Uh, cool I guess :/

There's no shortage of devs, or people willing to throw money at them.

If they end up in a situation they don't like they are free to move around or try to create something new.

Sony has openly said they are looking at more purchases, so this isn't a one way street where one company is buying everything and devs are being forced into thier arms.

Part of capitalism is to work where you want to (provided they will have you) and to create something of value, so you can sell it when you are done with it.

Activision voted to sell it, they want to be purchased. If it was a repeat of Vivendi trying to buy thier way into Ubisoft, I would be against it, but in this case both parties want the same thing.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

There's no shortage of devs, or people willing to throw money at them.

If they end up in a situation they don't like they are free to move around or try to create something new.

It's not necessarily easy to create a self-sufficient development studio, let alone a financially viable publishing label, from the ground up in the market today, especially if your goal is to produce AAA games. Freely available talent of caliber is getting harder and harder to come by, and depending on your status in the industry working with other companies before going off to do your own thing, it can be very difficult to get the networking you need for things like distribution, advertising, loans etc.

If moving around means potentially needing to downsize your type of work, and your goal is to do larger & more ambitious projects, that can be a quick path to leaving the industry altogether. And purchases of companies like Microsoft in particular have focused on going after big 3P publishers. So if more companies & groups acquire more big 3P publishers, and most of them start to turn to shit under the new management, you may have a lot of talent who leave that theoretically could join up and start something new, but realistically they have a much higher chance of that new thing failing if they want it at the scale of the companies they have just left.

Sony has openly said they are looking at more purchases, so this isn't a one way street where one company is buying everything and devs are being forced into thier arms.

Sony's acquisitions outside of Bungie have focused on developers, not publishers, and more specifically developers they have had VERY long working relationships with and whom have done mostly exclusive content for Sony platforms already. Insomniac, Housemarque, Blue Point etc.

Either that, or brand new upstarts looking for a company to fund & support them, like Haven. And with the case of Bungie, they only own a single IP, Destiny. It's not like Zenimax or ABK where they own dozens upon dozens of IP, including some of the biggest IP in the market, have huge amounts of workforce WRT AAA development, and tons of tech resources also being acquired in the deals.

Part of capitalism is to work where you want to (provided they will have you) and to create something of value, so you can sell it when you are done with it.

Just because you can do something doesn't always mean you should.

Activision voted to sell it, they want to be purchased. If it was a repeat of Vivendi trying to buy thier way into Ubisoft, I would be against it, but in this case both parties want the same thing.

Whether MS buying ABK is ethical or not has never been my point of argument; I know that all things considered they're following the laws and any civil or human rights aren't being violated any more so than what ABK already had happening prior to the announcement of the deal.

 

[pasterpl]

If FTC won't do that because it would cause a blowback from CWA, unions and workers (especially considerig the original situation with ABK that triggered the deal in the first pllace) - we should remember the original letter from the senators in the beginning.

As far as I know workers unions are now backing this deal, they have a binding contract with Ms that was agreed after initial concerns were raised.

 

[Kagey K]

It's not necessarily easy to create a self-sufficient development studio, let alone a financially viable publishing label, from the ground up in the market today, especially if your goal is to produce AAA games. Freely available talent of caliber is getting harder and harder to come by, and depending on your status in the industry working with other companies before going off to do your own thing, it can be very difficult to get the networking you need for things like distribution, advertising, loans etc.

If moving around means potentially needing to downsize your type of work, and your goal is to do larger & more ambitious projects, that can be a quick path to leaving the industry altogether. And purchases of companies like Microsoft in particular have focused on going after big 3P publishers. So if more companies & groups acquire more big 3P publishers, and most of them start to turn to shit under the new management, you may have a lot of talent who leave that theoretically could join up and start something new, but realistically they have a much higher chance of that new thing failing if they want it at the scale of the companies they have just left.



Sony's acquisitions outside of Bungie have focused on developers, not publishers, and more specifically developers they have had VERY long working relationships with and whom have done mostly exclusive content for Sony platforms already. Insomniac, Housemarque, Blue Point etc.

Either that, or brand new upstarts looking for a company to fund & support them, like Haven. And with the case of Bungie, they only own a single IP, Destiny. It's not like Zenimax or ABK where they own dozens upon dozens of IP, including some of the biggest IP in the market, have huge amounts of workforce WRT AAA development, and tons of tech resources also being acquired in the deals.

Didn't Sony just buy multiple studios who have never released even 1 game?

Where did those devs come from, and how could they buy brand new studios, while also working with them for a VERY long time?

Also MS worked very closely with and by Todd's words saved Bethesda back in the day.

But let's pretend MS has no relationship with any studios, and Sony is thier best friend.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

Didn't Sony just buy multiple studios who have never released even 1 game?

Where did those devs come from, and how could they buy brand new studios, while also working with them for a VERY long time?

Also MS worked very closely with and by Todd's words saved Bethesda back in the day.

But let's pretend MS has no relationship with any studios, and Sony is thier best friend.

Dude I know MS have a close relationship with Bethesda. They got two Elder Scrolls console exclusives out of them with Morrowind and Oblivion! But Bethesda is not Zenimax in and of itself; if MS just purchased Bethesda then you'd have more grounds questioning what I wrote but they bought Zenimax which includes iD Software & Arkane, among other teams, that don't have near the relationship with Microsoft that Bethesda does.

And that doesn't even get into studios like Ninja Theory, who have more a history with Sony than Microsoft. Meanwhile yes Sony did buy studios who haven't released a game yet but that's why I mentioned it in the first place; those are new studios, not entrenched major publishers with decades of fairly evenly spread multiplatform support.

I mean you're under the idea I am disregarding Microsoft having a close relationship with some of the dev teams they've purchased already, but I'm not denying that. However, the main point I was making is that since 2020 MS's acquisitions have focused on going after big 3P multiplat publishers with multiple IP. Sony's have more or less focused on independent devs whom they've already worked with closely for years, or upstart dev teams. The only publisher out of them is Bungie and that one is grey territory because they only have a single IP tied to them.

 

[Kagey K]

Dude I know MS have a close relationship with Bethesda. They got two Elder Scrolls console exclusives out of them with Morrowind and Oblivion! But Bethesda is not Zenimax in and of itself; if MS just purchased Bethesda then you'd have more grounds questioning what I wrote but they bought Zenimax which includes iD Software & Arkane, among other teams, that don't have near the relationship with Microsoft that Bethesda does.

And that doesn't even get into studios like Ninja Theory, who have more a history with Sony than Microsoft. Meanwhile yes Sony did buy studios who haven't released a game yet but that's why I mentioned it in the first place; those are new studios, not entrenched major publishers with decades of fairly evenly spread multiplatform support.

I mean you're under the idea I am disregarding Microsoft having a close relationship with some of the dev teams they've purchased already, but I'm not denying that. However, the main point I was making is that since 2020 MS's acquisitions have focused on going after big 3P multiplat publishers with multiple IP. Sony's have more or less focused on independent devs whom they've already worked with closely for years, or upstart dev teams. The only publisher out of them is Bungie and that one is grey territory because they only have a single IP tied to them.

I'd disagree and say ID is probably closer to MS than Bethesda was, but in the end it doesn't matter because Bethesda was the bread and butter of Zeni.

Without them Zenimax was bankrupt years ago.

The rest of your argument is useless, they had deals with Infinity Ward, so they should but infinity Ward, then they had deals with Sledgehammer, so they should but Slegehammerr. Then they had deals with .. ...

You see where this is going.

It's just easier to buy them as a package, because they have been making games as a package.

 

[Godot25]

I'm laughing but they probably would actually demand CoD on PS+ for free. They have other demands and arguments even more ridiculous.

Of course they would. I'm still to this day surprised that during Bethesda buyout Jimbo did not claimed that PlayStation is somehow entitled to have The Elder Scrolls VI by default. Just because...

 

[Kagey K]

Of course they would. I'm still to this day surprised that during Bethesda buyout Jimbo did not claimed that PlayStation is somehow entitled to have The Elder Scrolls VI by default. Just because...

I'm sure he did it just wasn't made public like this one.

I really enjoy watching this though. It's like watch an episode of maternity court where both parents complain they are poor for different reasons.

 

[SenjutsuSage]

It's not necessarily easy to create a self-sufficient development studio, let alone a financially viable publishing label, from the ground up in the market today, especially if your goal is to produce AAA games. Freely available talent of caliber is getting harder and harder to come by, and depending on your status in the industry working with other companies before going off to do your own thing, it can be very difficult to get the networking you need for things like distribution, advertising, loans etc.

If moving around means potentially needing to downsize your type of work, and your goal is to do larger & more ambitious projects, that can be a quick path to leaving the industry altogether. And purchases of companies like Microsoft in particular have focused on going after big 3P publishers. So if more companies & groups acquire more big 3P publishers, and most of them start to turn to shit under the new management, you may have a lot of talent who leave that theoretically could join up and start something new, but realistically they have a much higher chance of that new thing failing if they want it at the scale of the companies they have just left.



Sony's acquisitions outside of Bungie have focused on developers, not publishers, and more specifically developers they have had VERY long working relationships with and whom have done mostly exclusive content for Sony platforms already. Insomniac, Housemarque, Blue Point etc.

Either that, or brand new upstarts looking for a company to fund & support them, like Haven. And with the case of Bungie, they only own a single IP, Destiny. It's not like Zenimax or ABK where they own dozens upon dozens of IP, including some of the biggest IP in the market, have huge amounts of workforce WRT AAA development, and tons of tech resources also being acquired in the deals.



Just because you can do something doesn't always mean you should.



Whether MS buying ABK is ethical or not has never been my point of argument; I know that all things considered they're following the laws and any civil or human rights aren't being violated any more so than what ABK already had happening prior to the announcement of the deal.

I'm amazed we are still trying to pretend publishers are any different from Game Development Studios.

Publishers are groups of game studios with central leadership. What Sony does is no better than what Microsoft does no matter how people try their very best to rationalize why it's good when Sony does it, but bad when Microsoft does it.

The end result is all the same. Microsoft actually also has a VERY long working relationship with Activision and the Call of Duty franchise, especially Infinity Ward who launched COD on 360. Same goes for Bethesda and the Elder Scrolls franchise. Hell, even doom.

Do people really believe that an exclusive publishing deal with a game studio is the only way to establish a strong working partnership? You establish working relationships with third party publishers who release multi-platform games also.

That's like saying Sony doesn't have a long working relationship with Rockstar and Take Two, or with EA, Square Enix and Ubisoft just because Sony isn't publishing all their games as Playstation exclusives.

No more excuses. Microsoft and Sony both buy game studios. Multiple game studios is what a publisher is.

 

[GHG]

Can someone verify this? R reksveks

Mentioned it here:

It's also worth stating that Warren Buffet reduced his holdings in ATVI by 12% according to their last 13f.

Exact details (the last line visible in the image below):

https://13f.info/13f/000095012322012275/compare/000095012322009450

Things to note:

• Berkshire Hathaway's average hold time is 10+ years. This is reflected by their 13f history where most of their positions tend to only increase over time and/or have little to no change quarter to quarter.
• However this is not a traditional "buy and hold" investment for them, this is a return defined arbitrage play. The only reason to reduce your holdings in such a situation is to either derisk or deleverage (or a combination of both).
• This information is only correct up until the end of Q3. Their reaction to the CMA's current stance is reflected in this but the next 13f report is where it will get interesting as that will also reflect their reactions to the latest information coming out of the EU and FTC (the latter being rumoured for now).

----

The existence of Nintendo and Geforce Now obliterates all Sony's arguments.

Ironic. Microsoft's treatment of GeForce now will be one of the reasons why regulators are giving this deal a closer look.

 

[freefornow]

Berkshire Hathaway's average hold time is 10+ years.

If they bought the shares in November 26 2012, they paid US$11.46.

Spoiler

I have no idea what size their portfolio of Acti shares was in 2012.

Selling 8 million at Fridays close of US$73.47 seems like a good way to take some gains and use those funds to increase your stake in other areas of your portfolio. Maybe that paid for their increase of 12% Occidental Pete Corp and 2% Chevron Corp.

Makin hay while the sun shines.

 

[Godot25]

I'm sure he did it just wasn't made public like this one.

I really enjoy watching this though. It's like watch an episode of maternity court where both parents complain they are poor for different reasons.

Yeah. But funniest thing was that Sony claimed that if Microsoft will get ActiBlizz they will up price of consoles and games. That was a real wtf? moment

 

[GHG]

If they bought the shares in November 26 2012, they paid US$11.46.

Spoiler

I have no idea what size their portfolio of Acti shares was in 2012.

Selling 8 million at Fridays close of US$73.47 seems like a good way to take some gains and use those funds to increase your stake in other areas of your portfolio. Maybe that paid for their increase of 12% Occidental Pete Corp and 2% Chevron Corp.

Makin hay while the sun shines.

They didn't though, They purchased them in Q4 2021:

In the fourth quarter of 2021, Berkshire first purchased about $1 billion worth of Activision Blizzard stock, in a bet the company was undervalued.

Buffett has said Berkshire “had no prior knowledge” of Microsoft’s plan to buy the company when Berkshire made its initial investment.

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/04/30/buf...-blizzard-shares-in-merger-arbitrage-bet.html

This is not something they intend on holding for their usual period of time. I explained this in my very next bullet point.

 

[Three]

I'm amazed we are still trying to pretend publishers are any different from Game Development Studios.

Because they are, not just in terms of size but operation. If you buy Playground Games who you were funding to make games you publish, nobody will bat an eye. If you buy a development studio like Insomniac or Nixxes who you were funding to make games you publish it's a little different to buying Activison who largely publish their own games and own massive IPs.

Publishers are groups of game studios with central leadership. What Sony does is no better than what Microsoft does no matter how people try their very best to rationalize why it's good when Sony does it, but bad when Microsoft does it.

The end result is all the same.

If you say so but it's really not most of the time. The fact people like you continue to pretend it's the same is frankly what's weird.

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

No more excuses. Microsoft and Sony both buy game studios. Multiple game studios is what a publisher is.

Yeah, there’s a bit of a difference in buying nearly $100B worth of game studios meanwhile your competitor’s highest acquisition ain’t even 5% of that collective haul that MS has been engaged in the last few years

 

[SenjutsuSage]

Because they are, not just in terms of size but operation. If you buy Playground Games who you were funding to make games you publish, nobody will bat an eye. If you buy a development studio like Insomniac or Nixxes who you were funding to make games you publish it's a little different to buying Activison who largely publish their own games and own massive IPs.



If you say so but it's really not most of the time. The fact people like you continue to pretend it's the same is frankly what's weird.

What's weird is you and others acting as if your blatantly hypocritical view of the two companies buying game development studios has anything at all to do with logic and reasoning rather than just pure console wars.

Some people just enjoy it when their favorite company does the buying. But this thread isn't going anywhere so I'll be back May/June next year.

 

[Three]

What's weird is you and others acting as if your blatantly hypocritical view of the two companies buying game development studios has anything at all to do with logic and reasoning rather than just pure console wars.

Some people just enjoy it when their favorite company does the buying. But this thread isn't going anywhere so I'll be back May/June next year.

There is logic and reasoning. It's you who seems to think that MS buying playground games or Sony buying Nixxes or Insomniac has "the same end result" as say buying Activison Blizzard. The purpose isn't anywhere near the same. It's absurd what you're suggesting but you do you.

 

[Banjo64]

I'll be back May/June next year.

 

[GHG]

No way he returns to this thread if the outcome isn't what he needs.

 

[feynoob]

Ironic. Microsoft's treatment of GeForce now will be one of the reasons why regulators are giving this deal a closer look.

I dont think that would be a big issue for them. So far, they said that xcloud is loss net for them, as the service doesn't make money for them, and they don't get the cost of using it on Azure.

FPs don't work very well on the service too. They showed that using fortnite as an example.

 

[feynoob]

What's weird is you and others acting as if your blatantly hypocritical view of the two companies buying game development studios has anything at all to do with logic and reasoning rather than just pure console wars.

Some people just enjoy it when their favorite company does the buying. But this thread isn't going anywhere so I'll be back May/June next year.

It takes special skills to downplay this purchase that much. And that is called console wars to the max.
That is no logic or reasoning. Especially when you have stake in this purchase.

 

[The_Mike]

Xbox camps vs PS camps.

Do we really need to do this shit until June?

You are fooling yourself if you believe in ends in June.

People will just find other crap to fight on.

Why would you be shocked if it released on Xbox?

Added as context from later post below:

I'm sorry, my post were pretty poor and was actually ashamed of the comment so I decided I wanted to add context to it.

But simply, because Sony owns them now.
Given how angry Sony are money hatting everything, and become furious over the acquisition, I just don't see why Sony would keep destiny 3 or whatever Bungie releases being released on Xbox.

Which companies have Sony bought, that didn't turn console exclusive after the acquisition?

Microsoft has a longer record on keeping games multi platform compared to Sony.

My poor post was just to show that you might be blinded.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

So basically you want either more mass consolidation or platforms to intentionally cripple themselves. No middle option where a platform can secure exclusive content while devs and pubs remain independent and free to be as flexible as needed?

Uh, cool I guess :/

Naw he has money invested in this deal like Sage. He's just desperate

 

[Pelta88]

The end result is all the same. Microsoft actually also has a VERY long working relationship with Activision and the Call of Duty franchise, especially Infinity Ward who launched COD on 360.

What you're trying to suggest here doesn't have any significance to the acquisition.

ATVI has zero loyalty and the working relationship meant nothing to ATVI when sales of COD started to go south on the XBOX platform. I'm sure you remember the rumours of ATVI looking to get out of their marketing arrangements with XBOX a couple of years before they were able to. The moment they could sign with PS, they did.

They came out with PR calling PS "The New Home" of Call Of Duty. Loyalty to XBOX and their long standing relationship went out of the proverbial window when the player base/ regions became lopsided in favour of PS. ATVI is only loyal to their share price. Which is why Microsoft paying $95 per share ($25 above asking) means they're willing to switch again. Despite breaking franchise records on PS and calling that platform "home."

 

[jumpship]

You are fooling yourself if you believe in ends in June.

People will just find other crap to fight on.

You already left a laughing emoji then followed with this lazy post.

I’ll assume you followed the context of the question you’re mocking.

So I’ll put it to you instead.

Can you give a straight answer why you’d be shocked if the next Bungie game released on Xbox?

 

[The_Mike]

You already left a laughing emoji then followed with this lazy post.

I’ll assume you followed the context of the question you’re mocking.

So I’ll put it to you instead.

Can you give a straight answer why you’d be shocked if the next Bungie game released on Xbox?

I'm sorry, my post were pretty poor and was actually ashamed of the comment so I decided I wanted to add context to it.

But simply, because Sony owns them now.
Given how angry Sony are money hatting everything, and become furious over the acquisition, I just don't see why Sony would keep destiny 3 or whatever Bungie releases being released on Xbox.

Which companies have Sony bought, that didn't turn console exclusive after the acquisition?

Microsoft has a longer record on keeping games multi platform compared to Sony.

My poor post was just to show that you might be blinded.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

I'm sorry, my post were pretty poor and was actually ashamed of the comment so I decided I wanted to add context to it.

But simply, because Sony owns them now.
Given how angry Sony are money hatting everything, and become furious over the acquisition, I just don't see why Sony would keep destiny 3 or whatever Bungie releases being released on Xbox.

Which companies have Sony bought, that didn't turn console exclusive after the acquisition?

Microsoft has a longer record on keeping games multi platform compared to Sony.

My poor post was just to show that you might be blinded.

Destiny 3 should assuming they actually have continuinity and don't just do another complete reset like they did with 2 (don't think they'll be a third one anyway)

I think Matter will be too since (i'm assuming) that's the NetEase game who put $100 million into it. Depends on who's publishing it

Outside of those though yeah best to assume they'll be exclusive.

 

[GHG]

I dont think that would be a big issue for them. So far, they said that xcloud is loss net for them, as the service doesn't make money for them, and they don't get the cost of using it on Azure.

FPs don't work very well on the service too. They showed that using fortnite as an example.

What I mean is them being one of the few publishers that blocks their titles from geforce now.

 

[feynoob]

What I mean is them being one of the few publishers that blocks their titles from geforce now.

GeForce had the same before that. It wasn't just Activision. Several other games were removed from the service.

It’s been a shaky roll out for Nvidia GeForce Now, with numerous publishers pulling their games from the service since it moved from beta in February 2020.

CONTENTS
Activision Blizzard
Bethesda
2K Games and Rockstar Games
Square Enix
Capcom
Other publishers

Nvidia GeForce Now: All The Publishers Moving Off The Service | Digital Trends

Nvidia GeForce Now is quickly losing access to games from several major publishers. These publishers have all removed games from the streaming service so far.

www.google.com

 

[GHG]

GeForce had the same before that. It wasn't just Activision. Several other games were removed from the service.

http://[URL][URL][URL][URL][URL]htt...lishers-games-removed-nvidia-geforce-now/?amp

[/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL]

You're not following. I'm talking about Microsoft’s game studios games not being allowed on GeForce now. So that means there is no chance anything changes regarding activision's games and the service should the acquisition go through. There is a question as to whether it is Nvidia or Stadia who made the complaint to the CMA regarding an agreement that was in place with Bethesda for future titles being allowed on a streaming platform (only for that to be reversed after the acquisition).

Microsoft claim that they are all about providing as many options as possible for gamers but yet owners of their games on PC are not allowed to have the option of using geforce now instead of Xcloud as a cloud streaming solution. They've also claimed to regulators that none of their practices result in restrictions for any of their competitors in the cloud gaming space, this rings hollow because of the situation with GeForce Now.

They could even say that owners of their games on Steam (and only on Steam) are free to use geforce now to stream their games, but they won't, they would rather attempt to push people towards xcloud. When they say "options", what they really mean is "anything within our ecosystem".

 

[Badlucktroll]

My hunch is that the worst case scenario will happen. the FTC will block the deal and the government will sue and investigate Microsoft for even trying.

 

[feynoob]

You're not following. I'm talking about Microsoft’s game studios games not being allowed on GeForce now. So that means there is no chance anything changes regarding activision's games and the service should the acquisition go through. There is a question as to whether it is Nvidia or Stadia who made the complaint to the CMA regarding an agreement that was in place with Bethesda for future titles being allowed on a streaming platform (only for that to be reversed after the acquisition).

Microsoft claim that they are all about providing as many options as possible for gamers but yet owners of their games on PC are not allowed to have the option of using geforce now instead of Xcloud as a cloud streaming solution. They've also claimed to regulators that none of their practices result in restrictions for any of their competitors in the cloud gaming space, this rings hollow because of the situation with GeForce Now.

They cloud even say that owners of their games on Steam (and only on Steam) are free to use geforce now to stream their games, but they won't, they would rather attempt to push people towards xcloud. When they say "options", what they really mean is "anything within our ecosystem".

Geforce is a competitor to xcloud, just like how psnow is a competitor to xcloud.
MS is doing the same thing as those publishers. Because they aren't getting the benefits from geforce service

Activision wanted a commercial agreement before the games could be available on a paid service

Geforce is getting money by using other publishers products on their service. That is their entire business model. Publishers need their cut, if geforce wants their games on their system.
Geforce business might make sense for consumers but not for other companies.

You can argue whether it's right or not. But no company is willing to allow other companies to profit from their products.

 

[feynoob]

Idas info about gamepass from gamepass.

Regarding the inclusion of Gamepass on Playstation or COD on PS Now, it's funny that MS says this to the CMA:

Sony and Nintendo could allow access to Gamepass via browser but they don't want to (page 68)

Gamers can access content via the web browser on their console – if their console provider allows them to: Microsoft allows other content services to be accessed on Xbox consoles via the web browser on the console (e.g., Luna, GeForce Now and Stadia can be accessed via Xbox consoles). Other console providers would have the option to do the same and allow gamers using their consoles to access Game Pass through the console browser. In that scenario, gamers would be able to access content which is exclusive to Game Pass without the need to purchase a new Xbox console. From a technical perspective, a gamer on any platform can access Game Pass, as long as the platform supports a modern implementation of a chromium-based browser and does not block the site. Game Pass is available via the browsers on increasing range of other devices, including Valve's Steam Deck, Razer and Logitech handheld gaming devices, the Meta Quest platform, new Samsung smart TVs, and Google Chromebooks. Sony and Nintendo do not currently allow gamers on their platforms to access Game Pass or other gaming services via the browsers on their consoles – but could easily do so.

And Sony answers with this:

Microsoft doesn't allow PlayStation Plus on Xbox (page 14)

Third, Microsoft argues that demand for multi-game subscription services would not tip towards Game Pass because Microsoft would also make Game Pass available on PlayStation(Microsoft,para.1.3(g)). Butthewideravailabilityoftheleadingprovider (Game Pass), now endowed with exclusive irreplaceable content, and protected by direct and indirect network effects, would makes it harder – not easier – for rival multi-game subscription services to compete. Microsoft's stance that Game Pass availability on PlayStation would be a panacea for the harm from this Transaction rings particularly hollow given that Microsoft does not permit PlayStation Plus to be available on Xbox.

 

[feynoob]

Part 2

In fact, one argument from MS that I liked about subscription services is that it's hard to foreclose other services (PS+ or Nintendo) when those platforms don't offer Gamepass. In other words, Gamepass, PS Plus or Nintendo Online are not directly competing right now because they are only available on the corresponding device:

Game Pass cannot foreclose services available on platforms that do not offer Game Pass (page 83)

A fundamental flaw in Theory of Harm 2 is that it considers multi-game subscription services as an alternative platform available across devices that compete directly with one another for users. This is factually incorrect.

Game Pass is currently available exclusively on Xbox and Windows PC. On Xbox, Game Pass is an alternative payment model for a smaller set of the same games that are featured already to buy on the console. The Game Pass catalogue is offered for a lower price than the collective price of games it contains and offers games under a temporary entitlement as opposed to a "perpetual purchase" – i.e., gamers have access to games as they are subscribers and do not make a permanent purchase.

At the same time, a number of other subscription services are available for gamers to access beyond Microsoft's platforms. The largest subscription service on consoles, PS+, and the equivalent Nintendo service, Nintendo Switch Online, are only available on Sony and Nintendo's respective consoles (and in the case of PS+, on PC via streaming). Any hypothetical foreclosure concerns could relate only to Xbox, as Game Pass is not available on PlayStation or Nintendo. It is therefore simply wrong to postulate that Game Pass could foreclose other subscription services when these are available on platforms that are more than double the size of Xbox's user base.

Besides, Microsoft welcomes additional subscription services on the Xbox. EA Play is available on Xbox – and can be purchased either as part of the Xbox Game Pass Ultimate subscription or on a standalone basis. EA Play is also available on PlayStation. Microsoft is also working to bring a new multi-game Ubisoft offering to the Xbox in coming months. The expectation that Microsoft would have the incentive to foreclose rival subscription services is entirely at odds with the fact that Microsoft is working to foster entry on console of one of these services.

Anyway, from both responses I think that MS is more willing to put Gamepass on Playstation than the other way around.

 

[MasterCornholio]

Part 2

Game Pass cannot foreclose services available on platforms that do not offer Game Pass (page 83)

A fundamental flaw in Theory of Harm 2 is that it considers multi-game subscription services as an alternative platform available across devices that compete directly with one another for users. This is factually incorrect.

Game Pass is currently available exclusively on Xbox and Windows PC. On Xbox, Game Pass is an alternative payment model for a smaller set of the same games that are featured already to buy on the console. The Game Pass catalogue is offered for a lower price than the collective price of games it contains and offers games under a temporary entitlement as opposed to a "perpetual purchase" – i.e., gamers have access to games as they are subscribers and do not make a permanent purchase.

At the same time, a number of other subscription services are available for gamers to access beyond Microsoft's platforms. The largest subscription service on consoles, PS+, and the equivalent Nintendo service, Nintendo Switch Online, are only available on Sony and Nintendo's respective consoles (and in the case of PS+, on PC via streaming). Any hypothetical foreclosure concerns could relate only to Xbox, as Game Pass is not available on PlayStation or Nintendo. It is therefore simply wrong to postulate that Game Pass could foreclose other subscription services when these are available on platforms that are more than double the size of Xbox's user base.

Besides, Microsoft welcomes additional subscription services on the Xbox. EA Play is available on Xbox – and can be purchased either as part of the Xbox Game Pass Ultimate subscription or on a standalone basis. EA Play is also available on PlayStation. Microsoft is also working to bring a new multi-game Ubisoft offering to the Xbox in coming months. The expectation that Microsoft would have the incentive to foreclose rival subscription services is entirely at odds with the fact that Microsoft is working to foster entry on console of one of these services.

Microsoft should just add their games to PlayStation Plus then. Why does it have to be gamepass?