Thirty7ven
Banned
It’s poison and the data backs it up.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Microsoft / Activision Deal Approval Watch |OT| (MS/ABK close)
- Status
It’s poison and the data backs it up.
Team Andromeda
Member
The EU can do one
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
It graduated from Trojan horse to poison.
Thirty7ven
Banned
"Data backs it up"
(also did not provide any data to back it up)
Read Sony’s cma report, it’s all there.
Also let me just say most of you on Spencer’s nuts weren’t even willing to conceive the idea that regulators might have problems with this deal, or that MS would have to raise their offer. Y’all were singing COD exclusives as soon as 24 and now you acting like experts?
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
ChorizoPicozo
Member
Oh the irony.Read Sony’s cma report, it’s all there.
Also let me just say most of you on Spencer’s nuts weren’t even willing to conceive the idea that regulators might have problems with this deal, or that MS would have to raise their offer. Y’all were singing COD exclusives as soon as 24 and now you acting like experts?
Balducci30
Member
Yeah that’s what I’m saying though is like either way it affects the actual function of how they build their physical product though right? Like they’ll be forced into making a choice on either licensing or reworking the way they build it, or going to a different company in order to just get the physical product out the door? Vs software of which there is technically no choice that is necessary to make, like you’re not required to even come up with a cod-type replacement to get a console out the door and sold you could not even offer an online fps and it would still be product you could sell
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
"Never trust a big butt and a smile."
You mean same report, that is claiming that if Microsoft gets Activision Blizzard they will raise prices of consoles and games?Read Sony’s cma report, it’s all there.
Also let me just say most of you on Spencer’s nuts weren’t even willing to conceive the idea that regulators might have problems with this deal, or that MS would have to raise their offer. Y’all were singing COD exclusives as soon as 24 and now you acting like experts?
Yup. I'm sure I will find stuff full of objectivity there and not data taken out of context to prove "their point of view"
I mean. I'm certainly not "everybody" so I can't talk for other people, but I did not expected Call of Duty even touching exclusivity under Microsoft. IP is just way too big for that. I always thought that Microsoft will "Minecraft" Call of Duty. Nothing else makes sense.
But on the other hand, I also did not expect Sony to went "full retard" over this deal. And yet, here we are.
Last edited:
Thirty7ven
Banned
Maybe you don’t know what irony means.
ChorizoPicozo
Member
Thirty7ven
Banned
Topher
Gold Member
Are you thinking of EA?
DarkMage619
$MSFT
You accusing someone of arguing in bad faith is pretty funny but OK. The CMA focuses almost entirely on Sony even over the concerns of consumers. Cloud gaming, subscriptions, are all the same market and Sony has been in them longer than MS has. There is no harm if a competitor provides a better product. Sony absolutely can continue to improve their offerings if they wanted to.
I was unaware Nvidia didn't design chips and have an outsized roles in GPU design that could leverage an ARMs patents. It is complete nonsense to compare their role in video cards and designs and MS in video games. There were actual concerns of a monopoly with Nvidia. No such concern with MS in gaming but of course you know that and will continue to make the false equivalency regardless.
MS isn't third in 'something' they are third in video games and this acquisition is about a video games. MS has already promised Sony they will continue to get CoD and it appears Switch will be getting it too. None of this is degrading competition and you can't point to a single thing MS has done in gaming that has degraded competition. Again the Nvidia argument is nonsense seeing how the entire industry spoke out against it where in this case Sony specifically is the main one arguing that console prices could go up and they could not compete without CoD.
The Nvidia ARM deal had clear negative repercussions to the chip industry. None of that is true with the Activision /MS acquisition. It is a completely false equivalency.
I don't see how anyone can take Sony's arguments seriously. They are just tossing out anything to see if it sticks. I must admit the idea of console prices going up scares me.
bitbydeath
Member
That’s a really bad comparison.Lolyou still carrying on with this take? Sony literally had spider man and mlb as an exclusive last generation. Activision was also the only maker of Spider-Man games for everyone. When it went exclusive it sold like 35 million plus on PlayStation yet Microsoft who didn’t have that or a baseball game continued to exist. Even with Sony outselling them almost 3:1 they continue to exist. Sony losing cod will also continue to exist and they’ll never be in that 3:1 hole like Microsoft regardless if they have or don’t have call of duty. There would have been literally no competition if nvidia bought arm who designs Mobile chips for literally everyone that’s a different scale then one game title don’t be facetious.
Do you feel the same about MachineGames making Indiana Jones?
Depends. There are architectural licences and canned SoC licenses.
Apple for example get an architectural license and design their own SoC whereas most others get a canned design. You can licence other SoC designs like RISC-V but then you would have to make sure your software (OS) has support for it too. Android does for example. The difficulty would depend on what your product is and whether you decided to switch because of nvidia's possible price increases.
Last edited:
gothmog
Gold Member
Lol. Yeah fixed it. I still think they would be fine putting out both COD and Warzone alone.
Crispy Gamer
Member
Not to mention Microsoft passed on Spider-Man.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Crispy Gamer
Member
They have more than enough with the Bethesda purchase to compete already why do people act as if Microsoft don't have excellent studios...
Topher
Gold Member
Goes beyond Sony though. You have a significant number of gamers on the PlayStation platform that could very well be heavily impacted by this deal. That's not about protecting Sony. That's about consumers. Microsoft knows this and that's why Microsoft was making calls to Sony the minute this deal was announced.
Warablo
Member
They were making calls because they wanted this deal to close fast and not drag out only for it to still close while keeping Microsoft and Activision in limbo.
Any company purchasing something is about competition. If that wasn't allowed then every deal would be blocked.
Topher
Gold Member
No, Microsoft said from the very beginning that they expected this deal to close in 2023.
Acquiring a company can just as easily be about removing competition. Starfield, for example, will not have competition from PlayStation.
Last edited:
gothmog
Gold Member
Nadella doing the look at me I'm the captain now to Jim must have been fun.
One of the important things here is that the FTC at least is on record saying that they want to reign in big tech from doing things that preemptively harm competition. Limits to acquisition seems to be part of that concern and it just a matter of if people think they have already crossed the line.
ReBurn
Gold Member
I don't know that it has no bearing at all to regulators. How do you know that? Has something been released to confirm that?
I think it's Microsoft trying to show that they are willing to compromise to make this deal happen. They're willing to commit to keeping Call of Duty on other platforms, they're willing to allow unionization attempts at Activision to continue without interference, etc. The more hurdles they can clear before regulatory hearings start the better.
When Microsoft goes into main party hearings with the CMA, which should be in December according to the provisional timeline, they will want to be able show they're prepared to cooperate to address Phase 1 TOH. They're going to want to show that they attempted to work with parties who are impacted by the merger and how their attempts were received. They're trying to publicly show that Sony is just being unreasonable. I don't know whether it will work, but it's clear that's part of the strategy.
Almost as funny as you saying it. The CMAs concerns are the consumers, any other conclusion is just your own biases. Their focus was on all concerns in the preliminary phase 1 stage and Sony being one of the very few competitors meant those concerns matched and would just be investigated.
You're really funny because you're throwing shit at the wall. You think the regulators concerns were in the video card market with the ARM acquisition?
In a market where nvidia's competitor AMD has a bigger SoC share after their ATI acquisition?
There were actually zero mentions of NVIDIA having a monopoly in the CMA concerns for the ARM acquisition . Not once was there mention of a video card monopoly because the CMA don't even consider that sector which ARM doesn't contribute to a monopoly. The only mention of monopoly by the CMA was a concern that the US country would have a monopoly on ISAs if a US company bought ARM.
"Video games" isn't the market. Just as 'chips' isn't the market. You want to argue that MS is third in console sales, fine. You want to argue it's third in multigame subscriptions, you'd be wrong, if you want to argue it's third in cloud gaming you would be wrong. You define it as 'video games' for MS but very specifically 'video cards' for nvidia even though ARM isn't about video cards at all and intel and AMD exist.
I can but then I'd end up with you making not very well thought out responses about why you think MS is the best and can do no wrong.
You don't even know who spoke out, a lot stayed anonymous in cloud and subscriptions but again I'm sure Sony being one of the very few competitors in the console space makes them the main one by default.
What a well thought out argument. Based on what, your feelings?
Last edited:
Topher
Gold Member
I wonder what shade of white Jim Ryan turned when he got the call.
But yeah, I agree. Regulators are looking deeper than ever into these big tech mergers. I was reading somewhere that this deal my be a litmus test for other companies to figure out how far they can go.
Orbital2060
Member
Regulators should be occupied with regulatibg matters that actually matter for the public - like how one person can buy a newspaper or social media portal; search engines, browser tech, general use software; stuff that affects peoples everyday lives. And not what console a particular videogame appears, this is none of their damn business.
Braag
Member
I feel like day after day this deal seems less likely to go through. Sony is making it seem like losing COD means going bankrupt and it's actually going through.
I highly doubt MS will just stop trying to acquire large publishers if this deal doesn't go through. They clearly have money to burn and for some reason I feel like they will go after 2K and GTA if this fails... or they might gobble up bunch of smaller stuff like Ubisoft and whatnot.
I highly doubt MS will just stop trying to acquire large publishers if this deal doesn't go through. They clearly have money to burn and for some reason I feel like they will go after 2K and GTA if this fails... or they might gobble up bunch of smaller stuff like Ubisoft and whatnot.
Last edited:
feynoob
Banned
FTC staff recommendation Activision sale to Microsoft expected by mid December - report
A staff recommendation by Federal Trade Commission on Microsofts (MSFT) planned $69 billion purchase of Activision (ATVI) is said to be expected by mid December.The FTC is then expected...
seekingalpha.com
ChorizoPicozo
Member
C'mon Sony I know you can convince the regulators allowing this acquisition would be a National Security threat.
feynoob
Banned
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
FTC staff recommendation Activision sale to Microsoft expected by mid December - report
A staff recommendation by Federal Trade Commission on Microsofts (MSFT) planned $69 billion purchase of Activision (ATVI) is said to be expected by mid December.The FTC is then expected...
Come on Amtrack Joe. Let's get it done.
DarkMage619
$MSFT
The multiple mentions of Sony specifically, 57 times I believe, more so than consumers shows their primary concern is the current market leader. It was not my bias that had them mention Sony that many times. It was not my bias that had an EU regulator talking about keeping CoD on 'his PlayStation'. It was not my bias that tried to define Nintendo as a non console gaming competitor. We want to believe this is a totally fair and impartial process but the evidence isn't looking that way currently.
I think that ARM who has a multitude of patents on chip design could actually be seen as a real input to a chip design that should not be in the hands of a single competing chip company. Activision does not provide a CoD as an input to video game development. The entire premise is absurd but again being worried about console prices going up because of MS acquisitions is equally absurd.
How video games are accessed is the market. The means can be through console, PC, mobile, cloud, and subscriptions. How one pays for access is not separate markets. MS is clearly third in console sales. They appear third in subscriptions based on the latest PS+ numbers which has PlayStation at 45 million vs 30+ Nintendo and 29 (Sony's numbers) or 25 million MS's numbers. Cloud gaming would be a subset of the 29/25 million number because only Game pass ultimate users gets that feature. Regardless MS is not leading those metrics either. PC? MS again is not leading. Mobile? MS is nonexistent. MS is clearly not a threat to competition in video games and anyone who is being honest knows this.
To argue that Nvidia having sole control over ARMs patents not putting them in a monopolistic anti-competitve position for chip design is just as unbelievable as MS owning Activision keeps PlayStation from competing in video games. Chip patents are a real input to chip design, a game is not an input to game creation. The whole argument is not worth the discussion.
You can't because you'd look as ridiculous as Sony trying to convince regulators they are looking out for consumers and not their own business interests and market position. CoD is not an input to Sony's ability to make games. It's totally OK to acknowledge their arguments are weak you can still be a fan.
Since you like to claim the Nvidia ARM acquisition is so similar you can compare and contrast the companies that spoke out against that deal vs this one. It was obvious there were anti-trust issues with the ARM deal that are clearly absent here but that would require an honest take and has been lacking in your comparison. Nintendo is one of the few competitors in this space. Surely you can provide a comment from them indicating how this transaction hurts their business? There are only three consoles after all. Interestingly enough Nintendo will gain from the acquisition not lose. Shocking.
Reality is what it is based on. Feelings are the only way someone can conclude that MS owning Activision could cause game and console prices to rise. Feelings are making you think Nvidia /ARM is similar to MS/ Activision in any meaningful way. The reality is that out of the regulatory bodies that have actually reached a final conclusion on this acquisition NONE have come out opposing the deal. I suppose they can also tell there is nothing illegal here. My feelings are quite powerful indeed.
Platinumstorm
Member
I am not a Microsoft hater, but I've never felt compelled to buy an Xbox of any generation. The only game I've been remotely interested in was Gears of War, but that was mostly because of their excellent Mad World commercial.
I'm never terribly enticed by subscriptions to games. I'd rather buy a title I want to have for the long haul. I have PS+, but have played 1 ps+ game in the years it has existed.
Topher
Gold Member
FTC staff recommendation Activision sale to Microsoft expected by mid December - report
A staff recommendation by Federal Trade Commission on Microsofts (MSFT) planned $69 billion purchase of Activision (ATVI) is said to be expected by mid December.The FTC is then expected...
So much for the theory that Microsoft is done talking to Sony and vice versa. Every day seems to be a constant reminder that none of us know what the hell we are talking about.
James Sawyer Ford
Member
Hopefully Jim can negotiate a PS5 Starfield port after 6-12 months along with Day 1 CoD forever, plus any CoD that goes on GP can be negotiated on PS plus
Topher
Gold Member
bentanchorbolt
Banned
I said that earlier ITT and people were upset about this fact.
PaintTinJr
Member
I've got no take either way on GoW sales - weird you'd think I had any view on them from what I posted -, but network stress testing is a thing, and something I would expect Xbox/Microsoft to be very competent at, so would expect at least 100k - 500k accounts in pre-release for testing given the scale of the game, to avoid the embarrassment and Drive Club damage it could do to the IP if not properly simulated to take the load of many connections, even more so with it being on game pass making the initial numbers potentially in the millions just trying out the online feature.Assuming you are serious here. Should we make up the number of GoW sales that are from scalpers and resellers? Those don't indicate real purchase numbers either
gothmog
Gold Member
https://www.windowscentral.com/gami...might-have-worked-out-a-deal-for-call-of-duty
Seems like a rumor more than anything.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Windows central is referencing the same Seeking Alpha article fey quoted tho.
Topher
Gold Member
Report: Microsoft and Sony might have worked out a deal for Call of Duty
Except that isn't what Seeking Alpha said at all. It said: "Microsoft is said to be working to give assurances to Sony (SONY) that it will allow Activision's games to be played on the PlayStation console, and held meetings to discuss terms with Sony over the weekend."
Doesn't even specify "Call of Duty". As far as these guys know these guys are light years from a deal. Windows Central becoming Clickbait Central.
gothmog
Gold Member
Right. Anyone have Dealreporter access?
Topher
Gold Member
Apparently Dealreporter is citing anonymous sources so don't think it matters.
Ozzy Onya A2Z
Member
Corporate world is weird. You can have departments within a company that flatly refuse to work with their competition and then you have another department where staffers across different companies get along great or used to work with each other previously etc. It creates this weird to and fro that varies wildly. I've seen corporates 100% rule out working with a partner only for staff or depts to simultaneously or subvert something with said partner in the same day unbeknownst to internal conflicts etc. It's batshit crazy.
Corporates and guidelines can change in an instant anyhow.
I never expected COD to go exclusive, why would it? Minecraft didn't. Halo opened up. Sea of Theives/Forza etc on PC and Xbox. It really isn't what they're about anymore, the fans, fanbois, publishers, media and all have some catching up to do. Azure doesn't give a shit if you want windows or linux, same goes for Xbox.
Hopefully MS can negotiate a XSX port of God of War: Ragnarok .........nah they can keep that shit.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked