F0rneus
Tears in the rain
I see what you are doing here now. Let's move on.
-
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
Methos#1975
Member
Ultimately I think it's in MS best interest to just pull out of the hardware game and just make gamepass the true Netflix of gaming and push it on every platform possible. Let's be honest, if not competing hardware wise, gamepass would be on the PS already.
feynoob
Gold Member
Which is terrible for both ManU and Arsenal.
We had to terminate Aubameyang contract, While ManU had to sell their deadwood for cheap.
Panajev2001a
GAF's Pleasant Genius
Ok, so we are still trying to slalom your way out of that without replying? Fill your boots mate
.
FF:Enhanced_Reality
Member
Of course they are. Why allow a company who are of one of the biggest third party publishers join Microsoft when they already took Bethesda off the market, started making their games exclusive and have already stated that going forwards their titles may not be available on other platforms.
Especially when Sony are partly responsible for the original success of Crash Bandicoot and Spyro the Dragon. Everyone is so focused on Call of Duty that they're missing the bigger picture. It's not just A and Call of Duty they're buying but it's B, K and everything they own too.
I do not want consolidation to destroy this market because believe me I can see it. Nintendo and Sony could never afford to finance this deal, that's partly why I think it's unfair. I wouldn't actually want any deal to happen in the first place. It's like buying up all the land to stop your enemies doing it first. There's only so much land and compared to Microsoft, the yearly profit, earnings and value of Sony and Nintendo are a stone in the ocean.
Microsoft already monopolise certain industries. They're consistently in anti trust court. They aren't your friend, they aren't doing you a favour. They're a business trying to succeed by any means necessary. Yesterday it's Bethesda. Today is ABK. And then what is next Ubisoft? Embracer? 2K or or another major publisher tomorrow? It's not sustainable. Like game pass. It's not sustainable forever in it's current form without compromise and that could be the quality of the service, increasing subscribers or increasing the cost of the service. Their aim obviously is to increase subscribers. That's part of why this deal is happening.
This has so many effects outside of the little bubble people are focused on between Call of Duty and Microsoft that they miss everything else. Yes, Sony make a great deal of money from that franchise, Sony have also put a great deal of money in that franchise because these agreements they have, like the one Microsoft had with CoD before Sony cost money. Microsoft want that money. It'll hurt their competitors business and be a huge boon for theirs. Allowing this deal to go through sets a presidence for the wider industry that could hurt the industry entirely. Just because a lot of these companies aren't taking up the picket signs and protesting in their offices doesn't mean they truly agree with it. That's just the nature of PR. Look at Google the two faced fucks. Said they have no issue with the ABK deal when they clearly do, said they didn't because they probably knew they were shutting Stadia down and they cited the Bethesda acquisition as a factor that moved them to closing the service down.
The only logical recourse I can see from there is Sony to acquire 2K and use GTA as a bargaining chip. But I'd rather these big publishers weren't acquired at all. I would rather Bethesda, Activision and Bungie were independent and Microsoft used the studios they've acquired for some time to develop some great franchises but they haven't even been given time to do that before these big deals have gone through.
Whatever happens, the truth is Activision's owners stands to make incredible amounts of money. They would be stupid to fight this deal. I'm under no illusion whatsoever that when this deal is concluded because it will conclude. Microsoft have the money and influence to make this happen, that I will inevitably have to end up buying games from franchises I love on other platforms because they won't be available on my preferred choice of platform that is my only and preferable way to play. I got bills and a family to feed. I can't afford another console and ecosystem.
Especially when Sony are partly responsible for the original success of Crash Bandicoot and Spyro the Dragon. Everyone is so focused on Call of Duty that they're missing the bigger picture. It's not just A and Call of Duty they're buying but it's B, K and everything they own too.
I do not want consolidation to destroy this market because believe me I can see it. Nintendo and Sony could never afford to finance this deal, that's partly why I think it's unfair. I wouldn't actually want any deal to happen in the first place. It's like buying up all the land to stop your enemies doing it first. There's only so much land and compared to Microsoft, the yearly profit, earnings and value of Sony and Nintendo are a stone in the ocean.
Microsoft already monopolise certain industries. They're consistently in anti trust court. They aren't your friend, they aren't doing you a favour. They're a business trying to succeed by any means necessary. Yesterday it's Bethesda. Today is ABK. And then what is next Ubisoft? Embracer? 2K or or another major publisher tomorrow? It's not sustainable. Like game pass. It's not sustainable forever in it's current form without compromise and that could be the quality of the service, increasing subscribers or increasing the cost of the service. Their aim obviously is to increase subscribers. That's part of why this deal is happening.
This has so many effects outside of the little bubble people are focused on between Call of Duty and Microsoft that they miss everything else. Yes, Sony make a great deal of money from that franchise, Sony have also put a great deal of money in that franchise because these agreements they have, like the one Microsoft had with CoD before Sony cost money. Microsoft want that money. It'll hurt their competitors business and be a huge boon for theirs. Allowing this deal to go through sets a presidence for the wider industry that could hurt the industry entirely. Just because a lot of these companies aren't taking up the picket signs and protesting in their offices doesn't mean they truly agree with it. That's just the nature of PR. Look at Google the two faced fucks. Said they have no issue with the ABK deal when they clearly do, said they didn't because they probably knew they were shutting Stadia down and they cited the Bethesda acquisition as a factor that moved them to closing the service down.
The only logical recourse I can see from there is Sony to acquire 2K and use GTA as a bargaining chip. But I'd rather these big publishers weren't acquired at all. I would rather Bethesda, Activision and Bungie were independent and Microsoft used the studios they've acquired for some time to develop some great franchises but they haven't even been given time to do that before these big deals have gone through.
Whatever happens, the truth is Activision's owners stands to make incredible amounts of money. They would be stupid to fight this deal. I'm under no illusion whatsoever that when this deal is concluded because it will conclude. Microsoft have the money and influence to make this happen, that I will inevitably have to end up buying games from franchises I love on other platforms because they won't be available on my preferred choice of platform that is my only and preferable way to play. I got bills and a family to feed. I can't afford another console and ecosystem.
Last edited:
Mibu no ookami
Member
VR and haptics are a big feature at the moment, but who knows what features will come in the future.
Imagine the XSX didn't have an SSD. Would Microsoft manipulating the load times on PS5 to match XSX be acceptable?
I think that flies in the face of competition and innovation and I think the dynamic nature of the industry precludes the CMA from agreeing to what they think is important right now. Cloud + subscription is already a major change for the industry. Games going digital was a huge change in the industry. Who would have foreseen digital storefronts and digital storefronts on consoles.
A game like CoD doesn't even exist on consoles without consoles including online gaming, which was another change. They wouldn't have digital storefronts if they didn't include hard drives. Those same digital storefronts have completely changed the business model.
Who is to say what that business model will look like in 5, 10, 15, 20 years and whether whatever behavioral remedy is applied today will settle the business models of tomorrow. That is why the CMA doesn't like behavioral remedies and this deal doesn't reach any of the elements where a structural remedy isn't cleaner and easier.
Banjo64
cumsessed
You don’t get to change the terms of engagement
you were saying Arsenal struggle to compete financially when they’re amongst the highest spenders in Europe over the last 5 seasons.
Hero of Spielberg
Gold Member
I reply to things that make senseOk, so we are still trying to slalom your way out of that without replying? Fill your boots mate
BlitzerRadic
Member
MS has a monopoly on desktop and laptop computer market. How are you a business genius and dont know this?
PaintTinJr
Member
How does console hardware become irrelevant now?
Games are nowhere close to reaching a level where the public can't be convinced by superior production content from one hardware gen to another.
Books, Music and Film/TV are all fine for subs as the dominant delivery method because the limits of the mediums have largely been reach decades ago and are now the technologies are just working on "mastering" the content to that standard cheaper. If we ignore the advent of cgi use in film since the Godzilla/SW Phantom Menace, film production standards were established on film that can be digitised to 4-8K masters. Games are worlds away from plateu-ing in production level because commodity console hardware continues to improve rapidly every gen, and even with hundreds of teraflop/s processing it will be a long time before memory/CPU/storage and game production will stop the market seeing a need for new hardware for new games. Limitless back-end Cloud processing doesn't drive production levels like a discrete console box, and doesn't sell consumers on new game/hardware hype the way a console launch can - with new controllers, etc, too.
No drama. Money still talks.
Last edited:
yurinka
Member
No 'bigger fish' is going to buy Sony. Sony is a very profitable market leader in a long multi year growth pattern with ambitious long term plan to grow in multiple areas. Sony won't want and won't need to sell, so won't sell.
Nintendo is even more profitable and have a shit ton of money. They have absolutely no reason to sell their company to their worst performing direct competitor.
If something, if Nintendo gets bored or fail hard in the next gen some day they could merge or make a deal with Disney because it's a company with similar values that would help them grow in several areas and would give them access to heavily grow in multiple new markets a ton of very appealing IPs to use them in gaming.
Last edited:
TheGodfather07
Member
No publisher wants to murder its own ip by being exclusive to xbox. That's why it's easier for sony to get the deals instead. If it was just money then Microsoft would always be able to get the deal ahead of sony. It's sonys marketshare and the strength of the their brand worldwide that gives them a huge advantage with 3rd party.
POKEYCLYDE
Member
This hypothetical future where Sony requires publishers to utilize extra features is wacky. That doesn't happen now and for good reason. There are games and publishers that don't use the adaptive triggers this gen, a VR compatability clause required to have your game published on the PS6 would be literal business suicide, worse than the cell processor in the PS3.
Parity in all likelihood would be "does it run as well as the Xbox version? Does it have all the same content?"
The only chance Microsoft has at getting behavioral remedies through is if they're ironclad. I doubt Microsoft would leave the door open for ambiguity which could be exploited or complained about. Sony might view a Call of Duty not utilizing adaptive triggers as inadequate, but the behavioral remedy doesn't have to be agreed upon by Sony. Parity in the regulators eyes is quite literally "as good, not worse than, the Xbox version".
Tldr: Parity in the eyes of the regulators would mean "can't be worse than the Xbox version"
Last edited:
Ar¢tos
Member
When this ends, regardless of who wins, this forum will be filled with drama, tantrums, meltdowns and account suicides!
It's going to be glorious!!
ToadMan
Member
If you read & comprehended what you posted you would know what you posted is not what you think.
But please go ahead and explain how your linked text will allow MS to overturn the CMA decision.
Fredrik
Member
Depends how deep their preliminary plans went that they have to scrap now, it’s not like Kotick is making plans by himself, all the suits were in on this and there is likely some grudge. And Playstation happened from crashed plans and a grudge so who knows what’ll happen.
I’d say a somewhat realistic scenario going by the other thread is that ABK is split up and MS buy everything except COD. No idea what would happen to Sony’s current ABK COD deal in that case, maybe they would have to sign a new deal with the new company at that point, maybe that door is closed, idk. We’ll just have to wait and see.
Thirty7ven
Banned
If MS goes ahead and divests Kotick gets his 400 million anyway. If MS backs away it will be business as usual, Kotick doesn’t own ABK and his job will be to continue providing value for the shareholders. If MS pays more for the marketing rights to COD than Sony or if Sony no longer pursues marketing rights, then sure MS will get marketing rights.
Only thing these people care about is mula.
Only thing these people care about is mula.
Skifi28
Gold Member
Sounds like a regular Monday to me.
Gavon West
Spread's Cheeks for Intrusive Ads
False.
TheThreadsThatBindUs
Member
Well, considering MS's argument to the CMA, it seems more like it's MS who is trying to sabotage its own deal.
intheinbetween
Member
No, they don’t, you have both macOS and Linux distros on desktop and laptops, and when it comes to servers you will find a high volume of Linux servers in all mid-sized and enterprise companies.
Ass of Can Whooping
Gold Member
They have to sign a new deal regardless of whether COD gets divested or the entire thing gets abandoned. If COD has to be sold, which in essence also means Activision, then they just sign that new deal with the buyer, or they do those negations while they're in the divestiture process and those contracts transfer with the rest of the package
The door isn't going to be closed lol. It's just a matter of whether MS wants to grab the marketing deal this time. And I just mean the marketing deal, not gamepass.
Last edited:
Mibu no ookami
Member
What I'm trying to explain to you all is there is no definition of parity.
"Can't be worse than the xbox version"
If the xbox version is on GamePass, parity would mean it has to be available to PS+. Okay, for how much? How is that determined at a fair market rate when Microsoft technically isn't paying for it?
Ignore Sony for a second. If Tencent creates a console, that's another version that Microsoft would have to support. What if the console is difficult to develop for and costly because it isn't built around PC architecture?
Tencent being excluded from CoD is as big a problem as Sony.
What happens when Google tries Cloud gaming again, and Apple and Amazon follow suit? That's another three versions of the game you have to make... and again at what fair market value rate?
What is the threshold that you have to support a product or service? Does that product or service fail to meet the threshold because it doesn't have access to CoD?
Again, focus on the fact that the simplest, most effective solution here is prohibition or divestiture.
Thirty7ven
Banned
I’m sure Nintendo is dying to let MS devalue their ecosystem to the point when their own customers stop buying their games because they demand them on Gamepass.
You’re on to something here, really aware and insightful.
Topher
Gold Member
If you don't think Xbox Series X and Xbox Series S are important products to Microsoft then we can just disagree on that. Microsoft is a diverse corporation. The fact that they are competing with Google and Amazon in some business segments doesn't mean they are not competing in others. You could be just as dismissive of Surface laptops. I don't get why though. Clearly there is money to be made in the console business and Microsoft has invested a significant amount of money in that business. So Microsoft is just as much in the 2001 business model as Sony is. Nothing you've said changes the fact that Microsoft is in direct competition with Sony.
Mibu no ookami
Member
I love how people are so new to situations and make the worst assumptions based on PR.
Companies ALWAYS say they're confident these deals will go through, it's like a cookie cutter response at this point.
Nvidia CEO Says Confident of Getting Regulators OK for Arm Deal
Nvidia Corp.’s Chief Executive Officer Jensen Huang said he is still confident regulators will green-light its $40 billion acquisition of SoftBank Group Corp.’s Arm Ltd., despite growing skepticism about the deal’s prospects.
www.bloomberg.com
Nvidia CEO Huang "very confident" Arm deal will be approved
The CEO of graphics specialist Nvidia, Jensen Huang ( pictured ), has said he is "very confident" that his company's potential acquisition of UK chip giant Arm will be given the nod. Speaking to G...
www.pcgamesinsider.biz
Ar¢tos
Member
Great contribution to the thread!
I feel much more enlighted already!
Last edited:
zomboden
Banned
Of course Sony is trying to "sabotage" the deal. Why would the sit idley while their competition buys a major third party publisher?
Anybody who thinks that somehow Activision isn't going to work with Sony anymore if they "win" and the deal is successfully "sabotaged" is living in fantasy land.
Anybody who thinks that somehow Activision isn't going to work with Sony anymore if they "win" and the deal is successfully "sabotaged" is living in fantasy land.
Kerotan
Member
I mean what does that say about MS having to buy entire publishers.
Gavon West
Spread's Cheeks for Intrusive Ads
Really? If they were so "supreme" why did they invest so heavy on a title they don't own instead of making their own FPS that could compete with CoD, Halo, and other super successful FPS in today's market? Why can't they offer day one games on PS+ when they've had their own subscription service much longer than Xbox? It's only been about 25ish years?? Genuine questions here...
Like, as the dominant market leader, one would think they'd have all the pieces needed to compete on all these fronts. Just offering another perspective.
Also, why don't they have their own cloud infrastructure after this long? They watched Microsoft and other companies build their from scratch - ground zero. They had to know years ago that cloud was going to be a big deal. At least a moderately big deal. They had at least a modicum of an idea that subscription services were going to be super successful, they started PS+ long ago, even before Xbox.
This isn't to rile up a fanboy war. It's just, again, offering another perspective to all this. I know GaF is heavily slanted "blue team" but hopefully you're all still willing to discuss different perspectives. If not...*shrugs*
ToadMan
Member
I think they can’t say anything right now because of the marketing or “optics” of this.
They probably are already swinging one way or the other - cancel the deal or continue with the various losses the regulators impose.
But either way, how to present this embarrassing situation going forward? Is a pull out worse than trying to hand wave the loss of what were expected to be market stomping IPs going exclusive …
Gavon West
Spread's Cheeks for Intrusive Ads
We try outchea!
I think what's discussed there is more to do with innovation and interoperability being affected. You can have parity with a mobile even but that doesn't mean you have done what's possible on other systems and the same for the mobile features.
COD has adaptive trigger support and haptics . Now what if for example xbox has some OS level feature that's unique, like voice commands or something. Would it be able to avoid adaptive trigger support in future CoDs, still maintaining parity and support the unique feature on xbox?
This is the point being made. It's about how COD will maintain parity and interoperability.
splattered
Member
Not really... Sony will never been able to afford to outbid Microsoft after this on anything that Microsoft knows about and would like to strike a deal on. They just showed the entire world they don't give two shits about what a third party partner wants, only what they want themselves. Activision WANTS to be purchased by Microsoft at this point and Sony is doing its best to screw them over regardless of the outcome of their relationship with Acti or even other publishers watching this whole thing go down. Idiotic move from Sony, they should have worked good faith deals with Microsoft to get as much content on their console as possible rather than trying to drag everyone through the mud wasting everyone's time and money. The deal may or may not go through, but it won't have a positive effect on the Playstation platform moving forward that's for sure.
vodka-bull
Member
Can someone please explain the situation for me in very simple, european (means I don't have any idea about neoliberal economy!) language? Because I really don't get it, if I want to buy some oranges, and there's a store which has oranges for sale, how can someone else, who has nothing to do with me or the store, interfere and prevent me buying the damn oranges? And why is it taking so long for Microsoft to buy the damn oranges?
Last edited:
ChorizoPicozo
Banned
I'm sorry, but I'm not sure what you're referring to with the scenario about buying oranges. Could you provide more context or clarify what situation you're asking about? The reference to "someone else" interfering and to Microsoft buying "the damn oranges" is unclear.
Unknown?
Member
Because if Sony buys Take Two and EA, I'm sure you'd say Microsoft could just build a better GTA and Fifa, right? Give me a break.
splattered
Member
Because Karen's son told her mommy that he wants those oranges, so she ran straight to the manager to demand that you aren't allowed to buy any oranges because she is more important than you. The end.
vodka-bull
Member
Microsoft has money. The owner of Activison wants that money. So he/she is selling the company to Microsoft. I thought that's basically the deal we're talking about.
Lucifers Beard
Member
Bobby Kottick is a terrible piece of shit that let some horrible stuff happen at Activision. Trusting anything this guy says is pretty stupid. He is only in it for himself and doesn’t care about the industry in any way shape or form.
I hope he treads bare foot in dog shit every day for the rest of his life.
I hope he treads bare foot in dog shit every day for the rest of his life.
ChorizoPicozo
Banned
Ah, I see! Yes, that's a simplified version of the situation. In the corporate world, companies can be bought and sold by other companies, usually for a large sum of money. In this case, you mentioned that Microsoft has money, and the owner of Activision (a video game company) wants that money, so they are in talks to sell the company to Microsoft. The process of a company being acquired by another company can be complex and take some time to finalize, which is why it may seem like it's taking a long time for Microsoft to buy Activision.
splattered
Member
When was the last time Microsoft flailed around and took Sony to court because they bought a developer? Sony picks up devs all the time. They just bought bungie and there are still a lot of Xbox players that enjoy Destiny. You know that if Sony were to go out and buy Square Enix or Embracer tomorrow Microsoft wouldn't say a word other than "congratulations!" ... Sony are acting like a bunch of cry babies over this whole thing and it's embarassing.
zomboden
Banned
Sony and Microsoft both buying oranges from orange store
Sony buys way more oranges than Microsoft on a regular basis. Microsoft decides to purchase the entire orange store. Microsoft says "we give you oranges, but only for 10 years. then all oranges belong to us. find your own orange store."
Government says "no microsoft, you can't have all the oranges. sony customers have been eating oranges all this time."
Sony customers die from scurvy after 10 years due to no oranges if orange store is purchased
vodka-bull
Member
So the deal was never done and Microsoft just wanted to buy Activision, but Activision denied?
Umbasaborne
Banned
Well…yes? Its within sonys best interest to prevent this deal from happening, which it looks like it wont at this point
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked