Topher
Gold Member
Exactly my point. Carefully crafted criteria and I really don't think it means anything.
-
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
Exactly my point. Carefully crafted criteria and I really don't think it means anything.
knocksky
Banned
Not making it out to be anything. What's with the hostility on here? I've not seen the divestment part discussed much. I was wondering what people were thinking.
I personally think that it will come down to tencent or take 2
Ass of Can Whooping
Gold Member
They're making both single player games and multiplayer games exclusive. Your criteria of an existing user base is a load of bullshit.
The single Minecraft use case is not a good example. It never was and never will be.
Last edited:
Because from a business perspective it would be stupid to offer your competitor an infinite license? They don't offer an infinite license on Mineceaft either.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
And we come back full circle.
.Pennywise
Banned
So Sony don't want to show the receipts and now plays the victim in order to hide proof that could lead to ActiBlizz acquisition being approved.
More at the source:
Sony accuses Microsoft of "obvious harassment" as battle for Activision Blizzard gets even uglier
Sony has accused Microsoft of "obvious harassment" as the battle for Activision Blizzard heated up this week. As report…
www.eurogamer.net
Last edited:
Abriael_GN
RSI Employee of the Year
Sony's literally behaving like a bunch of spoiled children in this. Goodness gracious.
DenchDeckard
Moderated wildly
I really want this to goto court. There's gotta be some serious juicy information to come out.
DForce
NaughtyDog Defense Force
So you think Microsoft wants to remain in third place and not try to kill the competition?
LOL.
Come on, dude.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
So Sony don't want to show the receipts and now plays the victim in order to hide proof that could lead to ActiBlizz acquisition being approved.
More at the source:
Sony accuses Microsoft of "obvious harassment" as battle for Activision Blizzard gets even uglier
Sony has accused Microsoft of "obvious harassment" as the battle for Activision Blizzard heated up this week. As report…
This is normal when it comes to trials. WTF are you on about?
But I see the media curation is in full swing.
Last edited:
What is wrong with you guys? Read what I'm saying. MS increasing marketshare is not DESTROYING sony. Even if Playstation dropped to last place (which would never happen) your precious Playstation would still be around and profitable.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Increasing at the expense of a hostile decrease of the competition. Something they projected onto Sony not that long ago in the media.
NewChoppa
Banned
Last edited:
Ass of Can Whooping
Gold Member
Apple your post disappeared because I willed it
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
DForce
NaughtyDog Defense Force
You're saying a lot of shit that doesn't make any sense and you want to know what's wrong with us?
The main goal is to ALWAYS be better than the competition. If either Microsoft or Sony saw an opportunity to put their competitor out of the market, then they would go for it.
You're telling us Microsoft wants to improve their 3rd place position. lol Now that's dumb.
They're not this big friendly tech giant that wants all three major gaming companies to co-exist in the market.
Well quit replying to me if I don't make sense and save us both the trouble.
DForce
NaughtyDog Defense Force
People generally get called out for what they say on this forum... so...
Sanepar
Member
Precious playstation... lol and xbox is what for u?
Sanepar
Member
I think they already have bribe set for EU regulators. Only CMA if they sustain can take down this deal.
Hopium is still stong I see. Looks like the EU is gonna be the final nail.
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
Imagine trying to put Halo into the same league as COD in 2023. Why do you think Microsoft is trying to buy ABK? To get full ownership of COD (among other things), because they have reduced Halo into an irrelevant meme. So apparently it is way harder to make a COD competitor than one'd think because not only have Sony chosen instead to invest in marketing deals with COD itself, Microsoft have failed to make Halo relevant and feel they need COD in order to compete.By your logic Sony should have a Mario-killer platformer franchise, too, but they don't. Being the dominant market leader means they've done the best to maintain brand power, quality output, mass-appealing exclusives, marketing, optics, and iterating on their strengths with gamers & devs compared to the others. It doesn't mean they have a 1P offering in every genre under the sun that goes toe-to-toe with the absolute biggest games in the industry.
That's ridiculous. And Sony do have their own cloud infrastructure, it's just not as big as Microsoft's, Amazon's or Google's? Why would it be? Those other companies are deeply in big business data & computing markets, they have more reasons to invest in cloud than Sony who "just" have PlayStation consoles as the main reason. Also those companies built their cloud off of near monopolies in key markets (Windows for MS, web searches & advertising (& Youtube acquisition) for Google, online shopping for Amazon) that got them WAY more money than PlayStation did for Sony. Don't forget also, PS3 burned through all of Sony's prior gaming profits, and the company was facing bankruptcy during that era.
They literally could not have afforded to dump billions in investment (and absorbing losses) on cloud, nor did they have a reason to go as hard into that as the others because they don't operate in the same fields.
It's not just about who's got the fattest $ick to throw around in the club. 3P publishers expect actual returns from these marketing deals. They see the sales and accolade success Sony's exclusives generate and go "we want to replicate that". They want their games to gain lots of cultural mindshare in addition to generating revenue so the company can profit.
For some publishers, if MS offers up way more money for a marketing deal, they may in fact get the marketing deal. For others, they'd balance the money being offered alongside other needs and wants, some of which Sony may be better suited to provide than Microsoft. The fact is Microsoft had plenty of chances last gen to outbid Sony on marketing rights and exclusivity deals, but didn't because they simply couldn't be asked to care. Their $69 billion for ABK is in large part about having absolute control over the content; do people really thing MS are going to just turn that $69 billion around solely for locking down 3P deals when they weren't willing to pay even a fraction of that a few short years ago? For what ultimately amounts to timed deals where they can't exude absolute control?
I don't think so. Now ABK could be a case where they do go off pettiness and just roll with MS on COD marketing to spite Sony, but they still want something out of it. They're going to charge Microsoft A LOT to get those rights or rights for other ABK games alongside it, because they were this close to getting $69 billion and lost. That may increase the price for Sony, but if ABK's board & Kotick are too greedy, MS may not even want to pursue at that price. Meaning less money for ABK, and larger risk because MS is the one with the clearly less popular console brand.
Meaning even after the proceedings are done and by some chance the deal falls apart, Sony have more leverage with ABK that you might initially consider.
Last edited:
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Daddy.
Eotheod
Member
Man, I'd love to have what everyone else is smoking to think Call of Duty, the most derivative fucking FPS game to ever exist, is so damn essential to purchasing choice. That is some sad existence to put one sole game's availability as the reason for your console choice. But hey, people are free to play games that require bare minimum thinking skills 
I'm just more curious as to how much weight the regulators are putting on the IP, that it is quite clearly the breaking point of allowing this merger. Games Industry clearly can't survive without this one title being open to all, despite Nintendo doing perfectly fine without it for a few years now. Madness.
I'm just more curious as to how much weight the regulators are putting on the IP, that it is quite clearly the breaking point of allowing this merger. Games Industry clearly can't survive without this one title being open to all, despite Nintendo doing perfectly fine without it for a few years now. Madness.
Iced Arcade
Member
OT: honest question... how many keyboards do you burn through in a year?
Last edited:
Topher
Gold Member
Ass of Can Whooping
Gold Member
Man, I'd love to have what everyone else is smoking to think Call of Duty, the most derivative fucking FPS game to ever exist, is so damn essential to purchasing choice. That is some sad existence to put one sole game's availability as the reason for your console choice. But hey, people are free to play games that require bare minimum thinking skills
I'm just more curious as to how much weight the regulators are putting on the IP, that it is quite clearly the breaking point of allowing this merger. Games Industry clearly can't survive without this one title being open to all, despite Nintendo doing perfectly fine without it for a few years now. Madness.
I'm smoking the NPD charts
Topher
Gold Member
You can't be serious
SneakersSO
Member
While Phil Spencer has claimed, and some of his cronies within MS do believe that the Xbox business model is now firmly 'beyond console sales', the truth is not at all agreeable with that assessment.
Last analyst I have seen do an audience breakdown on Gamepass pegs the split between console users vs. PC users, somewhere above 85-91% being on console. This means that the current growth rate of GP is almost intrinsically and nearly exclusively tied to console sales.
There are a few problems with this market reality for MS though. For starters, Phil Spencer as of a few months ago has gone on record saying that they are nearly at their internally estimated growth ceiling for GP on console; this means they are nearing the estimated amount of maximum users that they feel they can sell GP to in the console space. What this effectively translates to is that, in order to continue growing GP, they need to continue growing their console sales. The issue with that goal, however, is that the last 3 months, which include a holiday season of all things, are indicating that console demand for Xbox HW in MS' two strongest markets (NA & UK) is dropping and drastically. This means that, unless MS does something to pick up console sales and quick, they find themselves in quite the pickle.
This is why i'm changing my current prediction on how MS will handle the CMA on ATVI. I fully believe, given the above paragraph, that MS will now try and divest CoD and accept the CMA's structural remedies. For MS/Xbox's current business plan to work, they need a growth platform in order to enable that, and fast. Enter: Battle.Net. Its MAU and storefront is a very attractive prospect for further enabling PC GP growth, and would be a fantastic growth opportunity towards their immediate goals. What I anticipate is that MS will agree on structural remedies, with the concession that the only storefront on PC that CoD and all CoD in-game purchases must go through Battle.Net, thus ensuring that the home of CoD on PC continues to be Battle.Net, and allows them to convert a % of Battle.Net PC users into GP sub users.
Unknown?
Member
Come back to me when they make a new multiplayer game then. Minecraft was already on other systems when acquired and I said before MS has a history of this. Look at Skype, it was allowed to be used on PSP after the acquisition due to already being on it. Vita didn't have it because they weren't allowed to use it on new contracts.
Yeah not 100% sure but I think the process will be MS pays out the 95 usd per share and then divest. ABK shareholders will be irrelevant to the process as their shares are getting completely bought out.
Shortening Activision to A.
Some of the interesting questions will be:
- around the $9-12bn cash that ABK have and how much goes with A, how much stays with MS (this will be related to the viability and selling of A but there isn't anything fix here afaik)
- how much would be MS taking a wash on selling A vs the 3bn fee. If you are going to be losing 3bn via cancelling vs losing 6bn (calculating of A as a business will be interesting) via selling A but getting to keep 3bn in cash, how does that impact your calculus?
Also fuck VAR and I am a VAR Supporter but incompetency all over the country today.
Last edited:
Varteras
Gold Member
FTC grants Sony's request to limit scope of Microsoft subpoena
FTC law judge overseeing the Microsoft-Activision merger case has agreed to limit the scope of Microsoft's subpoena of internal Sony documents and records.
Nope, the source is the same proposed motion that hasn't been signed.
Click on the source and you will go to the same document that I highlighted in the comment below.
Post in thread 'Microsoft / Activision Deal Approval Watch |OT|' https://www.neogaf.com/threads/microsoft-activision-deal-approval-watch-ot.1641775/post-267535389
Last edited:
Banjo64
cumsessed
Good.
Been caught again by a journalistic mistake.
Banjo64
cumsessed
Can it not have been signed today?
As a result, FTC Administrative Law Judge D. Michael Chappell has granted the motion to limit or quash the subpoena as outlined in Sony's filing.
Chappell has clearly ordered that the subpoena is limited to seven custodians and that "no predecessor custodians shall be required," alongside a date range from 2019 - 2023.
Microsoft's request for leadership reviews has also been nixed.
Read more: https://www.tweaktown.com/news/90314/ftc-grants-sonys-request-to-limit-scope-of-microsoft-subpoena/index.html
mansoor1980
Gold Member
Sony defends against Microsoft's claims by asserting a few important details. Sony says that Microsoft's subpoena is "truly massive" and could cost up to $2 million to fulfill. Microsoft has made requests for 120 separate documents, including 52 defined terms and 21 instructions. Sony says that Microsoft is demanding documents "related to nearly all aspects of SIE's business, as well as extensive sets of sales, financial, and personal user data (e.g. user date of birth, country, gender, for likely millions of users).
Some of these requests, Sony says, require data that goes back to 11 years ago.
Microsoft had previously said that Sony was taking a while to collect the documents from custodians, or executives that have access to key files from the Sony Interactive Entertainment sector. In the filing, Sony clarifies that it has agreed to submit files from seven custodians including Jim Ryan, Hermen Hulst, Eric Lempel, Nick Maguire, Veronica Rogers, Phil Rosenberg, and Christian Svensson.
The Seven Custodians are SIE's Chief Executive Officer (Ryan), Head of Play Station Studios (Hulst), SVP of Worldwide Marketing (Lempel), VP Global Head of Subscriptions (Maguire), SVP of Global Sales and Business Operations (Rogers), SVP Head of Global Partner Development (Rosenberg), and VP Head of Global Third Party Relations (Svensson). The Seven Custodians have a high volume of documents, and collecting, processing, reviewing, and producing from the Seven Custodians will be burdensome,
Microsoft wants documents from specific predecessors, though. One interesting claim is that Microsoft "threatened" to demand files from other executives, PlayStation CFO Lin Tao and Hideaki Nishino, who has close access to Sony's hardware unit--if Sony moved to quash--another word for settle or close--specific parts of the subpoena.
Furthermore, Sony says that it is willing to provide information and documents as far back as 2019, which is "further back in time than an ordinary Second Request."
Sony also says that the definitions outlined in the subpoenas are "overly broad, unduly burdensome and vague."
Perhaps one of the most interesting aspects of Sony's motion is the assertion that "Microsoft's demands for performance reviews of SIE's leadership is obvious harassment."
Some of these requests, Sony says, require data that goes back to 11 years ago.
Microsoft had previously said that Sony was taking a while to collect the documents from custodians, or executives that have access to key files from the Sony Interactive Entertainment sector. In the filing, Sony clarifies that it has agreed to submit files from seven custodians including Jim Ryan, Hermen Hulst, Eric Lempel, Nick Maguire, Veronica Rogers, Phil Rosenberg, and Christian Svensson.
The Seven Custodians are SIE's Chief Executive Officer (Ryan), Head of Play Station Studios (Hulst), SVP of Worldwide Marketing (Lempel), VP Global Head of Subscriptions (Maguire), SVP of Global Sales and Business Operations (Rogers), SVP Head of Global Partner Development (Rosenberg), and VP Head of Global Third Party Relations (Svensson). The Seven Custodians have a high volume of documents, and collecting, processing, reviewing, and producing from the Seven Custodians will be burdensome,
Microsoft wants documents from specific predecessors, though. One interesting claim is that Microsoft "threatened" to demand files from other executives, PlayStation CFO Lin Tao and Hideaki Nishino, who has close access to Sony's hardware unit--if Sony moved to quash--another word for settle or close--specific parts of the subpoena.
Furthermore, Sony says that it is willing to provide information and documents as far back as 2019, which is "further back in time than an ordinary Second Request."
Sony also says that the definitions outlined in the subpoenas are "overly broad, unduly burdensome and vague."
Perhaps one of the most interesting aspects of Sony's motion is the assertion that "Microsoft's demands for performance reviews of SIE's leadership is obvious harassment."
feynoob
Member
Wouldn't that mean MS walking out on this deal?
Losing Activision is huge for them.
Eotheod
Member
I very much get that, sales don't lie in showing it has a pull. I just don't really see the actual feverish appeal that should dictate deciding on whether a merger is appropriate. The games industry is incredibly versatile, with the ability to have a one man dev team strike gold to a 200 strong team crash and burn. One game does not define the industry, yet apparently it does?
I dunno, I'm just old I guess and don't see the appeal of holding one title above all others. I mean, Nintendo hasn't had CoD for how long and is doing perfectly fine?
Varteras
Gold Member
Pages 12 and 13 show it signed by the judge and granted.
Latest document uploaded that we know of at 11:57pm 11th Feb was still the one on the 9th
https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/b...s/2210077-microsoftactivision-blizzard-matter
It's the same filing he is referring to.
That's my page 13, unsigned and undated.
Mines might be cached so if you have a screenshot, would be good to see.
Last edited:
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Doesn’t sound like they’re being childish
Abriael_GN
like the hit piece is trying to paint the picture as. Sounds like one is trying to overreach.
Last edited:
Yoboman
Member
Bethesda have only made 3 multiplayer games out of 25 since 2015. Amazing how the criteria you talk about just happens to perfectly align to the games that Bethesda release, and have in the pipeline post acquisition
While we are creating criteria that is only to make MS look like they arent taking everything they can exclusive, maybe we can say all racing simulators, rhythm games and 2D fighters that Bethesda release will be multiplatform as well?
Last edited:
Varteras
Gold Member
Page 12 says it is granted and ordered. I don't know what kind of signature we are looking for beyond the judges name being attached to the motion being granted. It is not dated. That much is true. My question becomes why would the files say GRANTED and ORDERED if neither are true?
That's my page 13, unsigned and undated.
Mines might be cached so if you have a screenshot, would be good to see.
Maybe, I do suspect so and I am coming from a position where I would prefer them to divest A (been consistent on that)
Have a look at page 8 in MS filings on the 7th.
https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ft...f-time-to-move-to-limit-or-quash-subpoena.pdf
Very similar wording. Both are just pages that each companies lawyers have filled to make the judges "life easier".
Varteras
Gold Member
Ah! Okay. Gotcha.
laynelane
Member
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked