Support NeoGAF

[adamsapple]

Activision stock is moving really strangely.

I suggest everyone pay attention to GHG post. Respectfully.

I'm always paying attention to GHG

 

[Varteras]

Activision stock is moving really strangely.

I suggest everyone pay attention to GHG post. Respectfully.

I always look GHG respectfully

 

[NickFire]

Stock price moved significantly on these articles dropping and then it didnt, sold back off immediately which indicates the headlines don't have substance:

No change in the options market implied volatility either.

The people with the money haven't changed their opinions either way as a result of these reports, volume is largely unchanged for the day but more people are buying calls and the short interest has dropped.

There needs to be follow through from today's move in order to mark a sentiment change:

The market is treating the EU reports as tentatively positive but not a significant development for now.

It's much easier for enthusiasts to get rabbled up by anonymous sources than people with hard money on the line. Without money invested it's easy to ignore the realities of modern media. Said realities being that an anonymous report could be legit, could be quasi-legit like some person with access but no power hearing through the grapevine, or could be a MS employee or lawyer feeding a company line to a friendly reporter.

If we believed every report on this deal, it would have been formally terminated or approved a million times by now.

 

[mansoor1980]

you guys still believe him after what he did?

 

[DrFigs]

It's much easier for enthusiasts to get rabbled up by anonymous sources than people with hard money on the line. Without money invested it's easy to ignore the realities of modern media. Said realities being that an anonymous report could be legit, could be quasi-legit like some person with access but no power hearing through the grapevine, or could be a MS employee or lawyer feeding a company line to a friendly reporter.

If we believed every report on this deal, it would have been formally terminated or approved a million times by now.

idk. it's not like reuters isn't an extremely reliable source

 

[DeepEnigma]

idk. it's not like reuters isn't an extremely reliable source

Not always.

 

[Loxus]

If making another COD was possible everyone would be doing it. Including MS.

You know COD is a First Person Shooter game right?

Let's forget these games are also fps games.
Halo
Killzone
Resistance

If Sony was to revive Killzone and Resistance with their current tech and developers with a battle royal mode, COD being exclusive to Xbox wouldn't matter to the PS fan base.

And the way Microsoft runs their studies, COD being exclusive to Xbox may end up being a shell of it's former self just like Halo.

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

Most of the concessions they’ve offered are still wins for Xbox. All lead to increased revenue.

And the ‘status quo’ changes for Gamepass, since it’ll be getting a dramatic increase in value.

The change in value for GamePass doesn’t occur unless the deal goes through which would require heavy concessions on pricing parity for PS Plus.

So if CoD is day 1 on PS plus just like it is on GP, does that change the status quo as a win for MS? I don’t think so, not when their starting position was only 3 years with no Sub concessions

 

[reinking]

You know COD is a First Person Shooter game right?

Let's forget these games are also fps games.
Halo
Killzone
Resistance

If Sony was to revive Killzone and Resistance with their current tech and developers with a battle royal mode, COD being exclusive to Xbox wouldn't matter to the PS fan base.

And the way Microsoft runs their studies, COD being exclusive to Xbox may end up being a shell of it's former self just like Halo.

Yes they are but let's not pretend that the concern over COD is that it is a First Person Shooter.

 

[DrFigs]

You know COD is a First Person Shooter game right?

Let's forget these games are also fps games.
Halo
Killzone
Resistance

If Sony was to revive Killzone and Resistance with their current tech and developers with a battle royal mode, COD being exclusive to Xbox wouldn't matter to the PS fan base.

And the way Microsoft runs their studies, COD being exclusive to Xbox may end up being a shell of it's former self just like Halo.

They have 10 live service games in development, between those and whatever Bungie is making, i'm sure they'll be fine. Not sure i'm comfortable with Microsoft finding a way to short circuit making their own games and avoiding competition.

edit: it occured to me that Sony buying Bungie is does the same thing. I guess the difference is the size of the companies.

 

[RedC]

Not always.

But still pretty reliable nonetheless due to it's proven track record

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

Sony could try and negotiate it on PS+ but it would be ridiculous to do that without significant compensation.

Of course and that’s why I don’t see the CMA approving the deal with concessions

This is the main point of contention. Why would Sony pay Microsoft billions of dollars for the privilege of staving off user migration to Xbox?

That’s an added cost to Sony, benefit to Microsoft, for a dynamic that doesn’t currently exist with an independent Activision.

Microsoft would likely be forced to give CoD away for Pennies on PS plus like they are doing on GP, and that will never happen

 

[Elios83]

Stock price moved significantly on these articles dropping and then it didnt, sold back off immediately which indicates the headlines don't have substance:

No change in the options market implied volatility either.

The people with the money haven't changed their opinions either way as a result of these reports, volume is largely unchanged for the day but more people are buying calls and the short interest has dropped.

There needs to be follow through from today's move in order to mark a sentiment change:

The market is treating the EU reports as tentatively positive but not a significant development for now.

I guess it's because EU announced just yesterday that their decision would be delayed until April 25th.
This means they surely haven't taken a decision yet and any conclusion is premature, the report still falls under the speculation category using words like "likely/unlikely".
Also the sentiment was already there that EU was not opposing behavioral remedies as a solution so effectively not a lot has changed for investors.
The biggest obstacle is CMA since they have publicly opposed behavioral remedies.

 

[Punished Miku]

Microsoft would likely be forced to give CoD away for Pennies on PS plus like they are doing on GP, and that will never happen

That's a fantasy. You're basically day dreaming about them destroying the revenue of Activision. Sony doesn't even put their own games on PS+ day 1.

 

[bxrz]

The change in value for GamePass doesn’t occur unless the deal goes through which would require heavy concessions on pricing parity for PS Plus.

So if CoD is day 1 on PS plus just like it is on GP, does that change the status quo as a win for MS? I don’t think so, not when their starting position was only 3 years with no Sub concessions

You're assuming Sony takes that deal, which isn't likely.

Sony doesn't want CoD on PS+ Day 1

 

[ToadMan]

O

Activision stock is moving really strangely.

I suggest everyone pay attention to GHG post. Respectfully.

Ah. Yes. It is

Someone thinks a compromise has been reached

 

[RedC]

Of course and that’s why I don’t see the CMA approving the deal with concessions

This is the main point of contention. Why would Sony pay Microsoft billions of dollars for the privilege of staving off user migration to Xbox?

That’s an added cost to Sony, benefit to Microsoft, for a dynamic that doesn’t currently exist with an independent Activision.

Microsoft would likely be forced to give CoD away for Pennies on PS plus like they are doing on GP, and that will never happen

It's possible Microsoft may have to offer that CoD will not be on Game Pass for 10 years as well in order to get CMA to finally approve.

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

You're assuming Sony takes that deal, which isn't likely.

Sony doesn't want CoD on PS+ Day 1

I’m hypothesizing a scenario where the deal goes through with concessions regardless of what Sony wants

The concessions for PS plus would be such that the current status quo wouldn’t change.

 

[NickFire]

idk. it's not like reuters isn't an extremely reliable source

My guess is that Reuters story is 100% accurate. But their report only says that 3 people familiar with a matter are saying what they believe is likely. Reuters' story can be spot on regardless of how reliable the 3 unknown people are.

 

[bxrz]

I’m hypothesizing a scenario where the deal goes through with concessions regardless of what Sony wants

The concessions for PS plus would be such that the current status quo wouldn’t change.

Sony still would not allow CoD on PS+ is what I am saying.

Sony prioritizes sales over their subscription
Microsoft prioritizes their subscription over sales

Regulators can not force Sony to put CoD there if they don't want to

 

[Varteras]

i could see it going through with such concessions. all the regulators want is for microsoft to be unable to use call of duty to gain an advantage in any way. sony obviously want a guarantee that call of duty will continue to release on PS even beyond 10 years. this shouldnt be an issue for microsoft if what they say is true.

Which is completely understandable for any company whose market position could shrink from such a deal. Yeah, Sony's goal was to kill the deal at most. But I'm pretty sure they wanted, at the very least, regulators to demand a decent length of time, with parity clauses, for CoD to be everywhere. If I'm Sony, I still see it as a win. No need to sign a deal with Microsoft that might have loopholes or stipulations Sony doesn't like.

At this point, Microsoft is going even further and offering all ABK games on all platforms for 10 years with a watchdog group. That's even better for Sony. The longer this goes on, the more Microsoft offers up, the less impact this has on them. Honestly, at this point the only way this gets better for them is if more time is offered, CoD is not allowed on Gamepass for that time, or the deal gets killed.

Sony is likely elated that Microsoft is going this far to secure the deal. They were already making moves to enhance their own offerings in a world with fewer big third-party games on their platform. They're watching the buffer of how soon and how badly this effects them grow and at an increasing rate the closer the deadlines get.

 

[PaintTinJr]

It actually might if the people in charge start to worry about optics from a potential loss. Right now, IMO, the FTC is sitting in a strong position whereby they can look tough without doing all that much. If MS gets blocked across the pond, the FTC will probably "win" their case by default (MS withdrawing from deal). But if FTC becomes last holdout, they will end up in a winner takes all proposition immediately. At that point I think political ambition comes into play. Do the people in charge stand to gain more by fighting to the end come hell or high water? Or by striking a deal they publicize as proof of their commitment and success for consumers? I do think that ramps up the pressure immensely on the FTC.

We already saw that the FTC are happy to observe documentation and public assurances beyond their own jurisdiction and quote that as evidence, so IMO it depends on what additional info the EC and CMA would have wrangled from Microsoft to get to approval. The FTC could have far more facts to support their position by the time they have to let their decision be tested in US courts in that hypothetical situation.

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

Sony still would not allow CoD on PS+ is what I am saying.

Sony prioritizes sales over their subscription
Microsoft prioritizes their subscription over sales

Regulators can not force Sony to put CoD there if they don't want to

Then the concessions would be CoD can’t come to GamePass unless Sony wants it on PS Plus

 

[intheinbetween]

Which is completely understandable for any company whose market position could shrink from such a deal. Yeah, Sony's goal was to kill the deal at most. But I'm pretty sure they wanted, at the very least, regulators to demand a decent length of time, with parity clauses, for CoD to be everywhere. If I'm Sony, I still see it as a win. No need to sign a deal with Microsoft that might have loopholes or stipulations Sony doesn't like.

At this point, Microsoft is going even further and offering all ABK games on all platforms for 10 years with a watchdog group. That's even better for Sony. The longer this goes on, the more Microsoft offers up, the less impact this has on them. Honestly, at this point the only way this gets better for them is if more time is offered, CoD is not allowed on Gamepass for that time, or the deal gets killed.

Sony is likely elated that Microsoft is going this far to secure the deal. They were already making moves to enhance their own offerings in a world with fewer big third-party games on their platform. They're watching the buffer of how soon and how badly this effects them grow and at an increasing rate the closer the deadlines get.

I beg to disagree, from my point of view in a scenario in which MS closes the deal Sony would be the platform which would be impacted negatively.

Before this deal Sony didn’t have to negotiate for any ABK title, CoD or any other, but now they would have a 10 year window to negotiate a new deal with MS (under MS conditions) or find an alternative to CoD, also is yet to see if the deal includes all the ABK titles released over the 10 year window span, or just CoD, or simply as MS has been doing with Zenimax: “case by case”

I can’t see how to spin that scenario in favour of Sony

 

[Punished Miku]

Then the concessions would be CoD can’t come to GamePass unless Sony wants it on PS Plus

I think, in theory, they want to protect consumers and increase choice. They're not, in theory, trying to just freeze competition to protect Sony. Putting it on GP just gives consumers another, much cheaper option to play and takes nothing away from consumers. I think you're totally off on this one. People can still play it on PS if they want. If Sony wants it on PS+, it will cost a significant amount of money.

 

[FoxMcChief]

I think, in theory, they want to protect consumers and increase choice. They're not, in theory, trying to just freeze competition to protect Sony. Putting it on GP just gives consumers another, much cheaper option to play and takes nothing away from consumers. I think you're totally off on this one.

That’s theft.

 

[fred420170]

why are sony the ones who have to do all the work though? why are sony are the ones who have to create new ip to rival powerhouses like call of duty, fallout and elder scrolls. while microsoft can gain a foothold by simply spending large amounts of money to buy successful ip they didnt create? thats the definition of anti competitive behavior. to make it even worse microsoft moaned about sonys first party exclusives when they were new ip created by them! wtf?

It's not Microsoft's or the consumers fault that Sony stopped developing their own internal IP's and rested on their laurels dependent on 3rd party games like COD to sustain them. That is their own fault and very short sighted. They are living in the past and behind the times. They have what, 12 GAAS games that they are working on & the GAAS ship has sailed a while ago. Where are their new IP's? Everything has been a remake or a remaster to milk consumers.

 

[Lex Tenebris]

Sony would have to pay a hell of a lot of money for MS to make the game and give it away on their sub service. I really doubt that's something they'll get. It would be somewhere around $1 billion annually.

Add also the los of less retail sells from people who choose to play on psn plus

 

[Demon2blades]

You know COD is a First Person Shooter game right?

Let's forget these games are also fps games.
Halo
Killzone
Resistance

If Sony was to revive Killzone and Resistance with their current tech and developers with a battle royal mode, COD being exclusive to Xbox wouldn't matter to the PS fan base.

And the way Microsoft runs their studies, COD being exclusive to Xbox may end up being a shell of it's former self just like Halo.

None of those are on the level of cod your not going to be as big as cod if your exclusive to one platform it has to be on everything imo.

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

I think, in theory, they want to protect consumers and increase choice. They're not, in theory, trying to just freeze competition to protect Sony. Putting it on GP just gives consumers another, much cheaper option to play and takes nothing away from consumers. I think you're totally off on this one. People can still play it on PS if they want.

The CMA disagrees with you. They see damage to the consumer if CoD goes on GamePass because it fractures existing consumers on alternative platforms, resulting in less choice of where they prefer to play games and causing users to migrate against what they’d prefer

 

[FoxMcChief]

Killzone looking pretty good right now. Sony better kill off Horizon and focus on the much better IP Killzone. Plus you can put Killzone in VR, and that would be better.

Killzone > COD

Not even joking. I loved KZ2 and KZ3. I bought the stupid gun for KZ3. And it was great!!!

 

[Varteras]

I beg to disagree, from my point of view in a scenario in which MS closes the deal Sony would be the platform which would be impacted negatively.

Before this deal Sony didn’t have to negotiate for any ABK title, CoD or any other, but now they would have a 10 year window to negotiate a new deal with MS (under MS conditions) or find an alternative to CoD, also is yet to see if the deal includes all the ABK titles released over the 10 year window span, or just CoD, or simply as MS has been doing with Zenimax: “case by case”

I can’t see how to spin that scenario in favour of Sony

Because it's about the level of impact. A deal with zero concessions was the worst-case scenario for Sony. Every concession made reduces the impact. More time. More games. More parity. More certainties. The more that gets added, the closer the impact gets to negligible. Obviously the best-case scenario is the deal to die. But the further away they get from the worst-case, the more content they'll be.

 

[RedC]

I beg to disagree, from my point of view in a scenario in which MS closes the deal Sony would be the platform which would be impacted negatively.

Before this deal Sony didn’t have to negotiate for any ABK title, CoD or any other, but now they would have a 10 year window to negotiate a new deal with MS (under MS conditions) or find an alternative to CoD, also is yet to see if the deal includes all the ABK titles released over the 10 year window span, or just CoD, or simply as MS has been doing with Zenimax: “case by case”

I can’t see how to spin that scenario in favour of Sony

Sony doesn't have to negotiate a new deal with MS for CoD to release on PlayStation platforms or with any other Third Party Publsher for that matter to release their games on Playstation platforms. The 10 year deal is only in place to ENSURE Microsoft are legally committed to do so. Afterwards MS would be under no legal obligation and will decide then whether to continue or not.

 

[Topher]

It's not Microsoft's or the consumers fault that Sony stopped developing their own internal IP's and rested on their laurels dependent on 3rd party games like COD to sustain them. That is their own fault and very short sighted. They are living in the past and behind the times. They have what, 12 GAAS games that they are working on & the GAAS ship has sailed a while ago. Where are their new IP's? Everything has been a remake or a remaster to milk consumers.

That's a console warrior post right up there with "xbox has no games". Congrats

 

[Punished Miku]

The CMA disagrees with you. They see damage to the consumer if CoD goes on GamePass because it fractures existing consumers on alternative platforms, resulting in less choice of where they prefer to play games and causing users to migrate against what they’d prefer

I've never argued that the CMA is in the right on this one, or generally have any clue what they're talking about. Pretty absurd premise to expect MS to pay $70 billion dollars for the priviledge of "giving COD away for pennies." Sounds like a fanboy fantasy. Call of Duty wont be "fractured" if Sony wants to pay to put it on PS+, which they currently don't. They don't even do that for their own games.

 

[Calverz]

Regardless of the outcome, that would be shortsighted of Sony. 10 years buys them one console generation. We are all free to move on with our lives at any time. We're all here in this thread and following the topic by choice.

Ok. Sony can take no deal then. Their choice.

 

[El Pistolero]

You know COD is a First Person Shooter game right?

Let's forget these games are also fps games.
Halo
Killzone
Resistance

If Sony was to revive Killzone and Resistance with their current tech and developers with a battle royal mode, COD being exclusive to Xbox wouldn't matter to the PS fan base.

And the way Microsoft runs their studies, COD being exclusive to Xbox may end up being a shell of it's former self just like Halo.

No, because MS will be managing nothing as far as Zenimax and AKB are concerned: MS have failed with their owns studios, so there is no chance of them doing anything other than injecting money whenever needed into the two publishers. At most, they will ensure sending out their engineers to assist with technical questions.

 

[b6a6es]

Wait, now you’re saying MS can’t be trusted!?

I think it’s more about whether MS’s wants to include all of 3rd party GP offerings on PS or just MS titles only tier, id lean towards the former as Sony’s been open lately about 3rd Party subscriptions (EA Play/ Ubisoft+)

 

[DeepEnigma]

My guess is that Reuters story is 100% accurate. But their report only says that 3 people familiar with a matter are saying what they believe is likely. Reuters' story can be spot on regardless of how reliable the 3 unknown people are.

The 3 people:

Tom Warren
Jez Corden
Brad Sams

 

[DrFigs]

I've never argued that the CMA is in the right on this one, or generally have any clue what they're talking about. Pretty absurd premise to expect MS to pay $70 billion dollars for the priviledge of "giving COD away for pennies." Sounds like a fanboy fantasy. Call of Duty wont be "fractured" if Sony wants to pay to put it on PS+, which they currently don't. They don't even do that for their own games.

I agree with you here. The parity in this situation would be to allow sony the opportunity to put COD on ps plus, which Sony won't do because it's extremely lucrative to not do it.

 

[NickFire]

The CMA disagrees with you. They see damage to the consumer if CoD goes on GamePass because it fractures existing consumers on alternative platforms, resulting in less choice of where they prefer to play games and causing users to migrate against what they’d prefer

On that particular topic, I would think behavioral remedies could be used if they are not rejected altogether. Something like requiring MS to offer it to PS+ on the same financial terms (maybe scaled) that MS offers to 3rd parties who launch on GP is one possibility. Sony might not like the shift from sales to subs they would see from it, but protecting Sony's business model should not be the main focus. Preventing consumers from having a singular subscription option should be only focus when it comes to subs. I'm not a fan of them yet, but those who are shouldn't be denied just because Sony prefers sales to PS+ subs IMO.

Clarification - I am not advocating for behavioral remedies. I don't trust their effectiveness at all. But if regulators do, they could find something to overcome this issue.

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

I've never argued that the CMA is in the right on this one, or generally have any clue what they're talking about. Pretty absurd premise to expect MS to pay $70 billion dollars for the priviledge of "giving COD away for pennies." Sounds like a fanboy fantasy. Call of Duty wont be "fractured" if Sony wants to pay to put it on PS+, which they currently don't. They don't even do that for their own games.

Sony wouldn’t be paying $70 per Sub to the tune of billions of dollars.

It would be the cost of CoD minus the amount Microsoft is subsidizing as a result of the net loss of retail sales

And of course this calculation is impossible, which is why concessions are highly unlikely. You can disagree with the CMA, but that’s where they stand on the matter.

 

[Varteras]

The 3 people:

Tom Warren
Jez Corden
Brad Sams

We need Scooby-Doo GIFs of unmasking those 3!

 

[ToTTenTranz]

Reuters' story can be spot on regardless of how reliable the 3 unknown people are.

And a broken/frozen 24h digital clock has a 1 in 1440 (24*60) chances of showing the correct time, at any given moment.

 

[DeepEnigma]

It's not Microsoft's or the consumers fault that Sony stopped developing their own internal IP's and rested on their laurels dependent on 3rd party games like COD to sustain them. That is their own fault and very short sighted. They are living in the past and behind the times. They have what, 12 GAAS games that they are working on & the GAAS ship has sailed a while ago. Where are their new IP's? Everything has been a remake or a remaster to milk consumers.

A new retard warrior narrative is born.

 

[DrFigs]

Sony wouldn’t be paying $70 per Sub to the tune of billions of dollars.

It would be the cost of CoD minus the amount Microsoft is subsidizing as a result of the net loss of retail sales

And of course this calculation is impossible, which is why concessions are highly unlikely. You can disagree with the CMA, but that’s where they stand on the matter.

I don't think it's as complicated as that. Sony has some formula for deciding on playstation plus releases (how much to pay the devs for how long). Xbox has their own formula for gamepass. It seems kind of trivial for them to come to an agreement based on how they typically negotiate these games.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

It's not Microsoft's or the consumers fault that Sony stopped developing their own internal IP's and rested on their laurels dependent on 3rd party games like COD to sustain them. That is their own fault and very short sighted. They are living in the past and behind the times. They have what, 12 GAAS games that they are working on & the GAAS ship has sailed a while ago. Where are their new IP's? Everything has been a remake or a remaster to milk consumers.

in what reality are you living in?! yikes. and the worst of all is that you probably think you are smart

 

[NickFire]

A new retard warrior narrative is born.

Maybe if we ask nice EL will make a separate gaming forum for 18 and over?

 

[adamsapple]

The 3 people:

Tom Warren
Jez Corden
Brad Sams

 

[Varteras]

It's not Microsoft's or the consumers fault that Sony stopped developing their own internal IP's and rested on their laurels dependent on 3rd party games like COD to sustain them. That is their own fault and very short sighted. They are living in the past and behind the times. They have what, 12 GAAS games that they are working on & the GAAS ship has sailed a while ago. Where are their new IP's? Everything has been a remake or a remaster to milk consumers.

Every time I think I've read the most braindead take yet, some numb-nuts with a name you'd see on a browser based MMO tops it.