• 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)

Do you believe the deal will be approved?

  • Yes, will be approved without changes.

    Votes: 221 24.9%

  • Yes, will be approved but with structural changes to ABK.

    Votes: 102 11.5%

  • Yes, will be approved but only with behavioral concessions.

    Votes: 262 29.6%

  • No, will not be approved.

    Votes: 301 34.0%
  • Total voters
    886
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
Loxus

Loxus

Member
Demon2blades said:
By all means they can make cod exclusive but it won't be as big as it is now , games like cod/fortnite/FIFA are all massive games because they are on all platforms going Xbox/pc or ps/pc just isn't going to cut it , gow/tlou/horizon are different they work perfect as exclusive titles . Obviously this is my own opinion .
Click to expand...
Those games are only massive because they are multiplats.

Now take away a huge chunk of that player base and see if it's still massive.
 
intheinbetween

intheinbetween

Member
Varteras said:
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.
Click to expand...

Your’re forgetting the fact Sony would lose their advantages over CoD as they do today, losing the benefits the partnership brings them and having CoD on Game Pass day one is a huge blow to Sony, no matter if they have a 10 year window.

MS would also guarantee themselves profits from selling CoD over the next 10 years on the console with the larger marketshare
 
Last edited:
C

Cheezewizz

Banned
ToadMan said:
And equally there’s no reason to expect mutliplat franchises, and even new titles, won’t come to the best selling platforms as a minimum. I mean when that happens it’s a major media event.
Click to expand...
No, it's a pretty straightforward concept really. There's a reason why game trailers and announcements make sure to state what platforms the game will be releasing on. Until it's announced, nobody should expect any title (outside of 1st party) to release on a platform. No need to add caveats of what constitutes "best selling platforms" or what the "minimum" threshold is. Much less pretending it's always a "media event".
ToadMan said:
Zenimax had 24 of 26 titles be multiplat before the acquisition. After 4 of 4 are exclusive.
Click to expand...
Wasn't Morrowind an exclusive?
ToadMan said:
Math is hard so I’ll explain, they went from over 80% multiplat (with 2 timed exclusivrs at that) to 100% exclusive (with no expiry) as a result of acquisition.
Click to expand...
To be fair those two exclusives released post acquisition. It's also worth noting that Sony's aggressive approach to signing 3rd party exclusives may be one of the reasons MS ultimately purchased Bethesda.
 
Varteras

Varteras

Gold Member
intheinbetween said:
Your’re forgetting the fact Sony would lose their advantages over CoD as they do today, losing the benefits the partnership brings them and having CoD on Game Pass day one ia a huge blow to Sony, no matter if they have a 10 year window.

MS would guarantee themselves profits from selling CoD over the next 10 years on the console with the larger marketshare
Click to expand...

I'm not forgetting anything. I've made the point clear. The worst-case scenario for Sony has been avoided. The more concessions are made, the better off they are. Anything is better than the deal with no concessions and the concessions are becoming increasingly favorable for them.
 
RickMasters

RickMasters

Member
Cheezewizz said:
No, it's a pretty straightforward concept really. There's a reason why game trailers and announcements make sure to state what platforms the game will be releasing on. Until it's announced, nobody should expect any title (outside of 1st party) to release on a platform. No need to add caveats of what constitutes "best selling platforms" or what the "minimum" threshold is. Much less pretending it's always a "media event".

Wasn't Morrowind an exclusive?

To be fair those two exclusives released post acquisition. It's also worth noting that Sony's aggressive approach to signing 3rd party exclusives may be one of the reasons MS ultimately purchased Bethesda.
Click to expand...

I’ll never understand that sense of entitlement some gamers have. You can’t assume it’s on anything y too it’s announced for that thing.


I agree completely with your last paragraph too. I think they saw that their was limited benefits to timed exclusivity. Also the bad reaction from PS fans, when they hatted tomb raider. Yet the whole time sony been using that same practice against them for years now, to the point where it has certainly become a factor in their lead over Xbox.


If your gonna one up your competion on these things it doesn’t get better than just buying the dev. Sony trying to poach Bethesda games for exclusivity deals was probably the final straw. And it seem Todd and co are more than happy to be part of Xbox anyway. They were always a studio that is synonymous with Xbox as far as consoles go. They are a natural fit for each other. Thus far Bethesda, play ground and obsidian have been some of MS smartest and most natural acquisitions. When this all blow over I hope they look into bringing asobo and CDPR the stalker 2 devs into their outfit. These studios would also be natural fits for Xbox. It’s obvious the acquisition era is far from over and if it was me making the calls, those would be my next studios, to acquire. I don’t think it’s worth going after UBI or EA. And they won’t need to with EA play already part of GPU and UBIsofts equivalent coming soon according to rumours.


They will have all major pubs except take 2 onboard…. Though I hope they do a deal with T2 to have NBA2K on GP…. It’s a sports game with live service features up the ass so it may aswell be on GP.
 
knocksky

knocksky

Banned
James Sawyer Ford said:
Yeah but the terms of “making it available” are impossible to negotiate given the gravity of the IP

So it’s a non starter really
Click to expand...
No there not. Say Sony said "we want cod day one for a 6 month duration" then Microsoft could say " ok, but we estimate losing 10m full price sales, so it will cost 300m".

Then negotiate from there for example
 
James Sawyer Ford

James Sawyer Ford

Gold Member
knocksky said:
No there not. Say Sony said "we want cod day one for a 6 month duration" then Microsoft could say " ok, but we estimate losing 10m full price sales, so it will cost 300m".

Then negotiate from there for example
Click to expand...

And if the two sides can’t come to an agreement what happens? Then it’s clear advantage to MS

So the regulators would simply disallow CoD on Subs unless Sony can agree with terms to MS
 
RickMasters

RickMasters

Member
James Sawyer Ford said:
Right, so the more likely concession is CoD can’t come to GamePass
Click to expand...
This is getting silly……


I get that COD is a big deal but the idea that it shouldn’t be on the service of that belongs to the company that is buying ABK is just plain daft. As long as they game is available to buy on PS as it always has, that should be more than enough. It’s not taking the game of PlayStation…. However how MS choose to distribute the game on their own platforms should be none of Sony or these trade bodies concerns.


Most people would rather have COD on a sub service, and not pay for it every year, when they are still going to buy battle passes. It makes sense for COD from the platform holders perspective.


I’m not sure why these trading bodies think people enjoy shelling out every year for new gun skins for the same game on top of buying that same game over and over. I don’t see that as looking out for consumers. I see that as protecting Sonys market share. They are not the ones buying ABK so they should not have any say in this anyway. The only reason they are kicking up as much of a stink as they are is because they don’t want to lose what they make from their sweet deal on COD.



Meanwhile it would actually benefit gamers if COD was on GP as part of that service. And Sony could have it on theirs too as long as they fork over the dollars post acquisition. Either way yearly games belong on subscription services, let the consumer spend the money on MTX instead of paying 80-100 bucks a year for the same game in a new set of clothes over and over again.
 
aries_71

aries_71

Junior Member
Wow at the emotional swings in this thread. It’s like a roller coaster full of drama and anguish. This is quality entertainment.
 
knocksky

knocksky

Banned
James Sawyer Ford said:
And if the two sides can’t come to an agreement what happens? Then it’s clear advantage to MS

So the regulators would simply disallow CoD on Subs unless Sony can agree with terms to MS
Click to expand...
The regulators are not going to intervene in the negotiations, they are simply going to demand that it is available at the normal rate.

It's not their problem if Sony or Nvidia don't want to pay.
 
GHG

GHG

Gold Member
aries_71 said:
Wow at the emotional swings in this thread. It’s like a roller coaster full of drama and anguish. This is quality entertainment.
Click to expand...

giphy.webp
 
Helghan

Helghan

Member
Heisenberg007 said:
No. Also, you haven't answered any of my questions.

Microsoft said engaging in console exclusivity would be "implausible" because it would be highly unlikely to increase Xbox numbers to a certain % in the next 5 years.
  • If Microsoft thought it was implausible (when it really wasn't), did they submit incorrect data and assessment to regulators and make them believe a situation that wasn't real?
  • If Microsoft thought it was plausible (which they certainly thought after 2 days), why did Microsoft say it was implausible?
Pick one.
Click to expand...
Mate, that's really how it works. It was written in such a way that they basically could do whatever they want once the deal was closed. That's why they haven't been sued for this. If they would've lied, like you are saying, or done something illegal, they would have been sued already.

Also how can I answer your questions? Am I part of the Xbox Division Management team? How can I know what goes on during those decisions? Let's say it's option 2. They thought it was implausible. And indeed after 2 days they thought, hmm we were wrong the first time, now we think it's actually plausible. That's it. It's done. Spencer changed his mind. Why? Who knows, again I'm not in those meetings.

It just doesn't matter what they decided, it's that they can do whatever they want, because legally they didn't do anything wrong. It's literally in those papers that they could do whatever they want.
 
feynoob

feynoob

Member
James Sawyer Ford said:
Each game that gets added to GP may have completely different terms

There’s nothing to easily standardize, it’s negotiated on a case by case basis
Click to expand...
Sometimes that month cost could be low, and sometimes the cost could be higher.

It depends on the type of games they bring for that month.

Day1 months would be expensive, while non-day1 months are cheap.

Epic deal gives us insight about these deals.
 
knocksky

knocksky

Banned
James Sawyer Ford said:
Each game that gets added to GP may have completely different terms

There’s nothing to easily standardize, it’s negotiated on a case by case basis
Click to expand...
And that's why they are not going to dictate anything above making it available if the deal passes.

Making it available removes an advantage, if the other party doesn't want to pay is another matter
 
In Cold Blood

In Cold Blood

Banned
Mr.Phoenix said:
This is a nothingburger. What can anything they find here possibly prove?

That sony is willing to pay for exclusives? Extra content..etc. Nothing stops MS from doing the same thing. At least sony is not outright buying the publishers.
Click to expand...
Only because they can't afford to.
Kinda like the ugly guy who tells his GF that at least he isn't cheating on her with all those hot chick's at the club
 
James Sawyer Ford

James Sawyer Ford

Gold Member
knocksky said:
And that's why they are not going to dictate anything above making it available if the deal passes.

Making it available removes an advantage, if the other party doesn't want to pay is another matter
Click to expand...

Well yes, if the deal passes, which would likely require concessions at this point, one of those which may be “no GP unless can come to terms with competitor service”

If the deal goes through without concessions (unlikely), MS can do whatever they want including removing CoD from PS
 
RickMasters

RickMasters

Member
Punished Miku said:
MS will be forced to put labels on the retail boxes like those old 90s EXPLICIT LYRICS labels CDs were mandated to have.

TOO HOT FOR GAMEPASS
Click to expand...
:messenger_tears_of_joy::messenger_tears_of_joy::messenger_tears_of_joy::messenger_tears_of_joy::messenger_tears_of_joy::messenger_tears_of_joy:.... And to think... even ten years ago, many gamers were hoping COD would die (I think even I was one of them for a couple iterations, but I still caved in, to peer pressure from my friends and bought it) ....tired of the annual releases... tired of the MTXs, and annual DLC passes... or so we said.

fast forward to 2023 and people are arguing the case that we should be paying 100 plus bucks a year for it because its better than evil MS offering it as part of service that cost the same as COD deluxe edition...and offering hundreds a first party and third party titles alongside it.... And people are trying to stop that happening...The world has gone mad!
 
DeepEnigma

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
RickMasters said:
:messenger_tears_of_joy::messenger_tears_of_joy::messenger_tears_of_joy::messenger_tears_of_joy::messenger_tears_of_joy::messenger_tears_of_joy:.... And to think... even ten years ago, many gamers were hoping COD would die (I think even I was one of them for a couple iterations, but I still caved in, to peer pressure from my friends and bought it) ....tired of the annual releases... tired of the MTXs, and annual DLC passes... or so we said.

fast forward to 2023 and people are arguing the case that we should be paying 100 plus bucks a year for it because its better than evil MS offering it as part of service that cost the same as COD deluxe edition...and offering hundreds a first party and third party titles alongside it.... And people are trying to stop that happening...The world has gone mad!
Click to expand...
Maybe people see beyond the short term since we have countless of other similar services to extrapolate the long term.
 
In Cold Blood

In Cold Blood

Banned
StealthGoblin said:
Sony aren’t the ones spending 10s of billions for multiple studios and IP.

‘Hey that guy punched that other guy’

‘Okay, we’ll investigate that but we also need to go back through your history to make sure you haven’t punched anyone too’

Odd
Click to expand...
Lol.
So a third party puts himself down as a witness in a court case and then complains about his evidence being cross examined.
 
ExcitableBoy

ExcitableBoy

Member
If the acquisition eventually gets approved and Sony didn’t take Microsoft up on the COD 10 year deal, does that mean MS could keep it off PlayStation immediately? Almost like “tough luck, you didn’t accept our deal and now you get nothing”
 
Last edited:
Kiraly

Kiraly

Member
Heisenberg007 said:
I don't think Sony needs to go to town if MS acquires ABK. Acquiring thousands of employees can create a negative ripple effect on quality. It can also lead to increased expenses and a potentially negative ROI.

I think more strategic moves would be preferred by Sony. For example, acquiring Capcom. They are leaner, have multiplatform IPs like Resident Evil, DMC, Monster Hunter that, if taken off from Xbox, will help Sony. And Sony already has SquareEnix games exclusive, so buying them wouldn't really matter in this context.

Most of all, I think Sony will have to make one nuclear move: make GTA 6 a full PS5/PC exclusive. If Xbox Series X|S is without GTA throughout this generation, it would nullify any impact ABK might have had. And it'd have a huge impact on next-gen console sales as well, as some Xbox fans might buy a PS6, thinking what if GTA 7 doesn't release on Xbox again.

That's all Sony needs in my opinion.

P.S. Before everybody starts attacking me, I'm against this kind of stuff. That's why my hope is that the MS/ABK acquisition falls through, and Sony doesn't feel the need to do stuff like this. And all multiplatform games continue to release on all consoles, creating equal opportunities for both companies, consoles, and their userbase.
Click to expand...
The "totally not serious" fanfiction already reaching hilarious levels off the back of some mildly positive news. This thread is going to be a treat to read.
 
Topher

Topher

Gold Member
ExcitableBoy said:
If the acquisition eventually gets approved and Sony didn’t take Microsoft up on the COD 10 year deal, does that mean MS could keep it off PlayStation immediately? Almost like “tough luck, you didn’t accept our deal and now you get nothing”
Click to expand...

No, these public deals are just for show. The only commitments that matter are the ones Microsoft is making to regulators. Microsoft has to honor those concessions regardless of what deals are made to anyone else.
 
knocksky

knocksky

Banned
James Sawyer Ford said:
Well yes, if the deal passes, which would likely require concessions at this point, one of those which may be “no GP unless can come to terms with competitor service”

If the deal goes through without concessions (unlikely), MS can do whatever they want including removing CoD from PS
Click to expand...
I doubt it. Because then Sony or anyone else can just refuse the terms and Microsoft would then not be allowed to use their IP as they choose lol
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Microsoft has Closed the Activision Blizzard King Deal
22 23 24 25 26
1K
75K
MasterCornholio replied
Microsoft now says the CMA was ‘tough and fair’ over Activision Blizzard deal
Opinion Business Game Dev
17
2K
DaGwaphics replied
FTC appeals to block already-completed Microsoft-Activision deal
2
63
5K
Mythoclast replied
  • Locked
UK minister defends CMA's decision to block MS/ABK
News
0
771
Daniel_Mallorca1985 replied
  • Locked
Microsoft to sell off Activision cloud gaming rights to Ubisoft in bid for UK approval
News Business 2 3 4
154
14K
Spyxos replied
Top Bottom