• 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?


  • Total voters
    886
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.

DrFigs

Member
Time will tell.

Have Sony every bought a studio and made new games and released them on other consoles? Just curious?

In recent times
I know what you're saying. I don't think MS should be obligated to release games on other platforms, it's just the credibility of their statements I'm questioning. The only acquisition sony's made that comes close to the scale of Bethesda is Bungie. And they've said their releases will still be on Xbox, but who knows.
 

phil_t98

#SonyToo
I know what you're saying. I don't think MS should be obligated to release games on other platforms, it's just the credibility of their statements I'm questioning. The only acquisition sony's made that comes close to the scale of Bethesda is Bungie. And they've said their releases will still be on Xbox, but who knows.


They bought mine raft and continued to release stand alone Minecraft games on PlayStation and switch. So we do have that to go by.

If I recall earlier in the thread they never made a promise to anybody to release those games on other platforms , the FTC said they broke the promise they had made to either the EU or CMA about that and it was debunked?
 

Heisenberg007

Gold Journalism
Time will tell.

Have Sony every bought a studio and made new games and released them on other consoles? Just curious?

In recent times
I may be wrong, but as far as I can remember, Sony has never bought a studio that were releasing its games on Xbox and had to stop releasing their sequels or in-production new games on Xbox.

The closest they came was with Insomniac and Sunset Overdrive. But they haven't released a PlayStation exclusive Sunset Overdrive 2 yet.
 

phil_t98

#SonyToo
I may be wrong, but as far as I can remember, Sony has never bought a studio that were releasing its games on Xbox and had to stop releasing their sequels or in-production new games on Xbox.

The closest they came was with Insomniac and Sunset Overdrive. But they haven't released a PlayStation exclusive Sunset Overdrive 2 yet.


Insomniac had a game on Xbox befor being bought. So you could argue that stopped a sequel ever appearing but you could argue that none was ever planned for the game
 

Topher

Gold Member
They bought mine raft and continued to release stand alone Minecraft games on PlayStation and switch. So we do have that to go by.

If I recall earlier in the thread they never made a promise to anybody to release those games on other platforms , the FTC said they broke the promise they had made to either the EU or CMA about that and it was debunked?

Wasn't really "debunked". EC said future game distribution wasn't a factor in their decision. For the record, Microsoft claimed they had "no incentive" to not make games for other platforms. How "misleading" (FTC's words) that was is debatable.
 

Heisenberg007

Gold Journalism
Insomniac had a game on Xbox befor being bought. So you could argue that stopped a sequel ever appearing but you could argue that none was ever planned for the game
That's what I am referring to, Sunset Overdrive.

But that doesn't count because there is no Sunset Overdrive 2 yet on PlayStation, and it seems like it's not even in the pipeline either.

On the other hand, Obsidian is the opposite example. They released The Outer Worlds on Xbox and PlayStation. Now they are releasing The Outer Worlds 2 as an Xbox exclusive. Same goes for Ninja Theory and Hellblade 2.
 

DrFigs

Member
They bought mine raft and continued to release stand alone Minecraft games on PlayStation and switch. So we do have that to go by.

If I recall earlier in the thread they never made a promise to anybody to release those games on other platforms , the FTC said they broke the promise they had made to either the EU or CMA about that and it was debunked?
Yes they never made a promise to regulators that Bethesda games wouldn't be exclusive. However, it seems fairly clear that they were being dishonest when they said that they didn't have an incentive to make the games exclusive. And I think the FTC is right to point that out, even though the European regulators went on to say that this wasn't the reason the deal was allowed to go through. I feel like we can look at the pattern of Bethesda games set to release on ps5 and put it together that they, in fact, did have an incentive to keep these games off their competitor's platform. Why should these regulators believe Microsoft's statements about their intents, when they lied about their intents previously?
 
Last edited:

splattered

Member
I know but they stated that in public. Which is very different from the messaging of other Sony owned studios.

Well... Don't forget Bungie has a 10 year plan for destiny that includes a butt load of battle passes and micro transactions. If they announced they would be moving to playstation only Xbox fans may have boycotted the current game where it stands and they would have lost out on a ton of playerbase and MT money. We really don't know what their stance truly is until they announce their next game.
 
Last edited:
Well... Don't forget Bungie has a 10 year plan for destiny that includes a butt load of battle passes and micro transactions. If they announced they would be moving to playstation only Xbox fans may have boycotted the current game where it stands and they would have lost out on a ton of playerbase and MT money. We really don't know what their stance truly is until they announce their next game.

I wasn't talking about Destiny. Just their messaging regarding future titles.
 

poppabk

Cheeks Spread for Digital Only Future
it seems odd that we're 3/3 for bethesda releases not coming to ps5 so far.
i'm not going to humor the idea that MS could have chosen not to release the games sony paid for.
Well we are also 3 for 3 with new IP. Elder Scrolls 6 would be the real test, but that will release after all this shit goes down and it's exclusivity or not may change based on this deal.
 

phil_t98

#SonyToo
That's what I am referring to, Sunset Overdrive.

But that doesn't count because there is no Sunset Overdrive 2 yet on PlayStation, and it seems like it's not even in the pipeline either.

On the other hand, Obsidian is the opposite example. They released The Outer Worlds on Xbox and PlayStation. Now they are releasing The Outer Worlds 2 as an Xbox exclusive. Same goes for Ninja Theory and Hellblade 2.

But also they will never get a sequel to sunset , so it has happend both ways just more on Xbox side
 

POKEYCLYDE

Member
CMA approving just with the 10 years deals won't happen, the best case for Microsoft is CMA approving with super strict behavioural remedies that go well beyond what they're offering (business under observation, business decisions subject to external approval, 10 years deals subject to revaluation and renewal), so even in that case it must be seen if Microsoft is willing to accept such remedies. But it's a low chance scenario, the most probable scenario with CMA is a block.
I think what Microsoft will offer is a few boilerplate contracts available for anyone that meets certain criteria. (The criteria would make it so that unsafe, very niche/small, unviable platforms/services could not get a contract)

For B2P models, they'd offer CoD releases at parity (with negligible margins), at the standard 30/70 cut.

For MGS services, they'd offer CoD releases at fair market value.

For BYOG services, they'd offer their first party PC games at some marginal licensing fee.

Fair market value would be determined by a 3rd party agreed upon by the CMA. This 3rd party or a separate 3rd party (also agreed upon by the CMA) would monitor that Microsoft is keeping true to it's contracts. Any issues/disagreements not solved by this third party would be brought before the CMA to arbitrate and/or discipline Microsoft.

The contracts would probably have an end date of summer 2033. With a clause that the CMA can re-evaluate and extend/re-new the contracts for 5-10 years (after negotiating terms with Microsoft).
 

jm89

Member
I think what Microsoft will offer is a few boilerplate contracts available for anyone that meets certain criteria. (The criteria would make it so that unsafe, very niche/small, unviable platforms/services could not get a contract)

For B2P models, they'd offer CoD releases at parity (with negligible margins), at the standard 30/70 cut.

For MGS services, they'd offer CoD releases at fair market value.

For BYOG services, they'd offer their first party PC games at some marginal licensing fee.

Fair market value would be determined by a 3rd party agreed upon by the CMA. This 3rd party or a separate 3rd party (also agreed upon by the CMA) would monitor that Microsoft is keeping true to it's contracts. Any issues/disagreements not solved by this third party would be brought before the CMA to arbitrate and/or discipline Microsoft.

The contracts would probably have an end date of summer 2033. With a clause that the CMA can re-evaluate and extend/re-new the contracts for 5-10 years (after negotiating terms with Microsoft).
There is alot of other things Microsoft can do to make things difficult if they really wanted and still stay in contract.

They can reduce the frequency of releasing cod, and put teams on another yearly FPS franchise. Obviously this is a huge reach, but if ms really wanted to move the cod userbase to Xbox but not do it without actually breaking contract it's possible.
 
Now I'm imagining a 60 page document written by a MS lawyer outlining how they're going to make the UK a third world country.
Hahaha, "this just in... The CMA blocked the ABK deal, Microsoft refused to accept, so they are now buying the entire UK to bring COD to the masses!" lol
 
Hahaha, "this just in... The CMA blocked the ABK deal, Microsoft refused to accept, so they are now buying the entire UK to bring COD to the masses!" lol

And the funny thing is some people will believe that.

World Smile Day Reaction GIF by MOODMAN
 

Topher

Gold Member
Did anyone else think Hell Blade was the sequel to Heavenly Sword when it was first announced?

Heaven/Hell.....Sword/Blade. Exactly the connection I made when I heard it.
 
Last edited:

Three

Member
Not sure what NT was thinking. Deliberate trolling? What else were people going to think with a name like that?
Not sure either, probably as you mention a bit of deliberate trolling. Maybe they wanted people to make the connection or really loved the heavenly sword name but couldn't use it due to IP ownership goals so they agreed a new name with the Sony partnership where they retain Hellblade and just set expectations for those who made the connection in an interview.

No idea why they did it really. I always wonder if Ninja theory owned the IP whether they would have done a direct sequel instead.
 

POKEYCLYDE

Member
There is alot of other things Microsoft can do to make things difficult if they really wanted and still stay in contract.

They can reduce the frequency of releasing cod, and put teams on another yearly FPS franchise. Obviously this is a huge reach, but if ms really wanted to move the cod userbase to Xbox but not do it without actually breaking contract it's possible.
There would probably be a clause that Activision studios wouldn't be able to work on a new FPS military shooter IP.

But guaranteed yearly releases wouldn't be a clause. If Microsoft wants to release CoD less frequently to free up some of those support studios or let the main studios pursue passion projects (like Obsidian has with Grounded and Pentiment), then I don't see an issue, I don't think the regulators would either.

The SLC is centered around the benefits/harm CoD being exclusive would bring.
 
Yes they never made a promise to regulators that Bethesda games wouldn't be exclusive. However, it seems fairly clear that they were being dishonest when they said that they didn't have an incentive to make the games exclusive. And I think the FTC is right to point that out, even though the European regulators went on to say that this wasn't the reason the deal was allowed to go through. I feel like we can look at the pattern of Bethesda games set to release on ps5 and put it together that they, in fact, did have an incentive to keep these games off their competitor's platform. Why should these regulators believe Microsoft's statements about their intents, when they lied about their intents previously?
Why couldn't have MS been talking about the numerous Bethesda games that continue to be supported on PlayStation when they were talking about no incentive to make them exclusive. Service based games require large player bases and keeping them supported made more sense than ending support and making the expansions exclusive. The 'case by case' basis which is regularly ignored would be for titles that are stand alone offline games.

Starfield has no history on PlayStation and was never officially announced. Elder Scrolls has also no had any platforms officially announced and more of those titles are on Xbox platforms than PlayStation anyway. Regardless let's not pretend that MS hasn't released brand new stand alone titles on PlayStation and has done so without any contracts or being forced to do so. When speaking of contracts can anyone point out a gaming contract MS has violated? Preferably one with Sony since that is the main entity people here care about. Calling them 'liars' seems like an incredible stretch.
 

DrFigs

Member
Why couldn't have MS been talking about the numerous Bethesda games that continue to be supported on PlayStation when they were talking about no incentive to make them exclusive. Service based games require large player bases and keeping them supported made more sense than ending support and making the expansions exclusive. The 'case by case' basis which is regularly ignored would be for titles that are stand alone offline games.

Starfield has no history on PlayStation and was never officially announced. Elder Scrolls has also no had any platforms officially announced and more of those titles are on Xbox platforms than PlayStation anyway. Regardless let's not pretend that MS hasn't released brand new stand alone titles on PlayStation and has done so without any contracts or being forced to do so. When speaking of contracts can anyone point out a gaming contract MS has violated? Preferably one with Sony since that is the main entity people here care about. Calling them 'liars' seems like an incredible stretch.
yeah i guess it's such an odd thing to give Microsoft credit for, and certainly not an interesting assurance from Microsoft. is there any precedence for a game being removed from one store if has been purchased by a different publisher? Why would anyone have expected old Bethesda games to be removed from the playstation store? I think it's pretty clear MS has an incentive to make exclusive games and telling regulators that they did not was a blantant lie. Maybe they really meant they weren't going to remove games that have already been published or games sony already paid for, but I think we're stretching the words to the limits of what's reasonable.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom