Support NeoGAF

[Corndog]

That doesn’t fix the problem though as they could always rebrand and build anew.

Then they would be penalized just like they could be now.

 

[Corndog]

What in tarnation 500 millions for GTA exclusivity? GTA solds 120 million

No. 180+ million.
Page 11 I believe shows it.

https://ir.take2games.com/static-files/f04c0f81-91d9-4792-a05f-c11d244c96c3

 

[mckmas8808]

So even Microsoft thinks Starfield and the Indiana Jones game could both sell 10 million copies on the PS5 by itself and still decided to make them exclusive......





This is insanity. If this deal goes through COD won't be on the PS6. MS just straight up don't care about losing money.

 

[zapper]

it was poor irony, I am strongly against this acquisition. but unfortunately that's what this deal tells us, if there is an immediate benefit for consumers (which we don't know if it will be more good or bad in the long run) apparently it's all worth it, ms can buy t2 offering gta in the subscription/on the cloud or can buy ea and offer the same with fifa, no one cares if competition is destroyed because the competitors cannot replicate or if the market closes to new entrants.

 

[Alex Scott]

MS’s only option is to try and close this deal without the CMA’s consent if they are working towards the 18th. The CMA are only open to a new investigation.

“While the merging parties do not have the opportunity to submit new solutions once a final report has been issued, they can choose to restructure the deal, which could lead to a new merger investigation,” the agency said in a statement today. “The CMA is prepared to engage with them on this basis.”

So in conclusion CMA has to do a complete U turn for this merger to complete.

 

[Corndog]

So even Microsoft thinks Starfield and the Indiana Jones game could both sell 10 million copies on the PS5 by itself and still decided to make them exclusive......





This is insanity. If this deal goes through COD won't be on the PS6. MS just straight up don't care about losing money.

So should Sony put their first party games on Xbox to make more money?

 

[zapper]

MS’s only option is to try and close this deal without the CMA’s consent if they are working towards the 18th. The CMA are only open to a new investigation.

“While the merging parties do not have the opportunity to submit new solutions once a final report has been issued, they can choose to restructure the deal, which could lead to a new merger investigation,” the agency said in a statement today. “The CMA is prepared to engage with them on this basis.”

lol so the current block decays as I said? embarassing

 

[Alex Scott]

So even Microsoft thinks Starfield and the Indiana Jones game could both sell 10 million copies on the PS5 by itself and still decided to make them exclusive......





This is insanity. If this deal goes through COD won't be on the PS6. MS just straight up don't care about losing money.

MS took a oath. They have to put COD on PS.

 

[mckmas8808]

So should Sony put their first party games on Xbox to make more money?

No just like MS shouldn't have to put Halo on the PS5. But you know that's not what we are talking about.

 

[zapper]

MS took a oath. They have to put COD on PS.

I hope they break their oath and get rid of cod as soon as possible. it's pretty much the only way to stop them from acquiring anything

 

[Warablo]

The problem Sony is going to have is "what is a long time" that was the terms under oath.

Microsoft would have every right to make it exclusive, but I don't expect it to be exclusive for at least 5-10 years range. (those were the deals they were making)

 

[PaintTinJr]

The divestiture of Activision is not happening. Plenty of evidence to support that. This is just silly talk

The choices because these are fixed constraints are as follows:

1. Abandon deal, lose time, face, shareholder confidence and lots of money via shareprice, $69b inflation depreciation of those 18months, with a $3b loss to ATVI and a weakened stance with ATVI for CoD on Xbox.
2. Break international trade law by ignoring the CMA block, unfathomable fines and divestiture and potential Microsoft board members going to jail for premeditatively breaking laws with a company owned by its shareholders.
3. Pressure both the CMA and the CAT to break the law by them failing to apply the legislation they are legally bound to and let the deal pass by the 18th of July.
4. Get an extension with ATVI by offering far more in breakup and share offer, then either defeat the FTC and CMA objections in courts and get the deal passed, or defeat the FTC and extend to a new probe with the CMA for a restructure to pass the deal.
Or ....

5,. Agree to divest Activision as ordered, the deal passes by July 18th and Microsoft make a great return on the $69b and get some great investments, but not CoD.

Pick a poison, because with the CAT and CMA not breaking the law, and Microsoft set to make money from option 5, and the stock market info saying the deal closes, option 5 is the most likely scenario, unless you think Microsoft's board are more likely to act illegally than legally.

 

[bitbydeath]

MS took a oath. They have to put COD on PS.

They only promised for PS5, beyond that they can do what they want.

 

[POKEYCLYDE]

What in tarnation 500 millions for GTA exclusivity? GTA solds 120 million

GTA V has sold 180 million units. Mibu was saying to buy exclusivity (for a year probably) the cost would be $500 million.

I think $500 mil is too low. As GTA 5 made $800 million on it's first day and $1 billion in it's first 3 days.

 

[Topher]

They only promised for PS5, beyond that they can do what they want.

Phil Spencer said PS6 as well.

 

[zapper]

The choices because these a fix constraints are as follows:

1. Abandon deal, lose time, face, shareholder confidence and lots of money via shareprice, $69b inflation depreciation of those 18months, with a $3b loss to ATVI and a weakened stance with ATVI for CoD on Xbox.
2. Break international trade law by ignoring the CMA block, unfathomable fines and divestiture and potential Microsoft board members going to jail for premeditatively breaking laws with a company owned by its shareholders.
3. Pressure both the CMA and the CAT to break the law by them failing to apply the legislation they are legally bound to and let the deal pass by the 18th of July.
4. Get and extension with ATVI by offering far more in breakup and share offer, then either defeat the FTC and CMA objections in courts and get the deal passed, or defeat the FTC and extend to a new probe with the CMA for a restructure to pass the deal.
Or ....

5,. Agree to divest Activision as ordered, the deal passes ny July 18th and Microsoft make a great return on the $69b and get some great investments, but not CoD.

Pick a poison, because with the CAT and CMA not breaking the law, and Microsoft set to make money from option 5, and the stock market info saying the deal closes, option 5 is the most likely scenario, unless you think Microsoft's board are more likely to act illegally than legally.

maybe i remember wrong or i gave too much importance to the cma, but shouldn't their structural remedies have to be global?

 

[Topher]

The problem Sony is going to have is "what is a long time" that was the terms under oath.

Microsoft would have every right to make it exclusive, but I don't expect it to be exclusive for at least 5-10 years range. (those were the deals they were making)

No, they committed COD to PS5 and PS6. And Phil Spencer's word still means something, right? He made public comments that COD would be on PS as long as PS exists.

 

[PaintTinJr]

maybe i remember wrong or i gave too much importance to the cma, but shouldn't their structural remedies have to be global?

Yes they do, to have any effect to protect UK business and consumers from the cloud gaming SLC

 

[TrueGrime]

The choices because these are fixed constraints are as follows:

1. Abandon deal, lose time, face, shareholder confidence and lots of money via shareprice, $69b inflation depreciation of those 18months, with a $3b loss to ATVI and a weakened stance with ATVI for CoD on Xbox.
2. Break international trade law by ignoring the CMA block, unfathomable fines and divestiture and potential Microsoft board members going to jail for premeditatively breaking laws with a company owned by its shareholders.
3. Pressure both the CMA and the CAT to break the law by them failing to apply the legislation they are legally bound to and let the deal pass by the 18th of July.
4. Get an extension with ATVI by offering far more in breakup and share offer, then either defeat the FTC and CMA objections in courts and get the deal passed, or defeat the FTC and extend to a new probe with the CMA for a restructure to pass the deal.
Or ....

5,. Agree to divest Activision as ordered, the deal passes by July 18th and Microsoft make a great return on the $69b and get some great investments, but not CoD.

Pick a poison, because with the CAT and CMA not breaking the law, and Microsoft set to make money from option 5, and the stock market info saying the deal closes, option 5 is the most likely scenario, unless you think Microsoft's board are more likely to act illegally than legally.

Why would the CMA force Microsoft to give up CoD when they long ago dropped the argument that making CoD exclusive would harm competition? All the CMA cares about is cloud.

 

[POKEYCLYDE]

So even Microsoft thinks Starfield and the Indiana Jones game could both sell 10 million copies on the PS5 by itself and still decided to make them exclusive......





This is insanity. If this deal goes through COD won't be on the PS6. MS just straight up don't care about losing money.

The LTV of new users over 5 years could more than make up the lost sales on Playstation.

This is how exclusives work. I don't see anyone wondering why the fuck Sony doesn't put their first party games out on Xbox, Switch and PC. Sony is clearly losing money by not releasing their first party everywhere it can.

But we know that having exclusives brings new users into their ecosystem. Exclusives sell Playstations. People with Playstations will use the PS store and any 3rd party game a customer buys, 30% of that revenue goes to Sony. If I have a Playstation I'm more likely to subscribe to Playstation +.

The money Sony doesn't get from releasing their first party everywhere is made up from the LTV of new customers.

I don't understand why people get that for Sony but can't fathom why Microsoft would want to do the same.

 

[PaintTinJr]

Why would the CMA force Microsoft to give up CoD when they long ago dropped the argument that making CoD exclusive would harm competition? All the CMA cares about is cloud.

CoD is part of the Activision library. That library of games is the cause of the cloud gaming SLC.

 

[mckmas8808]

People can hate this guy, but he is spot on:

My man is 100% SPOT ON with the value destruction point. It's so odd to see so many gamers applaud the fact that they will now "NOT" have to buy Call of Duty or Diablo games going forward as if those games in development today aren't costing $100+ million a piece!

How some of yall can't see that this will not end well 10 years from now is beyond me. Like he said, MS could have allocated $30 Billion to invest in big AAA games and sold the Xbox Series X for $299 and truly actually competed hard and saved some money. It's signs that show even MS knows they can't bet on themselves.

 

[jm89]

 

[Varteras]

No, they committed COD to PS5 and PS6. And Phil Spencer's word still means something, right? He made public comments that COD would be on PS as long as PS exists.

Not just Spencer. Nadella also testified to CoD staying on PlayStation. Two high level executives, one of them the head of the whole company, testifying as representatives of Microsoft. In a highly public hearing. You're not wiggling out of that. It would be an absolute farce for the judicial system and make testifying in court carry less weight for future hearings.

 

[Negotiator101]

So even Microsoft thinks Starfield and the Indiana Jones game could both sell 10 million copies on the PS5 by itself and still decided to make them exclusive......





This is insanity. If this deal goes through COD won't be on the PS6. MS just straight up don't care about losing money.

10yr deal so yes it will.

 

[Topher]

10yr deal so yes it will.

What 10 year deal?

 

[CRAIG667]

MS took a oath. They have to put COD on PS.

Not only that, Indiana Jones and Starfield are new (non multiplayer IPs)

 

[Alex Scott]

The choices because these are fixed constraints are as follows:

1. Abandon deal, lose time, face, shareholder confidence and lots of money via shareprice, $69b inflation depreciation of those 18months, with a $3b loss to ATVI and a weakened stance with ATVI for CoD on Xbox.
2. Break international trade law by ignoring the CMA block, unfathomable fines and divestiture and potential Microsoft board members going to jail for premeditatively breaking laws with a company owned by its shareholders.
3. Pressure both the CMA and the CAT to break the law by them failing to apply the legislation they are legally bound to and let the deal pass by the 18th of July.
4. Get an extension with ATVI by offering far more in breakup and share offer, then either defeat the FTC and CMA objections in courts and get the deal passed, or defeat the FTC and extend to a new probe with the CMA for a restructure to pass the deal.
Or ....

5,. Agree to divest Activision as ordered, the deal passes ny July 18th and Microsoft make a great return on the $69b and get some great investments, but not CoD.

Pick a poison, because with the CAT and CMA not breaking the law, and Microsoft set to make money from option 5, and the stock market info saying the deal closes, option 5 is the most likely scenario, unless you think Microsoft's board are more likely to act illegally than legally.

In the final report they only mention one remedy which is this:

On the basis of the above assessment, and our conclusion that the Merger is likely to lead to significant and sustained adverse effects,

which outweigh by a significant and growing margin the RCBs that would be lost as a result of prohibition,

we conclude that prohibition of the Merger is the only effective remedy and is not disproportionate in relation to the SLC and its adverse effects.

There is also this:

The CMA has the choice of implementing any final remedy decision either by accepting final undertakings if the Parties wish to offer them, or by making a final order


Either the final undertakings or the final order must be implemented within 12 weeks of publication of our final report (or extended once by up to 6 weeks),


including the period for any formal public consultation on the draft undertakings or order as specified in Schedule 10 of the Act.

So MS can still offer remedy. And CMA can still accept them.

 

[Heisenberg007]

So even Microsoft thinks Starfield and the Indiana Jones game could both sell 10 million copies on the PS5 by itself and still decided to make them exclusive......





This is insanity. If this deal goes through COD won't be on the PS6. MS just straight up don't care about losing money.

And the judge be like: "It's fine. They'd lose money otherwise if they made ABK games exclusive. They won't. Look at Phil's puppy eyes. Do you think he'd ever lie or misrepresent things?! Awww, shoo cuttee!"

 

[Varteras]

Well fuck. Get ready, boys. This is gonna either go on even longer or the fireworks go off on Tuesday.

 

[mckmas8808]

Not only that, Indiana Jones and Starfield are new (non multiplayer IPs)

Why would being a multiplayer game matter? Plus those two other games were being made for PS5 until MS told the devs to stop and make it Xbox only.

 

[Gudji]

 

[Topher]

Well fuck. Get ready, boys. This is gonna either go on even longer or the fireworks go off on Tuesday.

 

[mckmas8808]

The LTV of new users over 5 years could more than make up the lost sales on Playstation.

This is how exclusives work. I don't see anyone wondering why the fuck Sony doesn't put their first party games out on Xbox, Switch and PC. Sony is clearly losing money by not releasing their first party everywhere it can.

But we know that having exclusives brings new users into their ecosystem. Exclusives sell Playstations. People with Playstations will use the PS store and any 3rd party game a customer buys, 30% of that revenue goes to Sony. If I have a Playstation I'm more likely to subscribe to Playstation +.

The money Sony doesn't get from releasing their first party everywhere is made up from the LTV of new customers.

I don't understand why people get that for Sony but can't fathom why Microsoft would want to do the same.

Because MS didn't start making Starfield. It was already in development for over 3 years before MS bought them. How you think a game like Gears and Halo are the same as Starfield is insane.

 

[bitbydeath]

Phil Spencer said PS6 as well.

“I would raise my hand, I would do whatever it takes,” he told Judge Corley in court. “My commitment is, and my testimony is, that we will continue to ship future versions of Call of Duty on Sony’s PlayStation 5.”

It is, perhaps, worth specifically noting the “5” in that oath.

Phil Spencer swears under oath that he won’t pull Call of Duty from PlayStation 5.

Spencer notes that Microsoft would suffer damage from going back on its word in any case — “I think as we’ve seen even in preparation for this that gamers are an active and vocal group. Us pulling Call of Duty from PlayStation in my view would create irreparable harm for the Xbox brand,” he...

www.theverge.com

 

[Gudji]

Rejoyce my friends 500 more pages incoming.

 

[Topher]

Phil Spencer swears under oath that he won’t pull Call of Duty from PlayStation 5.

Spencer notes that Microsoft would suffer damage from going back on its word in any case — “I think as we’ve seen even in preparation for this that gamers are an active and vocal group. Us pulling Call of Duty from PlayStation in my view would create irreparable harm for the Xbox brand,” he...

www.theverge.com

He said PS6 as well later in his testimony.

 

[Alex Scott]

Phil Spencer swears under oath that he won’t pull Call of Duty from PlayStation 5.

Spencer notes that Microsoft would suffer damage from going back on its word in any case — “I think as we’ve seen even in preparation for this that gamers are an active and vocal group. Us pulling Call of Duty from PlayStation in my view would create irreparable harm for the Xbox brand,” he...

www.theverge.com

MS CEO mentioned only Playstation in his testimony.

 

[bitbydeath]

He said PS6 as well later in his testimony.

Got a link for that?
You sure it was under oath and not just Phil talk?

 

[zapper]

cma worst regulatory troll ever.
why the hell don't they say if their block stays even if they consider a new offer oof

 

[Heisenberg007]

More drama!

I swear this case and thread has been exactly like this:

 

[PaintTinJr]

In the final report they only mention one remedy which is this:

There is also this:

So MS can still offer remedy. And CMA can still accept them.

But not without it being transparent and giving us as an industry a chance to provide more feedback too, and restate that the deal should be blocked.

The console and cloud SLC has far more evidence since the FTC trial piercing Microsoft's withdrawn waiver, and that the CMA have completely missed an nascent E-sports SLC with CoD's 110m monthly players. The Booty email and calculations alone in a probe should torpedo this entire deal with the CMA if they are following the law and protecting competition for UK consumers and businesses.

 

[Topher]

Got a link for that?
You sure it was under oath and not just Phil talk?

It was talked about here. All the news focused on the same quote you provided so hard to find something specific to his statement on PS6, but he did say it under oath. Others can corroborate.

 

[GigaBowser]

GTA V has sold 180 million units. Mibu was saying to buy exclusivity (for a year probably) the cost would be $500 million.

I think $500 mil is too low. As GTA 5 made $800 million on it's first day and $1 billion in it's first 3 days.

It would corst billions

 

[Heisenberg007]

cma worst regulatory troll ever.
why the hell don't they say if their block stays even if they consider a new offer oof

They have already said that the block stayed. They said it 2 days ago.

 

[Varteras]

cma worst regulatory troll ever.
why the hell don't they say if their block stays even if they consider a new offer oof

They made it clear already. They cannot accept any remedies on the deal as it exists. They would be breaking the law. That MS and ABK would have to renegotiate and restructure the deal. They were warned that would likely cause a delay of "months". Saying it would be 6 weeks from now is actually faster than they originally suggested. The CMA never promised them anything and warned them what would likely happen.

 

[Heisenberg007]

Now I think MS and ABK will likely extend their contract to August 29, considering it's not a very long time - just 5-6 weeks. Unless Bobby pulls a doozie and bails out (which would be hilarious).

It'd be even more hilarious if CMA, after taking these 5-6 extra weeks, just says:

I still believe a leaked sex tape between Phil Spencer and Judge Corley will be a better finale than this. #TeamSexTape.

 

[The Pleasure]

A company with more studios than sony needs activision to compete does Jez think that people are fucking stupid?

If you look at most xbox fans, yes. Yes Jezball does think people are that fucking stupid.

 

[woahwoahwoah]

Okay, beyond obvious what the CMA and FTC are doing. They're trying to run out the clock, get the deal past the deadline and see if Bobby walks with his $3B.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

So even Microsoft thinks Starfield and the Indiana Jones game could both sell 10 million copies on the PS5 by itself and still decided to make them exclusive......





This is insanity. If this deal goes through COD won't be on the PS6. MS just straight up don't care about losing money.

I've literally been saying that since the first day I started posting in this thread...