Support NeoGAF

[James Sawyer Ford]

The risk for Sony there, if the deal goes through without that signed agreement, MS could take COD away whenever they like (after the existing contract is up, that is)?

Would Sony risk having COD on PS be dependant on the whims of MS after 3 years rather than having a guaranteed 10 years with the option to renew?
Not saying Microsoft would, but if Sony don’t agree then they could at any point - right?

I guess that depends on if the FTC allows the acquisition to take place with no concessions of their own. From the discussions already it seems like there will be certain stipulations the regulators outlay

 

[DeepEnigma]

Sony is playing a risky game here.

Let's see if their risk pays off.

This is stoking fake drama.

What risky game are they playing? I mean, it's not like they can do anything other than voice strong concerns with the acquisition.

This.

 

[ReBurn]

I think that's exactly what the contract would be - an acknowledgement from Sony that they are OK with the acquisition, which increases the likelihood of FTC approval.

But the reality is, there's no concession terms that make sense to Sony. If Microsoft gets Activision, that's going to hurt them significantly in terms of PS store revenue in the future, EVEN if CoD remains on their platform. It's in Sony's best interest to see this deal collapse.

Being purely pedantic here, but the FTC doesn't approve mergers and acquisitions. All they can due is sue to block, then they have to prove to a judge that the acquisition would result in something Illegal. The FTC has to prove in court why it shouldn't happen. Microsoft won't know what their issues are until they file a lawsuit.

I think the 10 year contract offer is for the EU and CMA regulators who need to explicitly approve the deal and have expressed foreclosure concerns with Call of Duty being removed from PlayStation. They want to show the people they need to suck up to that they're willing to cooperate.

 

[Topher]

Being purely pedantic here, but the FTC doesn't approve mergers and acquisitions. All they can due is sue to block, then they have to prove to a judge that the acquisition would result in something Illegal. The FTC has to prove in court why it shouldn't happen. Microsoft won't know what their issues are until they file a lawsuit.

Right.....that's the part that gets lost in all this. It should also be used as a reminder that the FTC can still file a lawsuit after the acquisition is completed.

 

[Three]

Sony is saying it's for the gamers because they don't want regulators to think their opposition is self-serving. Unless regulators are morons they're going to know that it's self-serving. But that's ok. They're trying to protect their position in the market.

You both realise you're going off a joke parody post, right?

 

[ReBurn]

You both realise you're going off a joke parody post, right?

lol except that Sony is serious about it

Consumers would be harmed. In the short-term, PlayStation users would no longer have access to Call of Duty or would be forced to spend £450 on an equivalent Xbox to play this hugely popular game on their less preferred device. In the mid-term, a significant number of PlayStation users would likely switch to Xbox and/or Game Pass. Faced with weaker competition, Microsoft would be able to: increase console and game prices for Xbox users (including those that had switched from PlayStation); increase the price of Game Pass; and reduce innovation and quality. These harms would be amplified by the direct and indirect network effects at play in the industry, allowing Microsoft to further raise prices or reduce quality once its position has become even more entrenched.

Sony: "Oh CMA, please think of the consumers! Although Call of Duty is what makes people want to buy PlayStation without it people would be absolutely forced to want to buy Xbox instead! Trust us, they really don't want to want to buy it! Microsoft will show up at their homes and force them to buy Xbox consoles!

Then after everyone is forced to buy their less preferred device that they only prefer because of our CoD marketing deal Microsoft could use their newfound UK market domination to do what we used our long-standing UK market domination to do: increase console and video game prices! We only did it because inflation, though. Really, that's the only reason we did it! But they would do it just to be mean! Please CMA, don't let Microsoft do what we have literally just done. It wouldn't be fair to consumers!"

Sony is writing the jokes here...

 

[zzill3]

I guess that depends on if the FTC allows the acquisition to take place with no concessions of their own. From the discussions already it seems like there will be certain stipulations the regulators outlay

If you were Sony, would you take the risk the regulators required concessions will come close to what MS are offering at the moment?

You could take a guaranteed 10 years, or what amounts to a mystery box. So far, no regulator has actually come out opposed to the deal - some have approved and others have not officially said one way or the other, but that’s not a refusal. Would you risk some of the remaining regulators will require so much more of Microsoft than those that have already approved it?

 

[feynoob]

Nobody knows what will be agreed on. We don't know the exact details of what ms is offering and if regulators will be happy with it, especially if regulators are looking at more at the possible future of gaming like cloud and subscription.

I wish we got more sauce from the deal. So far, we are short on info.

 

[feynoob]

lol except that Sony is serious about it



Sony: "Oh CMA, please think of the consumers! Although Call of Duty is what makes people want to buy PlayStation without it people would be absolutely forced to want to buy Xbox instead! Trust us, they really don't want to want to buy it! Microsoft will show up at their homes and force them to buy Xbox consoles!

Then after everyone is forced to buy their less preferred device that they only prefer because of our CoD marketing deal Microsoft could use their newfound UK market domination to do what we used our long-standing UK market domination to do: increase console and video game prices! We only did it because inflation, though. Really, that's the only reason we did it! But they would do it just to be mean! Please CMA, don't let Microsoft do what we have literally just done. It wouldn't be fair to consumers!"

Sony is writing the jokes here...

Gentlemen, never take lawyers words face value.

 

[Three]

lol except that Sony is serious about it

So I don't get it, should they accept the offer and be "self serving" or decline the deal because Nintendo also didn't get concessions and it's not "for the gamers"?

Which choice would be "for the gamers"?

Sony: "Oh CMA, please think of the consumers! Although Call of Duty is what makes people want to buy PlayStation without it people would be absolutely forced to want to buy Xbox instead! Trust us, they really don't want to want to buy it! Microsoft will show up at their homes and force them to buy Xbox consoles!

Then after everyone is forced to buy their less preferred device that they only prefer because of our CoD marketing deal Microsoft could use their newfound UK market domination to do what we used our long-standing UK market domination to do: increase console and video game prices! We only did it because inflation, though. Really, that's the only reason we did it! But they would do it just to be mean! Please CMA, don't let Microsoft do what we have literally just done. It wouldn't be fair to consumers!"

Sony is writing the jokes here...

No doubt it is self serving in any case, but being self serving and pro competition can align too. Ask MS and its multiple complaints about Google and Apple. These companies would obviously push whatever benefits them.

Price increase wasn't just because of inflation either. It was also this:

That's a little different to predatory pricing or anti competitive, wouldn't you say?

 

[DarkMage619]

So I don't get it, should they accept the offer and be "self serving" or decline the deal because Nintendo also didn't get concessions and it's not "for the gamers"?

Which choice would be "for the gamers"?

There would have to be an acknowledgement that Nintendo is a fellow competitor in the console gaming marketplace wouldn't they? They can't on one hand say Nintendo doesn't compete then claim to be worried they aren't getting concessions. If Sony can't compete without CoD they should take the deal to save their business. Being self serving isn't really the issue.

 

[Three]

There would have to be an acknowledgement that Nintendo is a fellow competitor in the console gaming marketplace wouldn't they? They can't on one hand say Nintendo doesn't compete then claim to be worried they aren't getting concessions. If Sony can't compete without CoD they should take the deal to save their business. Being self serving isn't really the issue.

You're missing the point that this conversation started with a parody post and somebody replying to it saying this isn't "for gamers" but self serving because what about Nintendo's concessions. I very much doubt Sony needs to ask MS/Activision about Nintendo's concessions. I was just wondering which play won't be self serving, accepting the parody offer because you've got your concessions or not accepting the offer because it's about principle for all?

 

[bxrz]

 

[CatLady]

If you were Sony, would you take the risk the regulators required concessions will come close to what MS are offering at the moment?

You could take a guaranteed 10 years, or what amounts to a mystery box. So far, no regulator has actually come out opposed to the deal - some have approved and others have not officially said one way or the other, but that’s not a refusal. Would you risk some of the remaining regulators will require so much more of Microsoft than those that have already approved it?

If Sony turns up their nose at the 10-yr offer, the regulators should just pass it with no conditions and tell Sony to piss off with all their ridiculous, self-serving objections.

 

[Three]

If Sony turns up their nose at the 10-yr offer, the regulators should just pass it with no conditions and tell Sony to piss off with all their ridiculous, self-serving objections.

MS haven't made any concessions or proposals to the FTC, CMA or EU. That's who you need to worry about.

 

[feynoob]

Microsoft Corp. is ready to fight for its $69 billion acquisition of gaming company Activision Blizzard Inc. if the US Federal Trade Commission files a lawsuit seeking to block the deal, according to a person familiar with the matter.

The Xbox maker hasn't had conversations with the FTC about remedies or concessions aimed at getting the deal approved, said the person, who asked not to be identified discussing a confidential matter. FTC staff is wrapping up its investigation and is expected to make a recommendation soon, the person added. The FTC commissioners would then vote on whether to file a case.

In the event the FTC tries to block the case, Microsoft is gearing up to contest that decision in court, said the person, who asked not to be identified speaking about internal strategy.

Microsoft has offered Sony a deal in which it would make Call of Duty games available on the PlayStation for a decade, although the companies would need to work out financial terms for that agreement, the person said.

The software giant has advised regulators of those discussions, but hasn't formally made a remedy proposal because the review process hasn't advanced to that stage, the person said.

Because of the different stages of the various probes around the world, Microsoft is likely to discuss this step first with the European Commission, which has set a March 23 (wrong date, April 11th) deadline to complete its in-depth review of the deal.

Microsoft is hoping the remedies it offers the EU will suffice globally, the person said. It's possible that UK regulators could want additional steps from the company, however.

Microsoft and the CMA will both appear at a main party hearing in mid-December, a part of the UK merger process that will allow them to hash out and test the parties arguments. An interim decision by the agency is expected by January and the deadline for the full decision is March.

 

[HoofHearted]

 

[feynoob]

bxrz sorry for the late. Was playing fifa, after that horrindous brazil output today.

 

[Topher]

PlayStation vs Xbox cross-play Call of Duty tournament.

 

[DenchDeckard]

Ms getting the big guns out. They aren't backing down without a serious fight here.

If this goes through I think they are going to be a different beast after how Sony has acted with them and the UK CMA.

We had some years of all playing nice from Phil and MS and I'm interested to see if that remains after this goes through.

 

[ZehDon]

They needed a source to tell them "company would go to court if taken to court"? Must be a slow news day.

 

[Topher]

We had some years of all playing nice from Phil and MS

 

[M16]

They needed a source to tell them "company would go to court if taken to court"? Must be a slow news day.

It's a controlled leak to tell the FTC they don't want that smoke.

 

[feynoob]

must be a drinking night here, if this slow news is making you guys lose your mind.

 

[DenchDeckard]

Well, I always thought he was being honest. But there's been no praising of god of war launch or any talk of how we should all work together to fend off apple and Google etc. It seems different. I'm wondering jf it will come back once this is all over.

 

[DarkMage619]

You're missing the point that this conversation started with a parody post and somebody replying to it saying this isn't "for gamers" but self serving because what about Nintendo's concessions. I very much doubt Sony needs to ask MS/Activision about Nintendo's concessions. I was just wondering which play won't be self serving, accepting the parody offer because you've got your concessions or not accepting the offer because it's about principle for all?

Parody or not Sony continues to ask for more and more. It went from we need CoD to compete to asking for PS+ to get the game as well. Three years wasn't long enough and ten years doesn't warrant a response.

The Nintendo stuff is laughable because when shown Sony can compete without CoD the argument shifts to MS is trying to make us like Nintendo! There are no principles being argued against the deal just random accusations being tossed around and doomsday scenarios.

I honestly don't care that Sony is being self serving asking for things for MS to do but let's not pretend they will ever really be satisfied or were ever really arguing legitimately for their survival. There is a reason CADE mentioned that the purpose of regulators is to defend consumers and not companies. They saw through the Sony comments anyone looking fairly at this will too.

 

[gothmog]

Microsoft has to fight it or they have to pay three billion dollars.

 

[GHG]

Well, I always thought he was being honest. But there's been no praising of god of war launch or any talk of how we should all work together to fend off apple and Google etc. It seems different. I'm wondering jf it will come back once this is all over.

No coming back from this. Phil is about to hit the gym.

 

[feynoob]

Parody or not Sony continues to ask for more and more. It went from we need CoD to compete to asking for PS+ to get the game as well. Three years wasn't long enough and ten years doesn't warrant a response.

The Nintendo stuff is laughable because when shown Sony can compete without CoD the argument shifts to MS is trying to make us like Nintendo! There are no principles being argued against the deal just random accusations being tossed around and doomsday scenarios.

I honestly don't care that Sony is being self serving asking for things for MS to do but let's not pretend they will ever really be satisfied or were ever really arguing legitimately for their survival. There is a reason CADE mentioned that the purpose of regulators is to defend consumers and not companies. They saw through the Sony comments anyone looking fairly at this will too.

 

[Topher]

No coming back from this. Phil is about to hit the gym.

No more "playing nice"

 

[GHG]

DarkMage619 hanging on to CADE:

 

[ReBurn]

Where else would they contest it other than in court? These twitterers....

 

[feynoob]

DarkMage619 hanging on to CADE:

He is like that EX who wants to go back to that old relationship, even though, she said no too many times, and blocked his number.

 

[ChuckeRearmed]

O

Oh, they will fight for sure if it comes to that. FTC has no legal reason to block the deal.

 

[GHG]

Where else would they contest it other than in court? These twitterers....

On Neogaf.

SenjutsuSage is representing Microsoft.

 

[Boglin]

Parody or not Sony continues to ask for more and more. It went from we need CoD to compete to asking for PS+ to get the game as well. Three years wasn't long enough and ten years doesn't warrant a response.

I didn't realize Sony reneged on certain conditions to give the deal their blessing so that's pretty scummy. For some reason I was under the impression that Sony had myriads of reasons to fight against it from the start.

 

[Topher]

I didn't realize Sony reneged on certain conditions to give the deal their blessing so that's pretty scummy. For some reason I was under the impression that Sony had myriads of reasons to fight against it from the start.

What did Sony renege on again?

 

[Boglin]

What did Sony renege on again?

Apparently Sony only asked for more COD at the beginning. At least that's what is being implied with the message I quoted.

 

[Topher]

Apparently Sony only asked for more COD at the beginning. At least that's what is being implied with the message I quoted.

No, Sony rejected the 3 year deal according to Jim Ryan. That's not reneging on anything.

"Microsoft has only offered for Call of Duty to remain on PlayStation for three years after the current agreement between Activision and Sony ends," said Ryan. "We want to guarantee PlayStation gamers continue to have the highest quality Call of Duty experience, and Microsoft’s proposal undermines this principle."

Sony's Jim Ryan deems Xbox's three-year extension for Call of Duty "inadequate"

According to PlayStation CEO Jim Ryan, Microsoft's offer to keep Call of Duty on PlayStation for the next three years undermines its guarantee to the PlayStation audience.

www.gamedeveloper.com

And we only know of the existence of this proposed deal because of this quote from Jim Ryan.

 

[Warablo]

If the deal falls through, Microsoft owe Activision 3 billion dollars. So would think it's worth fighting in court for.

and yes Sony is now asking for CoD on PS+ and such now.

 

[ZehDon]

On Neogaf.

SenjutsuSage is representing Microsoft.

 

[Boglin]

No, Sony rejected the 3 year deal according to Jim Ryan. That's not reneging on anything.

"Microsoft has only offered for Call of Duty to remain on PlayStation for three years after the current agreement between Activision and Sony ends," said Ryan. "We want to guarantee PlayStation gamers continue to have the highest quality Call of Duty experience, and Microsoft’s proposal undermines this principle."

http://[URL]https://www.gamedevelop...ar-extension-for-i-call-of-duty-i-inadequate-

[/URL]

And we only know of the existence of this proposed deal because of this quote from Jim Ryan.

So were my initial impressions correct in that Sony had concerns besides having access to COD from the start?
This isn't just Sony trying to take a mile from the generous inch Microsoft is offering them?

Because I'm seeing a strong, contrasting message to that from other users. From certain users, this whole deal sounds more like a pro-wrestling drama and I'm expecting a lot of future grudge matches.

 

[Topher]

So were my initial impressions correct in that Sony had concerns besides having access to COD from the start?
This isn't just Sony trying to take a mile from the generous inch Microsoft is offering them?

Because I'm seeing a strong, contrasting message to that from other users. From certain users, this whole deal sounds more like a pro-wrestling drama and I'm expecting a lot of future grudge matches.

If there were other concerns besides access to COD then I'm don't think that has been revealed. It could have been in the CMA documents but seems pretty clear COD is the crux of the matter. Neither side in this is interested in being generous, imo. These are negotiations. Whatever Microsoft offers or doesn't offer is a calculated move. The same with what Sony accepts or rejects. Obviously both sides believe there is a lot at stake here. So if Microsoft can appease Sony behind the scenes and get them to back off then they will damn well try.

From the console warrior side of this, yeah this is very much like a pro-wrestling match from the viewpoint of some. For some, it is damn near good vs evil. I think that's why a lot of us are making fun of it as much as we argue about it. It can all be a bit absurd at times.

 

[Iced Arcade]

If it goes to court Lina Khan collects another antitrust L and a shit ton of money and time is wasted. lawyers making bank though.

 

[Topher]

If it goes to court Lina Khan collects another antitrust L and a shit ton of money and time is wasted. lawyers making bank though.

Another L? She has lost before?

 

[Iced Arcade]

Another L? She has lost before?

apparently (I'm definitely no expect on this like all the scholars here)

U.S. keeps losing antitrust court battles but few expect pullback

The U.S. government has been hit with four painful losses at antitrust trials recently but legal experts do not expect the Biden administration's regulators to slow efforts to make American business more competitive.

www.reuters.com

 

[DarkMage619]

So were my initial impressions correct in that Sony had concerns besides having access to COD from the start?
This isn't just Sony trying to take a mile from the generous inch Microsoft is offering them?

Because I'm seeing a strong, contrasting message to that from other users. From certain users, this whole deal sounds more like a pro-wrestling drama and I'm expecting a lot of future grudge matches.

The problem really appears to be that MS thought Sony could be appeased in the first place. It was never really about protecting Sony's ability to compete. Sony doesn't want MS to be able to buy Activision period. Completely different argument. Sony is hoping regulators would fight the deal on their behalf. It's the reason CADE had the response they did.

Summary is here.

Brazilian regulator says Sony could compete without Call of Duty, like Nintendo does | VGC

Brazil’s CADE has approved Microsoft’s proposed Activision Blizzard acquistion…

www.videogameschronicle.com

"It is important to highlight that the central objective of CADE’s activities is the protection of competition as a means of promoting the well-being of Brazilian consumers, and not the defense of the particular interests of specific competitors"

 

[Topher]

apparently (I'm definitely no expect on this like all the scholars here)

U.S. keeps losing antitrust court battles but few expect pullback

The U.S. government has been hit with four painful losses at antitrust trials recently but legal experts do not expect the Biden administration's regulators to slow efforts to make American business more competitive.

www.reuters.com

Ah....this is why Microsoft is letting it be known that they will fight. Lina Khan isn't exactly an intimidating opponent at the moment based, is she? Certainly doesn't seem like she is equipped to take on the lawyers of one of the world's richest companies. I hope she does sue though. Would be entertaining at least.

 

[Menzies]

and yes Sony is now asking for CoD on PS+ and such now.

Which is a service that didn’t exist until 6 months after Microsoft filed for this acquisition. Let that marinate.

 

[Topher]

and yes Sony is now asking for CoD on PS+ and such now.

Which is a service that didn’t exist until 6 months after Microsoft filed for this acquisition. Let that marinate.

When did Sony ask for CoD on PS+ again? All I've read is where Sony's lawyers made the point that Microsoft won't allow PS+ on Xbox.

Disregard, I found it.