-
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)
- Status
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
How do you know this? Sony has met with regulators on numerous occasions when asked to.
Ass of Can Whooping
Gold Member
Could be them. They'd have their own antitrust issues to go through though.
I can see it being a company completely outside the gaming sphere. Getting Activision at an attractive price would be a prospect for some.
Last edited:
MasterCornholio
Member
Not to get confused that's with rhe FTC right?
I remember Sony submitting some things for the CMA if I understood the document correctly.
If he's talking about Microsofts demands for Sonys customers information I can understand why they don't want to give it.
Last edited:
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Microsoft can demand all they want. Sony can deny to all they want. They are not obligated to share anything just because a non-judiciary party subpoenas you.
Last edited:
Ass of Can Whooping
Gold Member
They wouldn't be forced to sell them for breadcrumbs, but at the very least it needs to be the best deal possible factoring any circumstances
Edmund
Member
I suggest not reading the acquisition thread in Resetera then. You might throw your Xbox out the window after that.
James Sawyer Ford
Gold Member
Outsiders dev
Never listen to Phil’s lies
Never listen to Phil’s lies
Last edited:
MasterCornholio
Member
Microsoft can demand all they want. Sony can deny to all they want. They are not obligated to share anything just because a non-judiciary party subpoenas you.
When it comes to data on what would happen if they lost COD I'm sure they did that already. The CMA mentioned so I'm assuming they sent that to the FTC and EC as well.
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
Personally I don't think even enabling COD and other ABK games available on all cloud services in perpetuity does much to solve that problem, because there's a big catch. Sony simply is not going to leave guaranteed revenue from direct sales on the table by throwing new COD games into PS+ Day 1. OTOH, and even though we have those court documents now showing MS admitting Game Pass hurts sales for games on the platform, that doesn't mean Microsoft is above sacrificing revenue by choosing to put new CODs into Game Pass Day 1.
The truth is, MS could very well still do that, because gaming revenue as a whole means virtually nothing to them as a company. We know where their real revenue comes from and it's not Xbox. Even more so when talking their net profits. If they really wanted to, they could just forfeit any revenue if they knew for a fact doing new COD releases Day 1 on Game Pass would get them significant traction over PlayStation and even other competitors, you know, the same thing so many in favor of the deal have been saying Microsoft would do anyway. That's why when they first offered Sony the ability to put COD into PS+ I knew Sony were going to take it as a slap in the face. Why would they cannibalize revenue from direct sales of the game to go into a service that isn't going to maximize the revenue stream even if sub counts went up? That, by bringing something like COD Day 1 into PS+, would automatically lead customers to expect MORE big games like it Day 1 in the service, especially Sony's games?
Why invite that potential messaging & optics nightmare just to try competing with Microsoft on services parity with a new release where MS can write off revenue left on the table, but Sony can't? And we know how important PlayStation is to Sony, just look at the recent quarterly results, PS accounted for like almost 50% of their revenue and net profits. Xbox has never been that important for Microsoft to where it is a core pillar in revenue & profit, but that's why they want to do these big acquisitions, and even if they were forced into a behavioral remedy to keep COD multiplat in perpetuity and have neutral marketing arrangements and services availability, it won't mean much if they can still choose to put new COD or ABK releases into Game Pass Day 1 and know pretty well competitors like Sony can't risk doing that even if the same option is available to them.
Crazier still, just adding "New ABK releases are not permitted for inclusion into any game subscription services for at least (8) months - (1) year" or suchlike isn't going to fly because by that point Microsoft will probably wonder why they're paying $69 billion in the first place, and just walk away from the deal. But if regulators really want to entertain behavioral remedies as a solution, I feel like they have to very far with them and that includes those aforementioned strict terms with availability in perpetuity and inability to immediately dump new releases into a service. And at that point, Microsoft would probably get more out of a structural remedy IMO. At least, if they were forced to divest COD & (potentially) Activision, long as they could remain their own entity, maybe they could get partial ownership and they could maybe get right to first refusal on certain marketing deals while still allowing a bidding process on deals (maybe enforced by a 3P body they can't have influence over, though). Or they can pay for separate publishing rights onto Xbox and Game Pass (i.e one specific amount for each), Sony pays for publishing rights on PlayStation, and the divested entity itself publishes on PC storefronts not owned by Microsoft or Sony, and on mobile platforms (i.e Apple Arcade, Google Play...but Microsoft still handle Game Pass mobile availability of the content accessed through that and get all that revenue minus whatever cut gets paid to Apple or Google).
At least that way I think Microsoft can still have their cake and eat it too, and with partial ownership they get a portion of the revenue of sales on Xbox (the usual 30% plus Game Pass revenue plus whatever total revenue the divested entity normally brings in). Meanwhile Sony retains 100% revenue from sales on PlayStation and, if they decide to, eventually putting them in PS+, but they pay for publishing to the divested entity upfront for that. Same with Nintendo and distribution on their platform. And the divested entity (at this point let's just say it's Activision altogether) retains all revenue from PC & mobile sales (software, MTX, DLC) outside of the cuts paid to Valve, Apple & Google, with Microsoft getting a portion of that revenue as well (let's just say 33%, if they retain 33% ownership of the divested asset).
That actually sounds like a better outcome for Microsoft than behavioral remedies that include simply never being able to put new COD or big ABK releases (I guess this would mean games with a minimum budget & marketing threshold met) into Game Pass Day 1 period. Which, again, would have to be in play to prevent a situation where they do so knowing competitors like Sony can't, and basically achieve some form of predatory pricing in doing so, given how little gaming revenue really accounts for Microsoft's bottom line. Somewhere in all this I do think Microsoft should be able to renegotiate the price they're paying since they aren't getting full ownership or control of the assets, but I don't think there's any way in that to happen without them going back to square one and trying to get ABK shareholders to agree to a lower price, which they won't do.
So really it's either pay the $69 billion even amid potential structural remedies or severe behavioral remedies (that might basically act like structural remedies anyway), or walk away from the deal. Those are their options at this point; I just wanted to see what a feasible behavioral remedy would look like to ensure no 'gaming' of the terms could take place, and see if a COD/Activision divestiture actually ends up more favorable for Microsoft in light of that as long as they were able to retain partial ownership of the divested asset, buy publishing rights to stuff like COD on Xbox & Windows Store (similar to how the MLB League publishes The Show on non-Sony consoles), and have the option to pay on top of that for Game Pass rights on a per-game basis but ONLY if they also buy general publishing rights to the same game, and I imagine the Game Pass/services costs would need to be pretty notable for a Day 1 deal (at least the same cost on its own as it would be to have general publishing rights; likely more).
Also thinking that the time duration for the game in any service Day 1 would be rather short and/or scale back availability of things like buying MTX & DLC content (those being reserved only for purchased digital/physical copies, for example. But this would only work with live-service games, meaning doing Day 1 service contracts for non-live service games might be impossible here, lest the versions for those games act as limited demos i.e Sony's Trails (and I think MS are gonna copy that hard for Game Pass going forward to avoid doing full releases into the service Day 1)).
Honestly if it comes down to structural remedies and those involve COD/Activision divestiture out from Blizzard & King (whom I'm guessing MS would still be able to keep fully intact), it'll be interesting to see how the terms of that particular divestiture play out. That's of course considering Microsoft don't completely balk at the idea and walk away from the deal.
Anyway I got a LOT of catching up to do through some of the last pages of the thread, just wanted to drop two cents on this particular point. This thread's been moving at lightspeed since the CMA broke Twitter.
bentanchorbolt
Banned
The copium over there is strong lol. Those people are lying to themselves so they don't have to confront the reality that two things are going to happen: either the deal is blocked entirely, or the deal as they know it will change so much that its no longer a clear win for MS.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
They're as bad as politicians with PR with all of this. Doesn't surprise me in the least.
Ass of Can Whooping
Gold Member
Outsiders dev
Never listen to Phil’s lies
Can't believe such bullshit was even humoured
If I tried a game on gamepass and liked it, no I will not give you a sale, I will just continue to play it through gamepass and not waste money. I'm confident that's how most people will operate
Last edited:
Banjo64
cumsessed
I love how this is some sort of accusation or insinuation of wrong doing?
What did they expect Sony to do? Execs visiting regulators and employing a team of lawyers to handle their submissions - wow, the horror.
bentanchorbolt
Banned
Sony did spend a lot of money on economists and lawyers so they could and did very well meet with regulators, over and over, to the point that in the documents from the CMA they literally cite findings that came directly from Sony.
Not saying Sony has the CMA in their pocket or the deal wouldn't be scrutinized without their pushback, but that Tweet isn't as far fetched as you're making it sound.
MasterCornholio
Member
Sounds like something Microsoft would do in this situation to be honest.
Seems normal to me.
James Sawyer Ford
Gold Member
I can’t believe Microsoft just expected Sony to roll over on this acquisition
SenjutsuSage
Banned
The CMA won't require divestiture. Guaranteed. There's a reason they are open to behavioral remedies in this case where they haven't been open to them in many other cases. Their concerns and the full 277 page report tells me they are ready to approve this with behavioral remedies.
Pelta88
Member
The Lies of Phil - a bedtime story - PART I
During the last few years Phil Spencer has spent a lot of time giving interviews trying to build the narrative that Xbox's change of focus from hardware to services was a granted positive to Xbox as well as for the rest of the industry. He also made several other allegations regarding Microsoft's plans for the industry. A lot of the things that Phil Said seem to have blown up on his face yesterday when the CMA released their provisional findings concerning the Activision deal.
Let's dig into some of them.
1. Xbox boss says Facebook and Amazon are its main gaming competitors
Phil has argued before that Xbox's main rival in gaming were other big tech companies. Yet, when looking through CMA's document you will find no remedies targeting any concerns related to Facebook or Amazon. You could make an argument that this is about cloud gaming, but even then the CMA shows that xCloud is the leading game streaming platform. So Microsoft actually has an advantageous position over their rivals and the acquisition wouldn't protect the gaming industry from them but simply strengthen Microsoft's number 1 place.
2. Game Pass drives game sales
Phil has also exhaustively repeated that Game Pass drives game sales. This is only partially true, apparently, yes maybe gamers buy more DLC, but total game sales are, according to Microsoft itself, cannibalized by Game Pass.
3. Xbox MAUs were at 120 million, which is a new all-time high.
This is a tricky one. Microsoft loves to shout out loud that they have record MAUs but apparently this either isn't true or they manipulated numbers and lied to regulators as they have told the CMA that their MAU is lower than PlayStation's.
Stay tuned for Part II as I read through the 277 pages document.
This needs to be it's own thread ASAP!!!
bentanchorbolt
Banned
I appreciate your positivity and if I ever have a bad day I'm going to PM you and ask it to be spinned in a positive light.
SenjutsuSage
Banned
10 year licensing agreement to offer Call of Duty to Playstation.
Perhaps even a 15-20 year agreement to license and allow them for us.
Same type of commitment to allow other cloud providers fair terms to sell COD and other ABK games to its customers and offer them on their bring your own game cloud services.
See how Microsoft has a whole windows licensing business? Microsoft is about to get themselves a highly successful COD licensing business to other cloud providers as a result of Call of Duty.
GHG
Gold Member
Last edited:
IFireflyl
Gold Member
Epic and Valve almost certainly wouldn't face the same level of scrutiny as Microsoft since they don't own the Windows/Linux OS. I don't think that either of them making this acquisition would be considered harmful as they are both storefronts without a history of making acquisitions. In fact, if either of them attempted to acquire Activision Blizzard King they could actually use that acquisition as a way to entrench themselves into the console business if they wanted to. Especially Valve since they have experience with consoles. Honestly, with the Steam Deck being a thing they could say that they need the acquisition to directly compete with the Nintendo Switch (and its successor).
Microsoft just has its hand in too many cookie jars. Its the dominant player with cloud gaming, its the number three in console gaming, and it owns the OS that is used by the majority of the PC world. Epic and Valve, for as large as they are, aren't entrenched in any of these areas, and this acquisition could still be seen as competitive.
Having said that, I don't want either of these companies to acquire Activision Blizzard King. I detest Epic, and I think Valve is better off remaining a storefront with small forays into first-party game releases as they see fit.
SenjutsuSage
Banned
The Red Wedding in Game of Thrones actually went much better for the victims than we all think. Everything happened as it should, and due to that, the world was saved.
A photo of me in my prior job.
Ass of Can Whooping
Gold Member
Bruh you're still hinging on the hope of that licence agreement. CMA has been aware of that for months and they don't care for it
DenchDeckard
Moderated wildly
Weird world lol. I don't get why sonys getting blamed.
I don't mean 69 bill. It wouldn't even be a fraction of that amount. Could probably do a decent plan for a couple of billion.
Missing out on Asobo is a poor move.
They tried to buy a cheat code off some dodgy website to get to the end game but it looks to have fucked their whole game up and now they're getting the ban hammer lol.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
It's still irrelevant to the overall issue. That's the point.
It's gaslighting.
This.
Last edited:
Dr_Ifto
Member
Yeah I dont see how Sony actually going out their to prove their case is a bad thing. The dude in the tweet comes off as a real fanboy of Microsoft.
Ass of Can Whooping
Gold Member
SenjutsuSage
Banned
Wishful thinking. A proper reading of the report says the deal is 100% getting approved.
Neither is against the deal to the extent Sony is. And that's the difference.
GHG
Gold Member
The sad thing is that this is exactly what so many people predicted when it was becoming clear the deal was on shaky ground and that they weren't getting their own way with regulators, particularly in the UK/EU.
At some point this company will learn to look inwards and take accountability instead of constantly pointing fingers like a little child when they don't get their way. They had the power (if not more) to control this phase of the acquisition but they have failed thus far.
Again its somehow being framed as big bad Sony bullying helpless little Microsoft. Sort your fucking business out. You have people in your organisation doing this publically:
What on this blue and green earth do you expect?
Warablo
Member
Throwing my 2 cents in there. Back when I played on Xbox I actually bought Hunter: Call of Wild and some dlcs. Don't think i'd ever buy that game if I couldn't try it. Also ended up buying it on PC too.Can't believe such bullshit was even humoured
If I tried a game on gamepass and liked it, no I will not give you a sale, I will just continue to play it through gamepass and not waste money. I'm confident that's how most people will operate
Sure I could have kept playing it, but felt like the game deserved it.
Last edited:
IFireflyl
Gold Member
It isn't far-fetched, but it does lack context. Sony did what Microsoft (or any other company worth their salt) would have done in the exact same situation. In fact, Microsoft has responded this way towards other companies that it feels are engaging anti-competitively. Case in point, how they have handled issues with regulators regarding Apple. The tweet makes it seem like Sony is behaving unethically or immorally, but Sony is doing what all large corporations do in similar situations, including Microsoft. It's the whole pot/kettle issue. So I agree with you, kind of. But context is king.
James Sawyer Ford
Gold Member
Sure, the deal will 100% go through without CoD, as clearly established by a proper reading of the report
Last edited:
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Must have been hired on characteristics other than merit.The sad thing is that this is exactly what so many people predicted when it was becoming clear the deal was on shaky ground and that they weren't getting their own way with regulators, particularly in the UK/EU.
At some point this company will learn to look inwards and take accountability instead of constantly pointing fingers like a little child when they don't get their way. They had the power (if not more) to control this phase of the acquisition but they have failed thus far.
Again its somehow being framed as big bad Sony bullying helpless little Microsoft. Sort your fucking business out. You have people in your organisation doing this publically:
What on this blue and green earth do you expect?
MasterCornholio
Member
I kind of like getting the giants castle but not the goose that lays golden eggs.
Ass of Can Whooping
Gold Member
Yeah that's the type of rationale that's nice but few and far between. The majority of people are like me.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
I didn't run out and buy Day's Gone when Sony gave it away to me. I still have the option, but why would I? I had plans to as well prior to that.
It's common sense.
Banjo64
cumsessed
I still can’t believe people think whataboutisms are going to impact this case in the legal arena.
GHG
Gold Member
GHG
Gold Member
Considering how quick they were to discount it after release, possibly.
Last edited:
Ass of Can Whooping
Gold Member
Think so. Outriders was a day one gamepass game. Enjoyed it but didn't do that well afaik
Edit - Oh The Outsiders not Outriders lmao
Last edited:
GHG
Gold Member
That's the studio founder for metal hellsinger.
So he wouldn't have even had a big publisher to back him up.
Baki
Member
The irony of their closing statement saying that people are putting their extreme personal politics first
. This should be a new copy pasta
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
An excerpt from the Sony's response to Microsoft's subpoena to the FTC:
WOW!
WOW!
SneakersSO
Member
Right, but thats how M&A opposition works. One of the things the general public hasn't quite understood yet is 'why this acquisition?', and its quite the simple answer: Sony is standing in stark opposition to it. We're talking about crony capitalism at its worst here; in most competing markets, many of the players within them tend to stand out of the way of large M&A because they know that, some day, they'll want to make a buy, and they don't want groups standing in the way of them either. Regulators in most of the markets simply aren't equipped to understand the micro and macro economic nuances that goes on within the markets they are regulating. It takes too much time and expertise to properly do so.
What Sony and most opposition groups for any acquisition does is they bring loads of documents and experts and lawyers in to explain to these regulators both how a deal may be a problem, how it'll impact them in said market specifically, those market nuances and factors, and what they feel will be the material impact on the market and consumers should the deal be allowed to go through. Part of the reason why so many deals over the last 15-20 years were simply approved with little to no oversight is precisely because of this crony capitalism effect I just mentioned.
Deals where a market participant comes in and begins an opposition campaign are the ones who get most scrutinized. As i've said before, Sony likely gamed out the outcomes of what could happen should the deal be blocked and not blocked, and figured this would be the perfect opportunity to do this. This deal leaves them in a win/win situation no matter how it plays out.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked