Support NeoGAF

[ToadMan]

Context @ ToadMan I don't know where you are from or whatever, I posted some article links to better explain the current phenomenon that is happening with anti-trust in the US.

I said, we'll see regarding this case, because even though the consensus is that the current laws do not consider this merger problematic there is a chance than new precedence could be set with any case. Like I said, we'll see how it works out. The numbers favor MS though, which is often what US anti-trust boils down to (not much room for feelings typically).

The numbers are 75-25 in the FTCs favor as stated by yourself.

Not sure how you reach your conclusion that those numbers are then in MS’s favor.

And then you use a lot of words to rationalise your hope that MS will win at that hypothetical Federal court appeal.

I wasn’t really interested in hopes and dreams discussion of thay - you say this is a cut and dried decision in favor of MS, I say it’s the opposite - then we just wait and see.

But the fact remains, the FTC wins a disproportionately high number of its federal cases (and it wins 100% of its administrative court cases). So the numbers are not MS’s side.

 

[DaGwaphics]

The numbers are 75-25 in the FTCs favor as stated by yourself.

I was referring to the numbers of the case in regards to current US anti-trust laws. FTC is looking to reinterpret those laws to fit broader situations, but that failed with Meta just recently (the FTC has approached the MS/ABK transaction very similarly). Are they more successful on a second go, we'll see.

 

[ToadMan]

You're aware that this statement is a very open, subjective one.

I am certainly aware of that. “Reasonable” is a term lawyers hate when it’s used against them and love when its in their favor because it is open to interpretation.

Nonetheless that is the term used by the competition bodies so that’s the standard they will use to decide this case.

Then after the competition bodies have decided, it will be up to MS to see if they can convince an appeal court judge they are being reasonable.

The official statement on their Zenimax acquisition has always been "multiplat will be determined on a case-by-case basis." Anything else is you and others like you reaching.

And so far, case by case has led to 100% of the acquisition announcements being MS exclusive vs 100% being multiplat before acquisition.

So whatever the decision making is at MS, it is clearly opposite of the reasonable and rational decision making zenimax made as a third party prior to acquisition.

And this behavior by MS is in part why the ABK deal is blocked now.

And you know what, as far as I'm concerned, MS or the owner of any company has the right to run their business as they see fit.

Regulators disgree with you. So your opinion is yours to have and to keep, but it holds zero weight in this process.

<snip>

Again more wooly opinion stuff I can’t be bothered to get into. Sorry.

 

[ToadMan]

I was referring to the numbers of the case in regards to current US anti-trust laws. FTC is looking to reinterpret those laws to fit broader situations, but that failed with Meta just recently (the FTC has approached the MS/ABK transaction very similarly). Are they more successful on a second go, we'll see.

And this is your opinion piece based on headlines going past.

But ultimately the numbers tell the story.

You’re using 1 case and projecting that to a 100% loss rate for the FTC.

That is a poor sample rate for you to form an opinion, but you’re entitled to it.

 

[demigod]

When your talking about having a bias it really doesn't.

At least I'm upfront about mine even though I have an Xbox.

Not trying to pass off ad a fake neutral or being a Microsoft/Sony Too kind of person.

So tell me why did you wanted that tag?

Folks pretending to be neutral are the worse.

 

[DaGwaphics]

You’re using 1 case and projecting that to a 100% loss rate for the FTC.

Hardly, That's why I said we'll see what happens. LOL

The laws have been on the books for years though, and do not appear to fit the way that the FTC would like them to. That is my opinion, yes.

 

[SenjutsuSage]

The principle is Phil and MS will say whatever before an acquisition to set "expectations" and then change the terms post acquisition - zeni being the most recent example. A point all 3 regulators have raised in their investigation to date, and why they are going to rely on formal remedies.

Footnote 537 is a reference to Microsoft's response to the CMA where Microsoft reminded the CMA of exactly what they told them they would do with Zenimax's games. Microsoft made themselves clear and CMA has concluded Microsoft has honored existing contractual agreements and acted in accordance with the statements it made on the Zenimax acquisition.

Phil said Minecraft would stay on all platforms. He kept his promise.

Two more footnotes. 210 and 213. Microsoft specifically told CMA that they were going to make Zenimax games that were exclusive to Xbox in their Form CO when they were being investigated for the ZeniMax purchase. And Microsoft in footnote 210 stated they would honor all ZeniMax obligations and continue to make current games available on other gaming hardware, including Deathloop and Ghostwire Tokyo.

Microsoft told the truth on Minecraft. They told the truth about Zenimax. No reason to think they can't be taken at their word on Activision Blizzard.

 

[DarkBatman]

I hate that outright console warriors like you keep pointing out the contracts Microsoft fulfilled post-acquisition. But completely ignoring the fact that Zenimax, whose major franchises and AAA titles, which previously were consistently multiplatform releases, will most likely be kept from the PS community in the future. And with that, it's simply a fact that Microsoft was a gigantic lie with the pompous "Our aim is not to take games away from gamers". Because saying "We didn't take anything away, you can now just buy a new console and the game pass" is not an adequate substitute.

The argument that Starfield and Redfall were never officially announced for the PS5, meaning nothing was taken away, is also one of those narrow-minded lies that console warriors propagate. We all know that titles like this would have been released 100% for the PS5 if MS hadn't put a stop to them. And now I'm curious to see how it will look with the upcoming parts of Elder Scrolls or Wolfenstein - here MS can then prove again that all their pre-acquisition blah-blah was nonsense.

 

[Fredrik]

Folks pretending to be neutral are the worse.

Nobody deeply interested in any hobby is neutral, you always develop preferences over time. But boasting about your preference and not hiding it is just as annoying as any other platform warring. Owning all the hardware or not doesn’t matter, nothing you say about the platform differences is relevant to anyone without the same preference, it’s like listening to a vegetarian talking about sallad and pulling out examples on how bad the meat industry is when all you want is sinking your teeth into a newly grilled juicy steak, it’s just unimportant noise.

 

[DaGwaphics]

I hate that outright console warriors like you keep pointing out the contracts Microsoft fulfilled post-acquisition. But completely ignoring the fact that Zenimax, whose major franchises and AAA titles, which previously were consistently multiplatform releases, will most likely be kept from the PS community in the future. And with that, it's simply a fact that Microsoft was a gigantic lie with the pompous "Our aim is not to take games away from gamers". Because saying "We didn't take anything away, you can now just buy a new console and the game pass" is not an adequate substitute.

The argument that Starfield and Redfall were never officially announced for the PS5, meaning nothing was taken away, is also one of those narrow-minded lies that console warriors propagate. We all know that titles like this would have been released 100% for the PS5 if MS hadn't put a stop to them. And now I'm curious to see how it will look with the upcoming parts of Elder Scrolls or Wolfenstein - here MS can then prove again that all their pre-acquisition blah-blah was nonsense.

I think he is pointing out the fact that MS made no false promises to regulators in the Zenimax deal. The EU was just confirming that MS acted in accordance with all the statements they made to regulators regarding that transaction.

Basically, MS never told regulators that Zenimax games were going to continue to release on PS going forward. That is just some made up fanboy nonsense.

 

[ToadMan]

This couldn't be further from the truth. Xbox is 20 years old and no where near a monopoly and they continue to be in the business.

Azure is nowhere near a monopoly compared to AWS. Bing is nowhere near a monopoly with low single digit marketshare. Zune was canned because nothing could compete with iPods and iTunes at the time. Same for Windows phones. Nothing could compete with Android and iPhone.

This delusion you have in your head that MS is trying to monopolise games is ridiculous.

Well I have bad news for you. The goal of every company in a free market is to attempt to become a monopoly. And usually they have competition to overcome on the way.

Yes your mind is blown.

Regulators attempt to ensure companies achieve monopoly status through innovation and consumer acceptance - not acquisition.

Hope that clears some of your delusion.

MS clearly stated on a game by game basis. If you thought that meant they'd release everything on Playstation you have noone to blame but yourself.

This also neglects that we have no idea how they will treat future zenimax games. Perhaps they'll be only timed exclusive on Xbox. Noone knows. Maybe this is MS's way of forcing a 1st party only GamePass on Playstation? To say MS lied when they've only released a handful of games so far is disingenuous.

Before acquisition 100% of zeni games became multiplat.

Post acquisition so far, zero.

That is all the regulators are interested in and thats why the deal is blocked.

 

[SenjutsuSage]

I hate that outright console warriors like you keep pointing out the contracts Microsoft fulfilled post-acquisition. But completely ignoring the fact that Zenimax, whose major franchises and AAA titles, which previously were consistently multiplatform releases, will most likely be kept from the PS community in the future. And with that, it's simply a fact that Microsoft was a gigantic lie with the pompous "Our aim is not to take games away from gamers". Because saying "We didn't take anything away, you can now just buy a new console and the game pass" is not an adequate substitute.

The argument that Starfield and Redfall were never officially announced for the PS5, meaning nothing was taken away, is also one of those narrow-minded lies that console warriors propagate. We all know that titles like this would have been released 100% for the PS5 if MS hadn't put a stop to them. And now I'm curious to see how it will look with the upcoming parts of Elder Scrolls or Wolfenstein - here MS can then prove again that all their pre-acquisition blah-blah was nonsense.

You're calling CMA console warriors? Cause they said, and Microsoft shows proof, they told the CMA exactly what they intended to do BEFORE acquiring Zenimax. CMA said Microsoft acted in accordance with the statements in made on the ZeniMax acquisition. Microsoft told CMA in their Form CO what they intended to do. They did the exact same with the EU in their Form CO to them. Love it or hate it, Microsoft hasn't told any lies in their most recent acquisitions to regulators. That carries weight.

I'm not a crybaby. I buy games on the platforms they're on if I really want them. I'm a huge Xbox fan. So? I'm still a big Xbox fan that legitimately supports all consoles. I don't cry over games I wanted to be on my favorite platform being elsewhere. I suck it up and just get the games if I really want to play them. Are you a big enough fan of Bethesda's games to swallow your pride and emotions and just play their new games on PC or Xbox? If not, then that means you don't care enough about them anyway and should just stop complaining about what's already settled business. Microsoft owns all Bethesda studios and IPs; they've made their decision to make the games Xbox exclusive. Time to move on.

 

[MasterCornholio]

Nobody deeply interested in any hobby is neutral, you always develop preferences over time. But boasting about your preference and not hiding it is just as annoying as any other platform warring. Owning all the hardware or not doesn’t matter, nothing you say about the platform differences is relevant to anyone without the same preference, it’s like listening to a vegetarian talking about sallad and pulling out examples on how bad the meat industry is when all you want is sinking your teeth into a newly grilled juicy steak, it’s just unimportant noise.

I don't think stating what your preferences are is platform warring. But maybe I'm wrong.

Both companies employ anti consumer practices and both employ pro consumer ones. Some things are exclusive to one and not the other but many times they share the same things. It's why I never agree with Sony/Microsoft Too line of thinking because things are usually a lot more complicated than that.

 

[MasterCornholio]

Regulators attempt to ensure companies achieve monopoly status through innovation and consumer acceptance - not acquisition.

Its very rare that companies can obtain complete control over the market by going this route. It's why I'm not worried about Sony completely taking over the market and forcing consumers to adapt to the situation.

In the end if consumers make Sony market leader they can also put them in last place. There are other options in the market if Sony abuses their position.

 

[DarkBatman]

You're calling CMA console warriors? Cause they said, and Microsoft shows proof, they told the CMA exactly what they intended to do BEFORE acquiring Zenimax.

I'm not a crybaby. I buy games on the platforms they're on if I really want them. I'm a huge Xbox fan. So? I'm still a big Xbox fan that legitimately supports all consoles. I don't cry over games I wanted to be on my favorite platform being elsewhere. I suck it up and just get the games if I really want to play them. Are you a big enough fan of Bethesda's games to swallow your pride and emotions and just play their new games on PC or Xbox? If not, then that means you don't care enough about them anyway and should just stop complaining about what's already settled business. Microsoft owns all Bethesda studios and IPs; they've made their decision to make the games Xbox exclusive. Time to move on.

I never called the CMA console warriors. I called YOU a console warrior. All previous comments, Twitter postings and especially this answer have clearly underlined that.

These threads not only discuss what MS has told the regulators, but look at the overall situation. MS / Phil Spencer grandly told the world that this deal is definitely not about taking anything away from gamers, it's about making the games accessible to MORE gamers. And the fact of the matter is that excluding the largest console community is simply a lie. A "Starfield was never announced for the PS5 so wasn't taken away" just doesn't count. And you know that too, but you would never admit it, because then your whole self-deception construct would burn up.

However, I find one statement of yours particularly critical and simply ridiculous:

[...] Are you a big enough fan of Bethesda's games to swallow your pride and emotions and just play their new games on PC or Xbox? [...]

Why should I do that? I own a PS5 and a Switch and shouldn't be forced by MS to buy a new console for previous multiplatform titles (and with that I'm already looking towards Wolfenstein, Doom or Elder Scrolls in perspective). Even if console and MS warriors like you would wish for something like that.

If I can't play games like Halo, Gears of War or Fable because they come from First Party Studios, then that's the way it is - that's the reality of the industry and exclusives are available on all consoles. Meanwhile, timed exclusives should also be viewed critically, but at least they only exclude me temporarily and not forever.

However, buying a giant publisher, presenting yourself as sacred and then excluding a large part of the gaming community is completely wrong and reprehensible in my opinion. I also never wrote that MS is not allowed to do that. But I'm adamant that it shows the insidious intentions of MS (also for the Activision acquisition).

PS: Your entire Twitter account is the perfect definition of a crybaby. Accordingly, you can get off your high horse and admit that you are just a green MS fan who wants to defend his beloved company. That's not a shame and you have every right, but it's just a fact.

 

[MasterCornholio]

I never called the CMA console warriors. I called YOU a console warrior. All previous comments, Twitter postings and especially this answer have clearly underlined that.

These threads not only discuss what MS has told the regulators, but look at the overall situation. MS / Phil Spencer grandly told the world that this deal is definitely not about taking anything away from gamers, it's about making the games accessible to MORE gamers. And the fact of the matter is that excluding the largest console community is simply a lie. A "Starfield was never announced for the PS5 so wasn't taken away" just doesn't count. And you know that too, but you would never admit it, because then your whole self-deception construct would burn up.

However, I find one statement of yours particularly critical and simply ridiculous:


Why should I do that? I own a PS5 and a Switch and shouldn't be forced by MS to buy a new console for previous multiplatform titles (and with that I'm already looking towards Wolfenstein, Doom or Elder Scrolls in perspective). Even if console and MS warriors like you would wish for something like that.

If I can't play games like Halo, Gears of War or Fable because they come from First Party Studios, then that's the way it is - that's the reality of the industry and exclusives are available on all consoles. Meanwhile, timed exclusives should also be viewed critically, but at least they only exclude me temporarily and not forever.

However, buying a giant publisher, presenting yourself as sacred and then excluding a large part of the gaming community is completely wrong and reprehensible in my opinion. I also never wrote that MS is not allowed to do that. But I'm adamant that it shows the insidious intentions of MS (also for the Activision acquisition).

I think both Sony and Microsoft should just be honest when they take away content from certain groups.

Like telling gamers on console B you need to buy their systems to access the games. I'm not a fan of companies not being straight up with consumers and that goes for all three of them.

 

[Three]

Basically, MS never told regulators that Zenimax games were going to continue to release on PS going forward. That is just some made up fanboy nonsense.

They did. MS made assurances to the EU which turned out not to be true but the EU didn't enforce any remedies anyway because it didn't see it as causing harm regardless of what MS decided to do post acquisition. They passed without concessions. The fact that no remedies were made I think made MS' decision change and they would have maintained that assurance if they faced any pushback. They played the same game with the ABK acquisition but the regulators absolutely do want concessions now.

 

[Ozriel]

I don't think COD will launch day one on gamepass at its current price

Of course it can and will. Why wouldn't it?

 

[SenjutsuSage]

I never called the CMA console warriors. I called YOU a console warrior. All previous comments, Twitter postings and especially this answer have clearly underlined that.

These threads not only discuss what MS has told the regulators, but look at the overall situation. MS / Phil Spencer grandly told the world that this deal is definitely not about taking anything away from gamers, it's about making the games accessible to MORE gamers. And the fact of the matter is that excluding the largest console community is simply a lie. A "Starfield was never announced for the PS5 so wasn't taken away" just doesn't count. And you know that too, but you would never admit it, because then your whole self-deception construct would burn up.

However, I find one statement of yours particularly critical and simply ridiculous:


Why should I do that? I own a PS5 and a Switch and shouldn't be forced by MS to buy a new console for previous multiplatform titles (and with that I'm already looking towards Wolfenstein, Doom or Elder Scrolls in perspective). Even if console and MS warriors like you would wish for something like that.

If I can't play games like Halo, Gears of War or Fable because they come from First Party Studios, then that's the way it is - that's the reality of the industry and exclusives are available on all consoles. Meanwhile, timed exclusives should also be viewed critically, but at least they only exclude me temporarily and not forever.

However, buying a giant publisher, presenting yourself as sacred and then excluding a large part of the gaming community is completely wrong and reprehensible in my opinion. I also never wrote that MS is not allowed to do that. But I'm adamant that it shows the insidious intentions of MS (also for the Activision acquisition).

PS: Your entire Twitter account is the perfect definition of a crybaby. Accordingly, you can get off your high horse and admit that you are just a green MS fan who wants to defend his beloved company. That's not a shame and you have every right, but it's just a fact.

What about your amazing gaming pc you guys (you especially I think) have said you all had to play all xbox exclusives on for years now? That makes you more of a console warrior than me then. You're complaining about games you don't even care enough about to get the platform to play them on? Who does that? Really who does that? And Xbox fans like me couldn't give two shits what you do because you don't matter. The market will decide and people will just get the games and Game Pass will significantly lower the barriers to enter.

Millions will do -- and are already doing -- what you won't because, contrary to fanboy beliefs on both sides, there are more real gamers out there than console warriors. We just want great games no matter what platform they're on. Hell, you don't even need to get an Xbox or PC. You can stream Starfield and Elder Scrolls 6 if you wish on Geforce Now or Game Pass in a number of ways through a variety of devices.

You call me a console warrior, and yet you can see I'm one of the biggest defenders of games like Forspoken anywhere. When I call myself a gamer, I walk the walk. I wasn't shitting on Returnal and dismissing its potential the way some were on here before it launched to great reviews, and I stayed positive about Forspoken all the way through, only poking fun at the fanboys who only cared about it because of the initial trailer that showed fancy graphics and because it was a console warrior talking about against Xbox. Anyway, I'm finished with you cause I don't even believe in discussing games with people mad about games that they themselves acknowledge they don't care about enough to play.

 

[Fredrik]

I don't think stating what your preferences are is platform warring. But maybe I'm wrong.

Both companies employ anti consumer practices and both employ pro consumer ones. Some things are exclusive to one and not the other but many times they share the same things. It's why I never agree with Sony/Microsoft Too line of thinking because things are usually a lot more complicated than that.

I’d say it’s just a new type of platform warring, increases the tribalism in similar ways and is equally annoying and completely unimportant information for anyone with different preferences. Focus on individual games instead, let the plastic be plastics. I’m currently playing Elden Ring, Hogwarts Legacy, Moss 2, Hi-Fi Rush on 4 different and competing platforms, actually 5, kinda, since I play ER on two devices. Is it important to proudly talk about where I’m playing them and why? I honestly don’t think so. Let’s talk about our experiences playing the games instead.

 

[DarkBatman]

I think both Sony and Microsoft should just be honest when they take away content from certain groups.

Like telling gamers on console B you need to buy their systems to access the games. I'm not a fan of companies not being straight up with consumers and that goes for all three of them.

Absolutely right. That's why I would like to reiterate that the timed exclusives strategy that Sony has been pursuing for years should also be viewed critically. Here, part of the gaming community is often shut out without knowing when a title will be available for the other consoles. More honesty and transparency would be desirable.

What about your amazing gaming pc you guys (you especially I think) have said you all had to play all xbox exclusives on for years now? That makes you more of a console warrior than me then. You're complaining about games you don't even care enough about to get the platform to play them on? Who does that? Really who does that? And Xbox fans like me couldn't give two shits what you do because you don't matter. The market will decide and people will just get the games and Game Pass will significantly lower the barriers to enter.

Millions will do -- and are already doing -- what you won't because, contrary to fanboy beliefs on both sides, there are more real gamers out there than console warriors. We just want great games no matter what platform they're on. Hell, you don't even need to get an Xbox or PC. You can stream Starfield and Elder Scrolls 6 if you wish on Geforce Now or Game Pass in a number of ways through a variety of devices.

You call me a console warrior, and yet you can see I'm one of the biggest defenders of games like Forspoken anywhere. When I call myself a gamer, I walk the walk. I wasn't shitting on Returnal and dismissing its potential the way some were on here before it launched to great reviews, and I stayed positive about Forspoken all the way through, only poking fun at the fanboys who only cared about it because of the initial trailer that showed fancy graphics and because it was a console warrior talking about against Xbox. Anyway, I'm finished with you cause I don't even believe in discussing games with people mad about games that they themselves acknowledge they don't care about enough to play.

I've never owned a gaming PC, and I don't plan to put any money into it. I've had a Playstation for years and would have liked it if a multiplatform publisher who had been releasing their latest games for the Playstation for years would have continued to do so.

I know that people like you don't care about other people's opinions because it's all about you and your interests. But you can howl on Twitter about how the CMA wants to protect Sony's dominance in the market because it doesn't give your awesome MS a chance to have some real success of its own. Ridiculous.

I realize that you want to end the discussion because you have absolutely no chance. Because believe me, I would love to play titles like Starfield or Redfall. However, I will not let MS and Bethesda force me to spend money on an XBox or a PC. Because the fact is that it just doesn't match my financial situation and my current gaming setup. And the fact is that I didn't have to adjust the BEFORE the acquisition at all to experience Starfield. But MS now wants to force me to do it - and I'd rather show them the middle finger and reorient myself.

But none of that interests you, so the discussion is over with that and you will certainly not reply to this comment.

 

[MasterCornholio]

I’d say it’s just a new type of platform warring, increases the tribalism in similar ways and is equally annoying and completely unimportant information for anyone with different preferences. Focus on individual games instead, let the plastic be plastics. I’m currently playing Elden Ring, Hogwarts Legacy, Moss 2, Hi-Fi Rush on 4 different and competing platforms, actually 5, kinda, since I play ER on two devices. Is it important to proudly talk about where I’m playing them and why? I honestly don’t think so. Let’s talk about our experiences playing the games instead.

I decided to abuse myself and buy Sekiro which I'm playing on my PS5. I don't think I'm doing anything wrong with doing that. Can't really play multiple platforms at once. I usually just stick to one game on one platform. But I do have a Switch and a PC if I need to play anything else. However I really love my PS5 especially the controller so that's where I play most of my games. Don't think there's anything wrong with that IMO.

P.S I'm still not trying to pass off as a neutral gamer BTW.

 

[MasterCornholio]

Absolutely right. That's why I would like to reiterate that the timed exclusives strategy that Sony has been pursuing for years should also be viewed critically. Here, part of the gaming community is often shut out without knowing when a title will be available for the other consoles. More honesty and transparency would be desirable.

I know Sony probably can't announce the other versions but it would be nice if they were more open about the exclusivity period. If it's 1 year then announce that if its 6 months than that's fine as well. But no vague statements that leave us guessing when it's going to be available on other platforms.

When it comes to Bungie I truly hope they are honest about what they said. If Bungie games don't come to other platforms than that's an issue.

 

[DrFigs]

Of course it can and will. Why wouldn't it?

I think just seeing other streaming services. That the content doesn't come for free. For Netflix and other services to have all these original shows, we see that they're constantly having to increase subscription costs. And I think this basically will be true for Microsoft. They have more leeway than other companies to just lose money, but it's a lot easier to do when they're not actively releasing games. Once these hundred plus million dollar games actually start to come out, it seems likely that their current prices will not be adequate. The problem is even bigger with COD because it's such an expensive game to make every year. And then it also basically means that MS will no longer be making money on xbox live. Right now, if you enjoy playing COD on xbox and gamepass, you'd be paying MS more money than if COD was just on gamepass.

So in terms of economic profit, I think it would not make sense for MS.

 

[SenjutsuSage]

They did. MS made assurances to the EU which turned out not to be true but the EU didn't enforce any remedies anyway because it didn't see it as causing harm regardless of what MS decided to do post acquisition. They passed without concessions. The fact that no remedies were made I think made MS' decision change and they would have maintained that assurance if they faced any pushback. They played the same game with the ABK acquisition but the regulators absolutely do want concessions now.

If you're saying Microsoft never told the EU about its intentions to make some Zenimax games exclusive you are wrong.

The EU literally put it in their final report... a section on Microsoft's strategy on future ZeniMax games.

The EU literally also points out that one of the first questions Microsoft answered was about future zenimax games and them being exclusive on November 6th, 2020 in a question that Microsoft and Zenimax responded to. So they knew about possible Zenimax exclusives on Xbox as early as November 6th, 2020. And Microsoft told them again in their Form CO to the EU on Jan, 29th, 2021.

The EU fully accounted for exclusivity as a possibility after the ZeniMax purchase by Microsoft. It's all over their final report. Anyone claiming that the EU was totally blindsided about Xbox exclusives is not reading the full facts, which is exactly why they challenged the FTC publicly.

The EU also concluded that input foreclosure using Zenmax games would not be possible because a sufficiently high number of new players wouldn't switch to Xbox in to make it harm rivals. That's what it means for an input foreclosure to prove damaging to competition. We literally have people in this thread saying they won't buy an Xbox to play Zenimax games... so the EU was correct!

The EU was not blindsided or lied to about the possibility that Microsoft would make Zenimax games exclusive. They just concluded that, even if they did, it wouldn't cause a big enough rush of users switching from playstation to be considered highly damaging. Microsoft DID in fact notify the EU that their determination on future Zenimax games would be made on a case-by-case basis. Microsoft did not lie.

The EU also seems to understand that Microsoft was referring to existing zenimax games and ones under contract, leaving them available for purchase on playstation after the transaction closed. How could they not know, they literally reference Microsoft's statements about future games in their final report 4 different times.

 

[SenjutsuSage]

Absolutely right. That's why I would like to reiterate that the timed exclusives strategy that Sony has been pursuing for years should also be viewed critically. Here, part of the gaming community is often shut out without knowing when a title will be available for the other consoles. More honesty and transparency would be desirable.


I've never owned a gaming PC, and I don't plan to put any money into it. I've had a Playstation for years and would have liked it if a multiplatform publisher who had been releasing their latest games for the Playstation for years would have continued to do so.

I know that people like you don't care about other people's opinions because it's all about you and your interests. But you can howl on Twitter about how the CMA wants to protect Sony's dominance in the market because it doesn't give your awesome MS a chance to have some real success of its own. Ridiculous.

I realize that you want to end the discussion because you have absolutely no chance. Because believe me, I would love to play titles like Starfield or Redfall. However, I will not let MS and Bethesda force me to spend money on an XBox or a PC. Because the fact is that it just doesn't match my financial situation and my current gaming setup. And the fact is that I didn't have to adjust the BEFORE the acquisition at all to experience Starfield. But MS now wants to force me to do it - and I'd rather show them the middle finger and reorient myself.

But none of that interests you, so the discussion is over with that and you will certainly not reply to this comment.

You don't actually know me very well. If you've seen this name and this avatar you've almost been conditioned to despise me as an xbox gamer by every toxic playstation fanboy who breaths oxygen lol. But I'm not what some of you think or would LIKE to think. I'll participate in troll every now and then, but I'm a fair gamer in the end. I can both criticize CMA and also be fair-minded at the same time. Shocker I know. I can be very critical of Sony, but so what? I can do that. I'm not fond of the company, but I still support Playstation.

Say what you will about my other opinions, but I do try to be fair when I think it makes sense to be.

 

[Fredrik]

I decided to abuse myself and buy Sekiro which I'm playing on my PS5. I don't think I'm doing anything wrong with doing that. Can't really play multiple platforms at once. I usually just stick to one game on one platform. But I do have a Switch and a PC if I need to play anything else. However I really love my PS5 especially the controller so that's where I play most of my games. Don't think there's anything wrong with that IMO.

P.S I'm still not trying to pass off as a neutral gamer BTW.

I play on everything, still not see myself as neutral, but I don’t go around talking much about my preferences, those who care about labelling people can see it clearly as we all do with everyone, it’s really not worth bringing it up imo.

I’d love if there was a pure gaming sub-forum where zero platform talk was allowed and a sub-forum where the business side of platforms competing was the focus where everything was allowed. Would make it more fun to come here talking about games. Any positive Xbox or PS game thread gets laugh emojis and downplaying posts now, people clearly get triggered by people enjoying stuff here.

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

I'll participate in troll every now and then, but I'm a fair gamer in the end.

Can you explain to me why you think this deal is good for you as a gamer or the industry at large?

Wouldn’t it be better for a hugely successful company to stay wholly independent while some of that cash Microsoft had be deployed towards growing existing studios and forming new ones so that the industry gets more games to play overall?

 

[DarkBatman]

You don't actually know me very well. If you've seen this name and this avatar you've almost been conditioned to despise me as an xbox gamer by every toxic playstation fanboy who breaths oxygen lol. But I'm not what some of you think or would LIKE to think. I'll participate in troll every now and then, but I'm a fair gamer in the end. I can both criticize CMA and also be fair-minded at the same time. Shocker I know. I can be very critical of Sony, but so what? I can do that. I'm not fond of the company, but I still support Playstation.

Say what you will about my other opinions, but I do try to be fair when I think it makes sense to be.

i know you well enough. For not caring about the opinions of others, you seem pretty butthurt about my comments.
It's also funny that you share tweets like this, but completely ignore the numerous anti-Sony comments and retweets from your two Twitter accounts.

Finally, I always find it amazing how console warriors like you choose to completely ignore counter-arguments when they can no longer adequately respond to them.
I refuted some of your statements in the last comment, but all of a sudden you didn't want to go into that anymore, instead trying to defend yourself and your opinion with some alibi tweets.

However, the discussion is over anyway, isn't it? But you didn't want to continue it because you're not interested in me? Those were your words, not mine.

 

[MasterCornholio]

I play on everything, still not see myself as neutral, but I don’t go around talking much about my preferences, those who care about labelling people can see it clearly as we all do with everyone, it’s really not worth bringing it up imo.

I’d love if there was a pure gaming sub-forum where zero platform talk was allowed and a sub-forum where the business side of platforms competing was the focus where everything was allowed. Would make it more fun to come here talking about games. Any positive Xbox or PS game thread gets laugh emojis and downplaying posts now, people clearly get triggered by people enjoying stuff here.

I don't think there's anything wrong with talking about your preferences. Like if someone buys a multiplat on Xbox to increase their gamerscore I don't think there's anything wrong with that. Different platform offer different things even if they have the same games. It's always interesting to see multiple views on something.

Just because I only play on a platform at a time doesn't make me a rabid fanboy. I just don't have the ability to game on multiple things at once. Plus sticking to one platform is easier for me and there's nothing wrong with that. If there's something that I want to play and it isn't available on my PS5 my Switch and PC will take care of that. I don't need to own everything to play everything if you know what I mean. I also wouldn't own a product that doesn't have content that interests me.

Also I'm not the type to spam people with emojis to troll. I find that disrespectful because your saying that the individual isn't worth conversating with.

 

[SenjutsuSage]

i know you well enough. For not caring about the opinions of others, you seem pretty butthurt about my comments.
It's also funny that you share tweets like this, but completely ignore the numerous anti-Sony comments and retweets from your two Twitter accounts.

Finally, I always find it amazing how console warriors like you choose to completely ignore counter-arguments when they can no longer adequately respond to them.
I refuted some of your statements in the last comment, but all of a sudden you didn't want to go into that anymore, instead trying to defend yourself and your opinion with some alibi tweets.

However, the discussion is over anyway, isn't it? But you didn't want to continue it because you're not interested in me? Those were your words, not mine.

lol trust me I don't care. And I stand on everything I say. You think I care if you get upset that I criticize Sony? My original twitter account was banned for bs sometime in 2021 or early 2022, and it has since been returned. Otherwise, I don't use alts. Moment I got my original twitter account from 2009 back, I was on the OG.

As I said, I'm just enjoying following along and playing games on all platforms. I don't need to spend too much energy getting upset about which games are exclusive where because I get whatever I want on any platform. It's easier with some games to be like "I'll wait for the xbox version" or I don't care about that one enough. Some games I go play them immediately even if not on my preferred platform, which is Xbox. With that said, we're done brother. I've entertained you long enough. Good night.

 

[Ar¢tos]

I have difficulty seeing the end goal MS has for Bethesda, from a business only POV. They spent a lot of money buying Zenimax, then cut their game sales by half (max estimate) by not releasing new games on Playstation and then even more by putting them on gamepass day one, but games still cost the same to make.
How can Zenimax report any profit at the end of each quarter like this?
Some people at Zenimax must be chugging Zanax like they are Smarties to go to work every day.

 

[Fredrik]

Can you explain to me why you think this deal is good for you as a gamer or the industry at large?

Wouldn’t it be better for a hugely successful company to stay wholly independent while some of that cash Microsoft had be deployed towards growing existing studios and forming new ones so that the industry gets more games to play overall?

Don’t overthink it.
You like Playstation - No pretending, would you not like if Sony owned Activision Blizzard or Take-Two or Capcom or Square Enix or Kojima Productions etc if you knew it would mean that you’ll get all their previous and upcoming games for free on a service you’re already perfectly fine subscribing to?
For most I’d say it’s really that simple. More games for less money.

 

[IFireflyl]

If you're saying Microsoft never told the EU about its intentions to make some Zenimax games exclusive you are wrong.

The EU literally put it in their final report... a section on Microsoft's strategy on future ZeniMax games.

The EU literally also points out that one of the first questions Microsoft answered was about future zenimax games and them being exclusive on November 6th, 2020 in a question that Microsoft and Zenimax responded to. So they knew about possible Zenimax exclusives on Xbox as early as November 6th, 2020. And Microsoft told them again in their Form CO to the EU on Jan, 29th, 2021.

The EU fully accounted for exclusivity as a possibility after the ZeniMax purchase by Microsoft. It's all over their final report. Anyone claiming that the EU was totally blindsided about Xbox exclusives is not reading the full facts, which is exactly why they challenged the FTC publicly.

The EU also concluded that input foreclosure using Zenmax games would not be possible because a sufficiently high number of new players wouldn't switch to Xbox in to make it harm rivals. That's what it means for an input foreclosure to prove damaging to competition. We literally have people in this thread saying they won't buy an Xbox to play Zenimax games... so the EU was correct!

The EU was not blindsided or lied to about the possibility that Microsoft would make Zenimax games exclusive. They just concluded that, even if they did, it wouldn't cause a big enough rush of users switching from playstation to be considered highly damaging. Microsoft DID in fact notify the EU that their determination on future Zenimax games would be made on a case-by-case basis. Microsoft did not lie.

The EU also seems to understand that Microsoft was referring to existing zenimax games and ones under contract, leaving them available for purchase on playstation after the transaction closed. How could they not know, they literally reference Microsoft's statements about future games in their final report 4 different times.

Apparently you never saw this:

https://www.neogaf.com/threads/micr...oval-watch-ot.1641775/page-581#post-267678059

Here's the quote if you don't want to follow that link backwards:

Are we really on this topic that Microsoft didn't mislead the regulators or misrepresent their intention about making Zenimax games exclusives?

Microsoft DID. Here is the proof. I'm gonna clear this once and for all.

I know certain people will just ignore this post and start this argument again after 10 pages in bad faith. So I'd recommend bookmarking this post and quoting it again when it (inevitably) happens again.

---

This is from the EU Microsoft/Zenimax acquisition document:

1. The Notifying Party in this document is Microsoft.
2. Microsoft says that a significant share of Zenimax game sales will happen on PS5, as compared to XSX.
   • It is evident that they are talking about future games (not old games that are available on PlayStation). Or do the naysayers think that Dishonored and Wolfenstein on PS5 (not PS4) would outsell Starfield, Redfall, Hi-Fi Rush, and Elder Scrolls 6 on Xbox Series X? (lol! please say you do!)
   • So the argument that Microsoft was only talking about "old Zenimax games" is bullshit. It has been proven wrong here.
3. "Hypothetical console exclusive strategy." This is an industry-standard term that is applied to games that are exclusive to one console and have not been released on other consoles until the point of discussion.
4. Here, Microsoft defines scenarios, and until those scenarios occur, Microsoft says that a console-exclusive strategy will not work.
   • The time-frame for measuring whether Microsoft has achieved those scenarios or not was 5 years. However, they made their games exclusive 2 days after the acquisition closed. Why didn't they wait for 5 years as they implied they would?
5. Microsoft clearly implied that it is extremely unlikely that they would ever achieve these results / hit those scenarios. That means they are extremely unlikely to engage in a console-exclusive strategy.

---

Microsoft Was Not Only Referring to Older Zenimax Games

Here is another proof that Microsoft referred to older as well as newer games.

1. Cease (m. bring to an end) refers to pulling off games that are already available, i.e., Wolfenstein, Dishonored, Fallout 76.
2. Limit making (m. the process of making or producing something) refers to stop making Zenimax games for PlayStation, i.e., Starfield, Elder Scrolls 6, Redfall, Hi-Fi Rush.

---

The Case-by-Case Basis Argument Is Also Wrong

Microsoft never said to EC that they would take it case-by-case basis or will make some exclusives while keeping some multiplatform.

According to Microsoft, their future strategy regarding Zenimax games was not engaging in a "total or partial" foreclosure strategy.

---

The CMA also called out Microsoft's misrepresentation of their intention

"Zenimax games" -- nowhere does it say "old or existing Zenimax games."

Is Starfield a "Zenimax game?" Yes. That means it meets this definition and, therefore, counts.

Edit: Thanks for the Gold, @Bonsaibäumchen

Microsoft most certainly did tell the EU that it wouldn't make sense for them to make ZeniMax games exclusive, and that they had no incentive to do so. Then two days after the acquisition was approved they turned around and stated that ZeniMax titles would then be exclusive.

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

Don’t overthink it.
You like Playstation - No pretending, would you not like if Sony owned Activision Blizzard or Take-Two or Capcom or Square Enix or Kojima Productions etc if you knew it would mean that you’ll get all their previous and upcoming games for free on a service you’re already perfectly fine subscribing to?
For most I’d say it’s really that simple. More games for less money.

No, I wouldn’t. I like what Sony is currently doing by funding new start ups like Haven, Firewalk, and Deviation or by making existing studios bigger

I hope they don’t waste any money acquiring established successful third parties - we already get those games anyway

 

[X-Wing]

Don’t overthink it.
You like Playstation - No pretending, would you not like if Sony owned Activision Blizzard or Take-Two or Capcom or Square Enix or Kojima Productions etc if you knew it would mean that you’ll get all their previous and upcoming games for free on a service you’re already perfectly fine subscribing to?
For most I’d say it’s really that simple. More games for less money.

 

[MasterCornholio]

No, I wouldn’t. I like what Sony is currently doing by funding new start ups like Haven, Firewalk, and Deviation or by making existing studios bigger

I hope they don’t waste any money acquiring established successful third parties

More free games would be nice but not at the expense of other gamers. I'm fine with Sony and Microsoft creating new studios and expanding the ones they currently have. It's acquisitions that are a grey area for me.

If the developers are small then it really isn't too much of a problem because small devs do need funding. But buying a large multiplatforn publisher and making their games exclusive is something I won't accept from either Sony or Microsoft. For example if Sony bought Capcom and took all their games away from Xbox I wouldn't be happy with that. Xbox gamers have enjoyed franchises like Resident Evil for many years and to have that removed permanently just seems wrong to me.

 

[Lyrical]

^ I doubt it. They've basically said that is off the table. I honestly think they would be more likely to pull all MS products from the UK before they paid $70b for ABK and didn't get CoD. It is just 70m people in a world of 7b.

Though both options are highly unlikely.

Pull out of their 2nd biggest market? That would be the end of Xbox.

 

[Three]

If you're saying Microsoft never told the EU about its intentions to make some Zenimax games exclusive you are wrong.

The EU literally put it in their final report... a section on Microsoft's strategy on future ZeniMax games.

The EU literally also points out that one of the first questions Microsoft answered was about future zenimax games and them being exclusive on November 6th, 2020 in a question that Microsoft and Zenimax responded to. So they knew about possible Zenimax exclusives on Xbox as early as November 6th, 2020. And Microsoft told them again in their Form CO to the EU on Jan, 29th, 2021.

The EU fully accounted for exclusivity as a possibility after the ZeniMax purchase by Microsoft. It's all over their final report. Anyone claiming that the EU was totally blindsided about Xbox exclusives is not reading the full facts, which is exactly why they challenged the FTC publicly.

The EU also concluded that input foreclosure using Zenmax games would not be possible because a sufficiently high number of new players wouldn't switch to Xbox in to make it harm rivals. That's what it means for an input foreclosure to prove damaging to competition. We literally have people in this thread saying they won't buy an Xbox to play Zenimax games... so the EU was correct!

The EU was not blindsided or lied to about the possibility that Microsoft would make Zenimax games exclusive. They just concluded that, even if they did, it wouldn't cause a big enough rush of users switching from playstation to be considered highly damaging. Microsoft DID in fact notify the EU that their determination on future Zenimax games would be made on a case-by-case basis. Microsoft did not lie.

The EU also seems to understand that Microsoft was referring to existing zenimax games and ones under contract, leaving them available for purchase on playstation after the transaction closed. How could they not know, they literally reference Microsoft's statements about future games in their final report 4 different times.

Typical of you to cite the get-the-facts-zenimax propaganda that MS published after the FTC raised the issue about this in the ABK deal.

We've gone over this idea that it was referring to existing zenimax games already and it clearly wasn’t. Not even MS are refuting that.

The EU accounted for the possibility of games going exclusive and concluded that no harm would be caused if everything did. They cite the relevant paragraphs 4 times. This doesn't mean they didn't state there is no incentive for them to not make games available. It doesn't mean the EU were blindsided.

Even if you read just that paragraph

"whether to distribute ZeniMax games
for other consoles will be made on a case-by-case basis, taking into account player demand and sentiment, Microsoft’s strategic and financial goals, and the willingness of third-party gaming hardware providers to run Microsoft games and services."

In another paragraph they suggested that financially there is no incentive and in this it would be case by case depending on player demand and sentiment and their financial goals. The incentives analysis was based on new games too. This does not contradict the case by case sentence because even the paragraph suggesting there would be no incentive explains when it would make sense financially to do it and suggest it's implausible. Tell me what future games by Zenimax have been made multiplatform based on player demand, sentiment or financial goals?

MS said they would consider it case by case based on player sentiment, demand, and financial goals and said it had no financial incentive to not make games on rival consoles. These aren't contradictory. Had regulators pushed back and said we are blocking this deal they would have stuck to that, there being no financial incentive to remove Elder Scrolls 6 for example, like they are now with CoD.

 

[Fredrik]

I don't think there's anything wrong with talking about your preferences. Like if someone buys a multiplat on Xbox to increase their gamerscore I don't think there's anything wrong with that.

It’s not wrong per say but why is it important? Why would anybody care what platform you prefer to play on? Go into every thread and mention that you prefer playing on your $5k RTX 4090™ PC because you like that the performance is only limited by your screen’s refresh rate or some silly crap like that and people would be annoyed. Nobody cares. It really does nothing for the discussions imo.

 

[MasterCornholio]

It’s not wrong per say but why is it important? Why would anybody care what platform you prefer to play on? Go into every thread and mention that you prefer playing on your $5k RTX 4090™ PC because you like that the performance is only limited by your screen’s refresh rate or some silly crap like that and pe⁷ople would be annoyed. Nobody cares. It really does nothing for the discussions imo.

Well then we agree that me and phil_t98 were just console warring then.

I didn't really see it that way but I'll stop mentioning that I like Playstation more if that bothers people so much.

I didn't start this but I'll end it.

 

[Fredrik]

No, I wouldn’t. I like what Sony is currently doing by funding new start ups like Haven, Firewalk, and Deviation or by making existing studios bigger

I hope they don’t waste any money acquiring established successful third parties - we already get those games anyway

You’d still get those games, just for less money. As a subscriber I’d love it. They just need to take away the delays too, that would be awesome.

 

[aries_71]

Pull out of their 2nd biggest market? That would be the end of Xbox.

It’s not like it’s a huge market…

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

You’d still get those games, just for less money. As a subscriber I’d love it. They just need to take away the delays too, that would be awesome.

So give away the games for free and then make the dev times shorter. Nope on any of that crap. It’s why I don’t think GP is all that good for the industry, it can make AAA gaming worse quality because the incentive structure doesn’t prioritize high budgets

I would rather continue paying retail prices, have third party games available on Xbox too, and just get more new games from new studios

I don’t sub to the higher PlayStation subs. Gaming is a cheap hobby, just give me more games of higher quality and I’ll buy it

 

[MasterCornholio]

It’s not like it’s a huge market…

But not small enough that Microsoft doesn't care about losing it. I still believe its pretty significant to Xbox. Its no Japan that's for sure.

Gaming is a cheap hobby, just give me more games of higher quality and I’ll buy it

I wouldn't say cheap but there are ways to get games for a lot less if you wait. Your right that as long as a game is high quality it will be worth the MSRP.

 

[ToadMan]

Legit question, if CMA and EU approve this, will that pressure FTC to do the same quicker than their current timeline ?

I assume if MS concede enough that EU and CMA approve, those concessions would also be enough for the FTC and they would halt their complaint.

 

[Fredrik]

Well then we agree that me and phil_t98 were just console warring then.

I didn't really see it that way but I'll stop mentioning that I like Playstation more if that bothers people so much.

I didn't start this but I'll end it.

Don’t change because of my complaints, I’m a nobody, I just think in general if people would try to focus more on the games instead of the plastics running them the board would be better.
Anyway now I’m off to play some Moss 2!

 

[MasterCornholio]

Don’t change because of my complaints, I’m a nobody, I just think in general if people would try to focus more on the games instead of the plastics running them the board would be better.
Anyway now I’m off to play some Moss 2!

Eh I play games as well. Doesn't stop me from wanting to participate here though even if the conversation isn't strictly about playing games. I'll join in sales threads if I wish and I'll stay out of the ones that don't interest me. This is just one of those threads that has sales in it and other things because its related to the topic.

 

[Tams]

Footnote 537 is a reference to Microsoft's response to the CMA where Microsoft reminded the CMA of exactly what they told them they would do with Zenimax's games. Microsoft made themselves clear and CMA has concluded Microsoft has honored existing contractual agreements and acted in accordance with the statements it made on the Zenimax acquisition.

Phil said Minecraft would stay on all platforms. He kept his promise.

Two more footnotes. 210 and 213. Microsoft specifically told CMA that they were going to make Zenimax games that were exclusive to Xbox in their Form CO when they were being investigated for the ZeniMax purchase. And Microsoft in footnote 210 stated they would honor all ZeniMax obligations and continue to make current games available on other gaming hardware, including Deathloop and Ghostwire Tokyo.

Microsoft told the truth on Minecraft. They told the truth about Zenimax. No reason to think they can't be taken at their word on Activision Blizzard.

The reason why that's not carrying much weight with the CMA is because it's for two minor games within a couple of years of Zenimax's acquisition, with both with contracts with Sony.

Honouring contracts is not going to garner favour as it's expected that you do so. It's the very least that anyone is expected to do. Not honouring them does tarnish your standing, but this isn't a case of equals and opposites.

Microsoft have honoured those contracts because they don't want to get into a legal fight over them.

As for Minecraft... they know that restricting what platforms it is on would hurt their revenue and image.

 

[Brucey]

What about your amazing gaming pc you guys (you especially I think) have said you all had to play all xbox exclusives on for years now?

Will you be retracting this claim in light of DarkBatmans post that he doesn't have a gaming PC? Has he been too influenced by all the Playstation bloggers plotting against MS?