• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Microsoft / Activision Deal Approval Watch |OT| (MS/ABK close)

Do you believe the deal will be approved?


  • Total voters
    886
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
If the acquisition eventually gets approved and Sony didn’t take Microsoft up on the COD 10 year deal, does that mean MS could keep it off PlayStation immediately? Almost like “tough luck, you didn’t accept our deal and now you get nothing”
Nah... if they turn around and immediately do that, it'll be exactly what the Regulators were weary of them doing. Just as Regulators have the "power" to grant this deal, they have the "power" to break it up. MS/Xbox are now aware that their moves are being watched closely, they'll be on their best behavior... at least for a little bit.
 
Last edited:
I doubt it. Because then Sony or anyone else can just refuse the terms and Microsoft would then not be allowed to use their IP as they choose lol

Then MS would back out of the deal if they don’t like the concession terms offered by the CMA and don’t have full control of the distribution of the CoD IP as you mentioned

They’d pay their $3B termination fee to Activision and go home
 
Last edited:

Varteras

Gold Member
No, these public deals are just for show. The only commitments that matter are the ones Microsoft is making to regulators. Microsoft has to honor those concessions regardless of what deals are made to anyone else.

Exactly. Sony knows they're getting these concessions regardless of what they sign. They're refusing to sign so they don't make things more difficult if the regulators want more. Which Sony clearly has an interest in.
 
Last edited:

DJ12

Member
Because Xbox generates billions of dollars for them and is their most successful consumer product. That's why it's not going anywhere. Phil Spencer sits at the table with Satya Nadella. Xbox is a major Microsoft business.

So get rid of this fever dream fantasy of Microsoft becoming a 3rd party developer.
Obvious troll.

Ever heard of Windows, Office or Azure, you know MS products that actually bring in a profit.

I get some people say a load of shite as they are fanboying/shilling, but this is too much

Go Away Beyonce GIF
 

knocksky

Banned
Then MS would back out of the deal if they don’t like the concession terms offered by the CMA and don’t have full control of the distribution of the CoD IP as you mentioned

They’d pay their $3B termination fee to Activision and go home
The CMA has already recognised the fact that sub services are a cheaper way for people to play. I highly doubt that they would remove that right just to appease Sony at the expense of consumers who they are supposedly protecting.
 
The CMA has already recognised the fact that sub services are a cheaper way for people to play. I highly doubt that they would remove that right just to appease Sony at the expense of consumers who they are supposedly protecting.

The CMA has acknowledged that concessions require parity of access and distribution, including subs and cloud

They have additionally stated that they don’t believe behavioral remedies (aka consessions) would address their concerns

So where we stand now is that the deal won’t go through the CMA without CoD being spun off, or MS manages to convince the CMA of behavioral remedies that adequately address their concerns that the CMA hadn’t otherwise considered

If we take both MS and the CMA at their word, it’s a long shot it’ll go through. MS doesn’t want to divest CoD, CMA sees no behavioral remedies
 
Last edited:

knocksky

Banned
The CMA has acknowledged that concessions require parity of access and distribution, including subs and cloud

They have additionally stated that they don’t believe behavioral remedies (aka consessions) would address their concerns

So where we stand now is that the deal won’t go through the CMA without CoD being spun off, or MS manages to convince the CMA of behavioral remedies that adequately address their concerns that the CMA hadn’t otherwise considered

If we take both MS and the CMA at their word, it’s a long shot it’ll go through. MS doesn’t want to divest CoD, CMA sees no behavioral remedies
Yeah I am aware of all of that.
 

Warablo

Member
It would be crazy if this somehow backfires on Sony.

Sony aren’t the ones spending 10s of billions for multiple studios and IP.

‘Hey that guy punched that other guy’

‘Okay, we’ll investigate that but we also need to go back through your history to make sure you haven’t punched anyone too’

Odd

Your analogy doesn’t work. The witness is cross examined, yes, to determine the veracity of their assertion.

However, they aren’t accused of the same crime. Their evidence is whether they saw the crime of have legitimate evidence of the crime being committed.
Sony made some bold claims about CoD being irreplaceable and they wouldn't be able to compete if the deal went through. This is why I think the subpoena is getting approved.
 
Last edited:

PaintTinJr

Member
The CMA has already recognised the fact that sub services are a cheaper way for people to play. I highly doubt that they would remove that right just to appease Sony at the expense of consumers who they are supposedly protecting.
I think you underestimate how well advised the CMA are about the games industry in the UK, because doing the maths of gamepass to support a $70B acquisition with the existing 100-200M console worldwide player base doesn't add up. So it isn't going to be cheaper for us gamers long term, and the CMA are well aware of that, so the argument will likely fail to hit its mark.
 

knocksky

Banned
I think you underestimate how well advised the CMA are about the games industry in the UK, because doing the maths of gamepass to support a $70B acquisition with the existing 100-200M console worldwide player base doesn't add up. So it isn't going to be cheaper for us gamers long term, and the CMA are well aware of that, so the argument will likely fail to hit its mark.
?? That's because gamepass isn't going to payback the 70bn. The CMA know that too
 
Lol.
So a third party puts himself down as a witness in a court case and then complains about his evidence being cross examined.
Your analogy doesn’t work. The witness is cross examined, yes, to determine the veracity of their assertion.

However, they aren’t accused of the same crime. Their evidence is whether they saw the crime of have legitimate evidence of the crime being committed.
 

RevGaming

Member
Personally, I find that to be the definition of anti-competitive. You can afford timed exclusives far easier and far more cheaply because of a dominant position. So you use that to basically prevent anyone else from competing against you on equal footing, because they would have to pay 10x more for an exclusive, and it would still result in lower sales. Repeat this over and over for years and it cheaply prevents competition. It makes perfect sense that one of the only responses to this is acquisitions, as it's one of the only ways to pay for something at the standard price, as opposed to repeatedly paying 10x more than your competitor for less.
Then make better exclusives than sony's and gain some of the market share.

Nah. Too hard to do with 23 studios.
 
Your’re forgetting the fact Sony would lose their advantages over CoD as they do today, losing the benefits the partnership brings them and having CoD on Game Pass day one is a huge blow to Sony, no matter if they have a 10 year window.

MS would also guarantee themselves profits from selling CoD over the next 10 years on the console with the larger m

If the acquisition eventually gets approved and Sony didn’t take Microsoft up on the COD 10 year deal, does that mean MS could keep it off PlayStation immediately? Almost like “tough luck, you didn’t accept our deal and now you get nothing”
If it goes through and Sony doesn't sign the contract then yes, in theory MS could pull it immediately after Sony's contract with Activision is over next year. I highly doubt they would though, too much money to be made.
 
Personally, I find that to be the definition of anti-competitive. You can afford timed exclusives far easier and far more cheaply because of a dominant position. So you use that to basically prevent anyone else from competing against you on equal footing, because they would have to pay 10x more for an exclusive, and it would still result in lower sales. Repeat this over and over for years and it cheaply prevents competition. It makes perfect sense that one of the only responses to this is acquisitions, as it's one of the only ways to pay for something at the standard price, as opposed to repeatedly paying 10x more than your competitor for less.
What a joke post. Because Microsoft wasn't buying up the 3rd parties endlessly as well..

Can see the usual suspects gushing at your post though.
 

Mr.Phoenix

Member
Personally, I find that to be the definition of anti-competitive. You can afford timed exclusives far easier and far more cheaply because of a dominant position. So you use that to basically prevent anyone else from competing against you on equal footing, because they would have to pay 10x more for an exclusive, and it would still result in lower sales. Repeat this over and over for years and it cheaply prevents competition. It makes perfect sense that one of the only responses to this is acquisitions, as it's one of the only ways to pay for something at the standard price, as opposed to repeatedly paying 10x more than your competitor for less.
You are joking, right? ike you just cannot possibly be serious.

Nope, no way you can be serious.
 

The_Mike

I cry about SonyGaf from my chair in Redmond, WA
You know COD is a First Person Shooter game right?

Let's forget these games are also fps games.
Halo
Killzone
Resistance

If Sony was to revive Killzone and Resistance with their current tech and developers with a battle royal mode, COD being exclusive to Xbox wouldn't matter to the PS fan base.

And the way Microsoft runs their studies, COD being exclusive to Xbox may end up being a shell of it's former self just like Halo.
Seriously.

People get angry when you say all sonys games are third person cinematic games, but when it comes to cod you guys tossing out that any fps can literally replace cod because they are simply first person shooters.

None of the games you mentioned caters to a cod player, and you know that.


never-go-full-retard-tropic-thunder.gif
 

gothmog

Gold Member
If the acquisition eventually gets approved and Sony didn’t take Microsoft up on the COD 10 year deal, does that mean MS could keep it off PlayStation immediately? Almost like “tough luck, you didn’t accept our deal and now you get nothing”
That would be a trap to get regulators dragging them right back to court. They could also do it with Zenimax if it was really egregious.
 
Stop looking at the pass and look at the future. Look at the quality of games Sony are putting out, they keep setting the bar.
They're putting out third person cinematic singleplayer games one after another, and almost nothing else besides GT.
With no COD on Playstation, a Resistance or Killzone reboot similar to God of War is more than enough to fill the void COD left.
There's absolutely nothing to suggest that Sony are capable of producing a successful FPS multiplayer game. If they reboot KZ and Resistance similar to GoW, then it wouldn't be a FPS, and it wouldn't be multiplayer. You're not familiar with logic much are you?
 

Loxus

Member
Seriously.

People get angry when you say all sonys games are third person cinematic games, but when it comes to cod you guys tossing out that any fps can literally replace cod because they are simply first person shooters.

None of the games you mentioned caters to a cod player, and you know that.


never-go-full-retard-tropic-thunder.gif
If COD becomes exclusive to Xbox, any game can replace COD on Playstation simply because it's no longer there.

It's not that hard to understand.
Battlefield or any other fps filling the void COD left, means it has replaced COD.

If this acquisition is approved, Playstation is still going to be the dominant platform, meaning any game that fills COD's void automatically replaces COD in both revenue and popularity.

Using Microsoft claims as an example.
80% Playstation vs 20% Xbox.
COD becomes exclusive to Xbox, 20% jumps to Xbox. Maybe less, since COD isn't the reason Playstation is the dominant platform.

The game that fills COD's void maintains 60% of COD's console gamers, that's 60% for which ever that game is vs Xbox's COD 40%.
 
Last edited:
Personally, I find that to be the definition of anti-competitive. You can afford timed exclusives far easier and far more cheaply because of a dominant position. So you use that to basically prevent anyone else from competing against you on equal footing, because they would have to pay 10x more for an exclusive, and it would still result in lower sales. Repeat this over and over for years and it cheaply prevents competition. It makes perfect sense that one of the only responses to this is acquisitions, as it's one of the only ways to pay for something at the standard price, as opposed to repeatedly paying 10x more than your competitor for less.
I agree with this. I am not joking either.
 

Mr.Phoenix

Member
Stop looking at the pass and look at the future. Look at the quality of games Sony are putting out, they keep setting the bar.

With no COD on Playstation, a Resistance or Killzone reboot similar to God of War is more than enough to fill the void COD left.
Great point... why didn't we and even MS think of this?

Now all they have to do is reboot Haoand that would save them $67B. Say they go HAM, and decide to spend more than most AAA games cost and spend $200M on the reboot. That's 300x less than buying Activision.

Wait hold up, that also means that they could make 300+ games with a $200M budget per game.

MS should hire you.
 

Loxus

Member
They're putting out third person cinematic singleplayer games one after another, and almost nothing else besides GT.

There's absolutely nothing to suggest that Sony are capable of producing a successful FPS multiplayer game. If they reboot KZ and Resistance similar to GoW, then it wouldn't be a FPS, and it wouldn't be multiplayer. You're not familiar with logic much are you?
Alright, let's use Battlefield then.
Microsoft claims a 80% Playstation vs 20% Xbox.

Like I said already.
20% jumps to Xbox, that other 60% switches to Battlefield.

Battlefield becomes more popular than COD in the console space (60% vs 40%), simply because Playstation will remain the dominant platform.
 

RevGaming

Member
If COD becomes exclusive to Xbox, any game can replace COD on Playstation simply because it's no longer there.

It's not that hard to understand.
Battlefield or any other fps filling the void COD left, means it has replaced COD.

If this acquisition is approved, Playstation is still going to be the dominant platform, meaning any game that fills COD's void automatically replaces COD in both revenue and popularity.

Using Microsoft claims as an example.
80% Playstation vs 20% Xbox.
COD becomes exclusive to Xbox, 20% jumps to Xbox. Maybe less, since COD isn't the reason Playstation is the dominant platform.

The game that fills COD's void maintains 60% of COD's console gamers, that's 60% for which ever that game is vs Xbox's COD 40%.
Sony could make a 100 metacritic massive mp fps and they still won't sell better than cod.

Just look at what casuals love. They don't chase quality over popularity.
 
Last edited:

The_Mike

I cry about SonyGaf from my chair in Redmond, WA
If COD becomes exclusive to Xbox, any game can replace COD on Playstation simply because it's no longer there.
People go where the games they want to play goes.
Isn't that what you all say regarding sonys games?
Exclusives sell.

But why isn't that the case for xbox and cod?
The majority who plays cod or fifa doesn't give a shit about other games.
If they can't play cod on a platform, they won't pick it.
I know you guys would rather do soduko than buying an Xbox, but out in the real world people buy the platform they want to game on.


It's not that hard to understand.
Battlefield or any other fps filling the void COD left, means it has replaced COD
First of, cod is an arcade shooter, battlefield is sim lite.
They aren't comparable.
Neither in gameplay, or sales.
If you knew that, then you wouldn't compare annually cod with bf2042 which was DOA.


If this acquisition is approved, Playstation is still going to be the dominant platform, meaning any game that fills COD's void automatically replaces COD in both revenue and popularity.
Because, sonys exclusives move xbox users over to playstation.
But, it's technically not possible to move from PlayStation to Xbox, if there's a game they buy a console to play.

Holy shit some twisted logic some people use in here.
 

RickMasters

Member
I'm taking about if COD because exclusive and this is about console, where Sony represents a large portion of COD's revenue. So large, that it doesn't even make sense mentioning Xbox revenue according Microsoft if it not mistaken.
K9qZgEf.jpg


I just don't see COD pulling in those numbers or being as popular as it is right now without Playstation.

Sony is vastly more popular than Xbox, that any exclusive fps that fills COD spot instantly becomes more popular. There isn't any debating this when the console market is 70% Playstation.
It did on X360...Sony understood all too well the marketing power that comes with being the COD console. Thats why they picked that one clean from under MS nose...that is why they are fighting so hard right now to keep MS from ever having that sort of COD advantage again. and that was in an era when they had COD4 beta and halo 3 beta followed up by the launch of halo 3 and that big marketing push with COD 4, in fact I clearly remember xbox being mocked as the COD console that dished out halo, forza gears every year. between the poor mesasaging behind XB1 launch and the fact that sony had secured COD marketing pretty much crippled their chances last gen. Fast forward and that COD deal has carried over to PS5 along with that massive COD fanbase that see PS as the current home of COD....That can/would change with MS owning COD and effectively removing the 80 bucks a year minimum price of entry (by offering it on gamepass) along with the fact that they can market it as a game they own even if its on everything. The fact that its on GP and wont cost a gamer 80 bucks a year which they can instead spend on another game or even DLC/MTX for COD..because its not like they will be spending that 80 bucks on COD anymore...for COD fans...that will be enough...maybe thats what scares sony...when that audience goes where its cheaper for them to play the same game they been playing for decades, now, that revenue will be lost to them and they will now have to deal their main competitor to have the game on their platform as it will still outsell every sony 1st party game as it does right now. The chickens will go where the feeding troth is placed. ..... dont count them as sony loyals..they are COD fans..nothing more or less. they will play the game where their freinds play and their friends will lay by the means that suit their pockets best, if the option is their to play cod and not pay the yearly full price of a COD game, people will take it..they aint attached to these plastic boxes like a forum dweller might be.


I could see the marketing now...."COD has come back home to xbox where the franchise popularity exploded with COD 4 and COD2 being one of those system selling games of the X360 launch era. Xbox has plenty of history with COD...along with halo it was the big shooter to get an xbox for. especially at a time when Xbox live was objectively better than PSN on a technical/performance level. I still remember the shit eating grin on that sony execs face when he announmced.."we are the new home of COD, now" ..the 'new' home eh?..... a bit like saying a house you cant afford is yours. it belongs to who buys it, im afraid....


Ive long held the suspicion that outside of each platforms die hard core fan base their is this huge population that go wherever its popular. They are the COD, fifa, madden crowd, but the COD audience is the money maker. they bought wiis.... they have never played anything that resemnbvles dark souls or a JRPG and drwa a blank experssion when you explain the game designmertits of sokething like bioshock for example....they just wanna pick up a controller and shoot with their freinds, and they dont care about much else. they buy whats poppin among their freinds and that changes all the time.



"There isn't any debating this when the console market is 70% Playstation."

Wasnt always that way though was it? ..once upon a time the X360 was the COD console. with an attach rate that embrarressed the PS3. It was the console you put your game on if you wanted to sell those skins and DLC.... And sony wanted that for themselves, too. because hey, thats how the business makes money these days.... X360 was the place where the majority of COD players played. The Esports scene used the X360 version.... I could go on. Then things changed....they can change back again..... especially with MS as the owners of ABK. Im not even saying they will suddenly outsell the PS5...only that they can easily win back the COD audience and the network effects benefit that came with that in the X360 era that sony has thus far enjoyed since they have had the deal with ABK. but all of that can change. starting with COD on GP. which is MS aim after all..... and that network benefit of COD is real..... where they go thats a potential sale to a devof their game on that particular platform. thats how this works. Sony are where they are because they copied the X360 playbook and successfuly blended that with their stregths...MS should have done the same in opposite, and maybe their woulnd tbe a 70% ownership of the current market. fair play to sony.... and its obvious it would take a company with MS resources and low key cuttrhoat nature to beat them. So here we are, babaaay!
 

Loxus

Member
People go where the games they want to play goes.
Isn't that what you all say regarding sonys games?
Exclusives sell.

But why isn't that the case for xbox and cod?
The majority who plays cod or fifa doesn't give a shit about other games.
If they can't play cod on a platform, they won't pick it.
I know you guys would rather do soduko than buying an Xbox, but out in the real world people buy the platform they want to game on.



First of, cod is an arcade shooter, battlefield is sim lite.
They aren't comparable.
Neither in gameplay, or sales.
If you knew that, then you wouldn't compare annually cod with bf2042 which was DOA.



Because, sonys exclusives move xbox users over to playstation.
But, it's technically not possible to move from PlayStation to Xbox, if there's a game they buy a console to play.

Holy shit some twisted logic some people use in here.
Take a good look at this image.
ksUDCYx.jpg


Realistically speaking.
How many playstation gamers you think is going to switch to Xbox if Microsoft acquires Activision and leave behind these?
PlayStation exclusives
Dualsense features
PS VR 2
Their Playstation catalog

It doesn't matter how much revenue or popularity COD generates on consoles.
What matter is where that revenue and popularity lies and 80% of that lies with Playstation.
 

Dane

Member
If the acquisition eventually gets approved and Sony didn’t take Microsoft up on the COD 10 year deal, does that mean MS could keep it off PlayStation immediately? Almost like “tough luck, you didn’t accept our deal and now you get nothing”
It depends on what terms it was approved, EU can include the 10 year support regardless of Sony acceptance or not, but if they don't, then it would be until next year due to marketing contract, BUT, if theres clausules with immediate exit by paying a fee, then MS could pay it and quit the day after.

Personally, I don't believe they will not continue releasing COD on PS, the worst case scenario is that they won't get content parity as a response for over the last years. A nuclear option which I also find very unlikely is if Sony blacklists XGS and therefore all their games are removed from the store.
 

RickMasters

Member
Not dark yet

uS4rWaS.jpg
Ah...Ok..... fine.... Ill play along, with the outlandishness for once... here goes:

Amazon to buy the PS division from sony, then buys ubisoft. but at this point they cant buy any japanese companies because they will now be american. however think of all the deals they could do with amazon money. maybe sony are just to small of a dog to be in the fight that is coming between the titan sized mega corps that are are MS, google and apple....in response apple does some crazy legal wrangling that allows them to buy nintnedo...launcing the I-tendo (TM) ...powered by a custom M2 chip, runs logic pro and final cut pro, comes with a months free itunes in addition to backwards compatability thanks to M2s amazing processing power. and also buys tencent. sells the console for $1000 UAD and people buy it because its apple and its advertised as 'something more than a games machine...more of an expression of the devs creativeness" or some other high brow apple advertising speak.... and people will buy it....



How did I do? was that nuclear enough?
 

Loxus

Member
It did on X360...Sony understood all too well the marketing power that comes with being the COD console. Thats why they picked that one clean from under MS nose...that is why they are fighting so hard right now to keep MS from ever having that sort of COD advantage again. and that was in an era when they had COD4 beta and halo 3 beta followed up by the launch of halo 3 and that big marketing push with COD 4, in fact I clearly remember xbox being mocked as the COD console that dished out halo, forza gears every year. between the poor mesasaging behind XB1 launch and the fact that sony had secured COD marketing pretty much crippled their chances last gen. Fast forward and that COD deal has carried over to PS5 along with that massive COD fanbase that see PS as the current home of COD....That can/would change with MS owning COD and effectively removing the 80 bucks a year minimum price of entry (by offering it on gamepass) along with the fact that they can market it as a game they own even if its on everything. The fact that its on GP and wont cost a gamer 80 bucks a year which they can instead spend on another game or even DLC/MTX for COD..because its not like they will be spending that 80 bucks on COD anymore...for COD fans...that will be enough...maybe thats what scares sony...when that audience goes where its cheaper for them to play the same game they been playing for decades, now, that revenue will be lost to them and they will now have to deal their main competitor to have the game on their platform as it will still outsell every sony 1st party game as it does right now. The chickens will go where the feeding troth is placed. ..... dont count them as sony loyals..they are COD fans..nothing more or less. they will play the game where their freinds play and their friends will lay by the means that suit their pockets best, if the option is their to play cod and not pay the yearly full price of a COD game, people will take it..they aint attached to these plastic boxes like a forum dweller might be.


I could see the marketing now...."COD has come back home to xbox where the franchise popularity exploded with COD 4 and COD2 being one of those system selling games of the X360 launch era. Xbox has plenty of history with COD...along with halo it was the big shooter to get an xbox for. especially at a time when Xbox live was objectively better than PSN on a technical/performance level. I still remember the shit eating grin on that sony execs face when he announmced.."we are the new home of COD, now" ..the 'new' home eh?..... a bit like saying a house you cant afford is yours. it belongs to who buys it, im afraid....


Ive long held the suspicion that outside of each platforms die hard core fan base their is this huge population that go wherever its popular. They are the COD, fifa, madden crowd, but the COD audience is the money maker. they bought wiis.... they have never played anything that resemnbvles dark souls or a JRPG and drwa a blank experssion when you explain the game designmertits of sokething like bioshock for example....they just wanna pick up a controller and shoot with their freinds, and they dont care about much else. they buy whats poppin among their freinds and that changes all the time.



"There isn't any debating this when the console market is 70% Playstation."

Wasnt always that way though was it? ..once upon a time the X360 was the COD console. with an attach rate that embrarressed the PS3. It was the console you put your game on if you wanted to sell those skins and DLC.... And sony wanted that for themselves, too. because hey, thats how the business makes money these days.... X360 was the place where the majority of COD players played. The Esports scene used the X360 version.... I could go on. Then things changed....they can change back again..... especially with MS as the owners of ABK. Im not even saying they will suddenly outsell the PS5...only that they can easily win back the COD audience and the network effects benefit that came with that in the X360 era that sony has thus far enjoyed since they have had the deal with ABK. but all of that can change. starting with COD on GP. which is MS aim after all..... and that network benefit of COD is real..... where they go thats a potential sale to a devof their game on that particular platform. thats how this works. Sony are where they are because they copied the X360 playbook and successfuly blended that with their stregths...MS should have done the same in opposite, and maybe their woulnd tbe a 70% ownership of the current market. fair play to sony.... and its obvious it would take a company with MS resources and low key cuttrhoat nature to beat them. So here we are, babaaay!
If COD was popular on the XB360, way didn't those gamers stay with Xbox?

No matter how much text you type. At the end of the day, it was the Playstation exclusives that made the PS4 as popular as it is and COD being exclusive to Xbox isn't going to change that.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom