Microsoft / Activision Deal Approval Watch |OT|

ReBurn

Gold Member
Sony is aruging in bad faith. Sony isn't willing to compromise, they want to kill the deal. So there's no point in talking with Sony.
The deal doesn't hinge on what Sony will accept and it never has. Talking with Sony was a way to try to get ahead of regulatory issues that Microsoft knew were going to come up anyway. It would have been easier for Microsoft to navigate regulatory issues if all of the companies affected were on board but it was always going to be between Microsoft, Activision and the regulators.
 

feynoob

Member
Why though?
I only subscribe when its at 1€ and theres something I wanna play.

I don't want another subscription running every month and I don't need it. Having to many options of games to play will result in me playing tons of different games and not finishing any of them.
The backlog of games I own is big enough anyways.
Some people abuse these type of deals. Because of that, you have that restriction.
 

feynoob

Member
We will concede to no deal, for to concede would be to lose, and the PlayStation Nation never loses
I Yield to the blue nation.
White Flag Couple GIF by Hollyoaks
 

feynoob

Member
People, if Sony were to buy Activision, MS would have done the same thing.

Sony is losing a big market here, and that is after losing bethesda.
 

12Dannu123

Member
The deal doesn't hinge on what Sony will accept and it never has. Talking with Sony was a way to try to get ahead of regulatory issues that Microsoft knew were going to come up anyway. It would have been easier for Microsoft to navigate regulatory issues if all of the companies affected were on board but it was always going to be between Microsoft, Activision and the regulators.
If course, but like I say, their intention is to kill the deal. So there's no point in having dialogue with Sony.
 

Three

Member
If course, but like I say, their intention is to kill the deal. So there's no point in having dialogue with Sony.
To be frank this shouldn't even be about dialogue with another party and it isn't. Any remedies proposed should be made to the CMA and the CMA action would be comprehensive and take competition in the market into account. Have they offered remedies that the CMA are happy with?

If tomorrow some new console entrant comes would MS need to offer them a 10yr contract too?

If you look at their remedies guideline they are more likely to push structural remedies, such as divestitures than behavioural ones like the one MS seem to be suggesting. If as MS say they offer releases with parity to competitors for 10yrs that is something that would require constant monitoring for compliance. That's why I'm doubtful MS' 10yr agreement would be accepted. We'll see.
 
Last edited:

sainraja

Member
Depends what happens with the subscription services, if you’re going all in on subs there is no issue to move from one platform to another. I haven’t bought a single game yet for XSX.
Sub services are relatively new to gaming and there is also a lack of choice (no matter how big the library might be). But yeah, if someone has fully embraced sub services and no longer cares about having a library, they would be more likely to switch without a worry.
 
Last edited:
Sony is aruging in bad faith. Sony isn't willing to compromise, they want to kill the deal. So there's no point in talking with Sony.
It really puts into perspective the idea Sony was pushing that they could not compete in gaming if MS owned Activision when they would reject a ten year deal for CoD. I would question all of their claims at this point. The only reason this deal should be rejected is if it is illegal. No one has proven that claim yet.
 

feynoob

Member
November 7, can you read what I'm saying? There are posts in the FH5 thread with almost 2 million players on November 8.
It hit 1.5m playerbase. Once the game was live on gamepass, it went to 2.75m on the launch day. then the rest is history.
It never hit 2m before gamepass.
 

feynoob

Member
It really puts into perspective the idea Sony was pushing that they could not compete in gaming if MS owned Activision when they would reject a ten year deal for CoD. I would question all of their claims at this point. The only reason this deal should be rejected is if it is illegal. No one has proven that claim yet.
MS/xbox would gain activision revenue, playerboost, and market share boost. All of that from owning activision. Something they wouldnt get that easily, if they didnt own activision.

10 years or no 10 years, the results are the same. Xbox would gain tremendous market share from this deal.

Whether this deal is legal or not, depends on regulator. At this point, I hope it fails, because you keep cheering for MS like some holy grail. Its annoying too much, that we are thinking of giant corporate as our friend.
 

The_Mike

I cry about SonyGaf from my chair in Redmond, WA
People, if Sony were to buy Activision, MS would have done the same thing.

Sony is losing a big market here, and that is after losing bethesda.
Let's be real what has been sonys loss since the Bethesda acquisition?

Skyrim got released for the first time 2011, 11 years ago.
Fallout 4, 2015.

Pretty slow output from Bethesda.

It's nowhere near the cash cow Acti Blizzard.
 

Topher

Gold Member
Let's be real what has been sonys loss since the Bethesda acquisition?

Skyrim got released for the first time 2011, 11 years ago.
Fallout 4, 2015.

Pretty slow output from Bethesda.

It's nowhere near the cash cow Acti Blizzard.

Aren't you equating Bethesda the studio with Bethesda the publisher?
 

feynoob

Member
Let's be real what has been sonys loss since the Bethesda acquisition?

Skyrim got released for the first time 2011, 11 years ago.
Fallout 4, 2015.

Pretty slow output from Bethesda.

It's nowhere near the cash cow Acti Blizzard.
They lost the entire bethesda publisher future games(That includes Zenimax, bethesda, arkane, machine games, ID software, tango, alpha and roundhouse). That is alot of games.
And the userbase of those studios would move to xbox.
 

PaintTinJr

Member
It really puts into perspective the idea Sony was pushing that they could not compete in gaming if MS owned Activision when they would reject a ten year deal for CoD. I would question all of their claims at this point. The only reason this deal should be rejected is if it is illegal. No one has proven that claim yet.
That's not how it works in the UK, we can just rationalise that it is likely to be bad long term and just block it, which is exactly why Microsoft needed to be proactive with concessions rather than thinking it was a negotiation where they were on a level footing with the CMA - they aren't and wasting time only lessens the likelihood of getting what they claim they want.
 

Three

Member
The PlayStation Nation laughs at your pleas for mercy.

Finding Nemo Lol GIF
How would the PlayStation Nation survive if the green rats decide to remove business from the country? No more excel!
They lost the entire bethesda publisher future games(That includes Zenimax, bethesda, arkane, machine games, ID software, tango, alpha and roundhouse). That is alot of games.
And the userbase of those studios would move to xbox.
Zenimax is the parent company. Bethesda Softworks is the subsidiary publisher.
 
Last edited:

The_Mike

I cry about SonyGaf from my chair in Redmond, WA
They lost the entire bethesda publisher future games(That includes Zenimax, bethesda, arkane, machine games, ID software, tango, alpha and roundhouse). That is alot of games.
And the userbase of those studios would move to xbox.
Can you remind me, when did Ms buy them? Wasn't it 2019?

Doom Eternal came out 2020 on all platforms.
 
MS/xbox would gain activision revenue, playerboost, and market share boost. All of that from owning activision. Something they wouldnt get that easily, if they didnt own activision.

10 years or no 10 years, the results are the same. Xbox would gain tremendous market share from this deal.

Whether this deal is legal or not, depends on regulator. At this point, I hope it fails, because you keep cheering for MS like some holy grail. Its annoying too much, that we are thinking of giant corporate as our friend.
It being legal or not should be based on law not just how regulators feel. It's for that reason that in the US if the FTC sues they have to win in court and they can't shut down an acquisition based on politics. I hope the acquisition proceeds because it isn't illegal. My personal feelings are irrelevant. I'd feel the same way no matter who was buying or selling. The law matters.

That's not how it works in the UK, we can just rationalise that it is likely to be bad long term and just block it, which is exactly why Microsoft needed to be proactive with concessions rather than thinking it was a negotiation where they were on a level footing with the CMA - they aren't and wasting time only lessens the likelihood of getting what they claim they want.
If the CMA can unilaterally make decisions without the weight of law that is a major flaw. No governmental body should be able to operate with no checks and balances. The FTC needing the courts to validate their opinions makes the entire process more fair. If MS loses in court and is found to have violated the law the deal should be blocked otherwise it should proceed.

Can you remind me, when did Ms buy them? Wasn't it 2019?

Doom Eternal came out 2020 on all platforms.
People keep trying to make MS out to be some sort of boogieman but they have honored agreements and have been a fair competitor in gaming for 20 years. The idea they are now 'lying' and out to hurt innocent gamers is pretty silly.
 

The_Mike

I cry about SonyGaf from my chair in Redmond, WA
No, it was 2021.

March 2020.


People keep trying to make MS out to be some sort of boogieman but they have honored agreements and have been a fair competitor in gaming for 20 years. The idea they are now 'lying' and out to hurt innocent gamers is pretty silly.
Ms is so far the company that has kept most multi platform after acquisitions than other companies, and people are bashing them for the opposite.

When Ms buys them, you can play them on at least pc and Xbox.

PS is starting this route, but you have to wait several years there vs the other alternative.
 

Three

Member

March 2020.



Ms is so far the company that has kept most multi platform after acquisitions than other companies, and people are bashing them for the opposite.

When Ms buys them, you can play them on at least pc and Xbox.

PS is starting this route, but you have to wait several years there vs the other alternative.
He's telling you when MS bought Zenimax not when the game released.

You said:
"Can you remind me, when did Ms buy them? Wasn't it 2019?"

The acquisition was announced September 2020 and closed in 2021.

Also it's not as if Bethesda games weren't coming to PC without MS. They were coming to all platforms before.
 
Last edited:

baphomet

Member

March 2020.



Ms is so far the company that has kept most multi platform after acquisitions than other companies, and people are bashing them for the opposite.

When Ms buys them, you can play them on at least pc and Xbox.

PS is starting this route, but you have to wait several years there vs the other alternative.

They bought Bethesda in 2021
 

gothmog

Member
I don't care if people troll. It's the low effort stuff

Hoeg breaking down MS moves to placate the EU regulators. They are no longer focusing on tying to arrive at something Sony will accept since they are just opposed in general to the deal. Access to CoD was never the issue and they will not accept anything MS can offer.
I said last week that this was not about Sony at this point. I'm glad people are finally realizing this.
 

MarkMe2525

Member
Could we say the same for MS and its claim? In the world where they offered their game service and IPs without needing a console. PSNow on a phone, PC, or TV during PS3 and beyond.

They merely said MS would not allow it. Whether a formal offer was made or not is irrelevant. But you're here trying to suggest they didn't have anything to offer until recently. Suggesting all they had was online multiplayer. I'm saying they have had a game subscription service for a long time and it's now renamed to PS+ too. That's all I was pointing out when responding to you.
That's not what I was suggesting though. You're misrepresenting my statement. My point was if Sony did make a move to get Sony services on an xbox ecosystem, it wouldn't be PlayStation+. Which ties into my opinion that the "presumption" that Sony attempted to make a deal and was denied, is in fact not something that actually happened.
 

PaintTinJr

Member
....

If the CMA can unilaterally make decisions without the weight of law that is a major flaw. No governmental body should be able to operate with no checks and balances. The FTC needing the courts to validate their opinions makes the entire process more fair. If MS loses in court and is found to have violated the law the deal should be blocked otherwise it should proceed.
....
The fairness is about fairness to the consumers that benefit most when the balance of power to choose is held by them and not trillion-dollar companies. The regulators in the UK are as much an extension of the public view and government view - including the wisdom within the Lords - to reasonably assess things without reducing it to who can provided the best legal argument. Just look at how telecoms regulation works in the UK to see that more often than not our regulators get things more right than wrong.

Being morally right for the market trumps any legally bent argument IMO, following along the maxim of "the law is an ass!".
 

Three

Member
That's not what I was suggesting though. You're misrepresenting my statement. My point was if Sony did make a move to get Sony services on an xbox ecosystem, it wouldn't be PlayStation+. Which ties into my opinion that the "presumption" that Sony attempted to make a deal and was denied, is in fact not something that actually happened.

Your post was this
Until recently, Playstation Plus was Sony's multiplayer subscription with deals and a couple free games thrown in. This is not equivalent to the GamePass service. The statement is not clear on what exactly Sony was "presumably" attempting to bring to the Xbox store or if they ever attempted to bring anything at all.

PS Now which is now called PS+ (Extra/Premium).

When they mention PS+ they are using the new name of a game subscription service they have had for a long time and is and was equivalent to other multigame subscriptions. So "presumably" that's what they would have brought. Not multiplayer, deals or 'a couple of free games'.
 

MarkMe2525

Member
Your post was this




When they mention PS+ they are using the new name of a game subscription service they have had for a long time and is and was equivalent to other multigame subscriptions. So "presumably" that's what they would have brought. Not multiplayer, deals or 'a couple of free games'.
That was my point when I mentioned "there isn't a world where Sony would bring their IP to an xbox console". IMO, they couldn't be referring to ps+ in its current configuration as Sony would never bring that deal to MS.

You mentioned "Whether a formal offer was made or not is irrelevant." In context of what the headline and article was "presuming", it is extremely relevant. That presumed offer is what the OG thread and headline was about.

Maybe it's confusing because of the fact that the OG thread was merged into this one. It is possible that some comments may have lost context because of this.
 
Last edited:

Three

Member
That was my point when I mentioned "there isn't a world where Sony would bring their IP to an xbox console". IMO, they couldn't be referring to ps+ in its current configuration as Sony would never bring that deal to MS.

You mentioned "Whether a formal offer was made or not is irrelevant." In context of what the headline and article was "presuming", it is extremely relevant. That presumed offer is what the OG thread and headline is about.

Maybe it's confusing because of the fact that the OG thread was merged into this one. It is possible that some comments may have lost context because of this.
I'm not sure I see the loss of context. If your belief was that they wouldn't allow their IPs on xbox why not just say that?

Why frame it as if it was disingenuous because they had nothing to offer as a service on another device except multiplayer, deals and a couple of games? That an equivalent didn't exist.
 
Last edited:

Banjo64

cumsessed
The fairness is about fairness to the consumers that benefit most when the balance of power to choose is held by them and not trillion-dollar companies. The regulators in the UK are as much an extension of the public view and government view - including the wisdom within the Lords - to reasonably assess things without reducing it to who can provided the best legal argument. Just look at how telecoms regulation works in the UK to see that more often than not our regulators get things more right than wrong.

Being morally right for the market trumps any legally bent argument IMO, following along the maxim of "the law is an ass!".
American law = an inhaler or epipen costing $300-$500 compared to £9 in the UK :messenger_tears_of_joy: give me a fucking break please.
 

feynoob

Member
The fairness is about fairness to the consumers that benefit most when the balance of power to choose is held by them and not trillion-dollar companies. The regulators in the UK are as much an extension of the public view and government view - including the wisdom within the Lords - to reasonably assess things without reducing it to who can provided the best legal argument. Just look at how telecoms regulation works in the UK to see that more often than not our regulators get things more right than wrong.

Being morally right for the market trumps any legally bent argument IMO, following along the maxim of "the law is an ass!".
Seal Of Approval Thumbs Up GIF
 
Top Bottom