Support NeoGAF

[intheinbetween]

PlayStation are merely the flag bearer today, MSFT don't look like they care about anything deep down; certainly not creativity and gaming, it is just a big money move so if they damage PlayStation and aren't looking to pick up the slack, then that's not good for UK gamers or developers or publishers. It isn't about PlayStation, it is about MSFT failing to show they want to wear that crown or would be capable of wearing it.

In those tweets Microsoft stated the majority of CoD players are on PlayStation, and that is true long before any online MP or map pack marketing deals. PlayStation did well to revive the UK market, and the CMA is only likely to let a deal like this pass easily if the company doing it will do a similar or better job for the market - in employment and taxable revenue - IMO.

What in the actual f* man

 

[ZehDon]

PlayStation are merely the flag bearer today, MSFT don't look like they care about anything deep down; certainly not creativity and gaming, it is just a big money move so if they damage PlayStation and aren't looking to pick up the slack, then that's not good for UK gamers or developers or publishers. It isn't about PlayStation, it is about MSFT failing to show they want to wear that crown or would be capable of wearing it.

In those tweets Microsoft stated the majority of CoD players are on PlayStation, and that is true long before any online MP or map pack marketing deals. PlayStation did well to revive the UK market, and the CMA is only likely to let a deal like this pass easily if the company doing it will do a similar or better job for the market - in employment and taxable revenue - IMO.

You'll need to explain this in detail and with citations. And it had better be fucking good because it doesn't make any sense: How does PlayStation carry the entire English games industry to such a degree that "damage" to PlayStation is "not good for... gamers"? Do you understand why this is a ridiculous statement to make? Literally the only people hurt by Microsoft buying Activision Blizzard are Sony. And it is not the regulator's job to defend Sony's business interests - they exist to protect the citizens of their country. How does Call of Duty not launching on PlayStation hurt the average English gamer?

 

[Godot25]

PlayStation are merely the flag bearer today, MSFT don't look like they care about anything deep down; certainly not creativity and gaming, it is just a big money move so if they damage PlayStation and aren't looking to pick up the slack, then that's not good for UK gamers or developers or publishers. It isn't about PlayStation, it is about MSFT failing to show they want to wear that crown or would be capable of wearing it.

In those tweets Microsoft stated the majority of CoD players are on PlayStation, and that is true long before any online MP or map pack marketing deals. PlayStation did well to revive the UK market, and the CMA is only likely to let a deal like this pass easily if the company doing it will do a similar or better job for the market - in employment and taxable revenue - IMO.

Please stop.
If Sony was in gaming market for "creativity and gaming" they would certainly not raised console prices in UK and other markets. The would also did not try to destroy competition by moneyhatting every other third-party games to lock out exclusivity deals or exclusive content. They also would not be in the front of "we are raising prices of games" wave at the start of this gen.
Sony is way more money hungry company in gaming business rn as Microsoft. Which is obvious to anybody who does not bleed blue color.

What will be the difference in "employment and taxable revenue" if gamers switch to Xbox because COD is in Game Pass? Because I fail to see corelation in anything you are saying with current situation.
Like...you can't say that Sony is guardian of UK gaming market. You can't say that Microsoft is. Because both companies had rough period with their UK based studios. Sony closed BigBig Studios, Evolution Studios, Guerrilla Cambridge, Manchester Studio, Studio Liverpool. All UK studios. Microsoft closed Lionhead.

 

[Kiraly]

What in the actual f* man

Raising your prices at every twist and turn, having to backtrack multiple times because of backlash, is the epitome of love for gaming.

 

[oldergamer]

Maybe MSFT might want to consider that they as a company have decades of history that our CMA will be familiar with and feel their suspicious are justifiable.

Criticising the CMA is unlikely to make getting approval easier IMO, and I'm still of the opinion that enough games industry vets that interface for grants and the like will all be against this deal, and the deck will be stacked towards it being much safer to block the deal than approve. No one is potentially going to have made the worst decision in history for the Uk games industry by blocking the deal, whereas "only time will"(MGS5 vibes) if they do approve it, if the same is true in reverse.

You dont think sony has decades of anti- competitive actions? Sony specifically in the games industry, music industry, price fixing products etc... Sony Europe was sued over this years ago and its the reason they cant reject approval on games that compete with thier own first party anymore.

 

[nikolino840]

Something Something

 

[GHG]

Microsoft spitting straight facts

Then quoting Tom Warren in an official document has to be the funniest thing to come out of this saga thus far.

 

[oldergamer]

Something Something

Sony complaining they cant continue to pay for exclusive content with cod anymore.

 

[3liteDragon]

Microsoft spitting straight facts

Dude’s unofficial PR work paid off

 

[Little Chicken]

Wow who in the CMA is on Sony's payroll?

 

[Pelta88]

No disrespect, but is this a copypasta I'm not familiar with?


You're attempting to float the concept that the regulator's job is indeed to protect Sony's market leader position because, apparently, without PlayStation in the market leader position the British games industry would have so few jobs left that the Government needs to intervene - because Microsoft's "first party fails - despite their unlimited budget from MSFT".

So you clearly have zero understanding of how business works. To be clear >Microsoft< has had an unlimited budget for decades and will continue to do so. That does not mean a division outside of its core business is successful because of said budget. Like any company Microsoft has and will continue to dissolve divisions which can't or struggle to make profit.

But I've already said too much to a person who intentionally degrades the discourse of this acquisition with terms like "Protect Sony."

I appreciate the heads up.

 

[Bernkastel]

In those tweets Microsoft stated the majority of CoD players are on PlayStation, and that is true long before any online MP or map pack marketing deals. PlayStation did well to revive the UK market, and the CMA is only likely to let a deal like this pass easily if the company doing it will do a similar or better job for the market - in employment and taxable revenue - IMO.

LOL no. Before the exclusivity deals, in the 7th gen, 360 had majority of COD players by a huge margin.

 

[Banjo64]

Microsoft spitting straight facts

I find that response, and also quoting a MS shill like Tom Warren, utterly embarrassing.

 

[ReBurn]

You complete misunderstand the UK games industry if you don't think the CMA see this move as far more than just protecting PlayStation. PlayStation are merely the console brand that are the market leader, just like Sinclair was back in the day of home computers. The deal is going to be about the impact it might have now and in the future of those working in the industry, and those going into higher education looking to get jobs in that industry.

Too much uncertainty surrounds the impact on those jobs, because most of them came back as a result of PS1's early success, and despite Xbox being an employer in the UK games industry, their own first party fails - despite their unlimited budget from MSFT - has a couple of decades to view how little they've done to push on to create and sustain the level of jobs that PlayStation has directly and indirectly, by comparison.

If you were a civil servant accountant looking at it, blocking the deal would almost certainly be your preferred option IMO.

Please explain how this deal would impact future jobs. What jobs disappear under the CMA's purview with this deal?

 

[phil_t98]

Microsoft spitting straight facts

once the Us approves this the UK will follow to

 

[adamsapple]

"according to SIE, gamers may expect that CoD on Xbox will include extra content"


Irony is truly dead and buried.

 

[phil_t98]

You complete misunderstand the UK games industry if you don't think the CMA see this move as far more than just protecting PlayStation. PlayStation are merely the console brand that are the market leader, just like Sinclair was back in the day of home computers. The deal is going to be about the impact it might have now and in the future of those working in the industry, and those going into higher education looking to get jobs in that industry.

Too much uncertainty surrounds the impact on those jobs, because most of them came back as a result of PS1's early success, and despite Xbox being an employer in the UK games industry, their own first party fails - despite their unlimited budget from MSFT - has a couple of decades to view how little they've done to push on to create and sustain the level of jobs that PlayStation has directly and indirectly, by comparison.

If you were a civil servant accountant looking at it, blocking the deal would almost certainly be your preferred option IMO.

so a market leader should be protected because they are the market leader? that's sounds like a monopoly then

 

[onesvenus]

I'm saying it with a straight face because simply owning a phone doesn't make you a potential customer. Your/Their interests do. Owning a phone and being subscribed to a cloud gaming service does. Those numbers are small though

In marketing terms a potential customer is anyone who has the potential to be interested in something. Anyone who has a phone IS a potential customer, even if that doesn't fit your definition. Aren't all PS owners a potential customer of GoW? Come on

Yes, I did and if you had actually absorbed the point I was making, you would have remembered I specifically excluded the opinions of people like this that aren't creatives - a million miles away from the opinions of the actual workforces that create games.

You still have to prove those claims though.

 

[Banjo64]

so a market leader should be protected because they are the market leader? that's sounds like a monopoly then

This is the definition of a monopoly. What you are describing is not a monopoly. I think you’re describing racketeering (although your interpretation is wrong to begin with).

mon·op·oly
[məˈnɒp(ə)li]

NOUN

1. the exclusive possession or control of the supply of or trade in a commodity or service:
   "the state's monopoly of radio and television broadcasting"
   • a company or group having exclusive control over a commodity or service:
     "passenger services were largely in the hands of state-owned monopolies" · 
     [More]
   • a commodity or service in the exclusive control of a company or group:
     "electricity, gas, and water were considered
     

 

[Snake29]

Sony complaining they cant continue to pay for exclusive content with cod anymore.

I think it's not about content. It's the whole package since ABK will be under Microsoft, it will be on Gamepass (what directly makes it anti-competitive), etc etc.

The studio is not third party anymore like it is now.

"according to SIE, gamers may expect that CoD on Xbox will include extra content"


Irony is truly dead and buried.

You forgot to mention the whole context from the text.

 

[Menzies]

Then quoting Tom Warren in an official document has to be the funniest thing to come out of this saga thus far.

Crazy, right. All those undisputed facts they referenced him saying.

 

[PaintTinJr]

You'll need to explain this in detail and with citations. And it had better be fucking good because it doesn't make any sense: How does PlayStation carry the entire English games industry to such a degree that "damage" to PlayStation is "not good for... gamers"? Do you understand why this is a ridiculous statement to make? Literally the only people hurt by Microsoft buying Activision Blizzard are Sony. And it is not the regulator's job to defend Sony's business interests - they exist to protect the citizens of their country. How does Call of Duty not launching on PlayStation hurt the average English gamer?

Why? All the info to support my point is already in my last set of posts. If you can't appreciate the separation of PlayStation from the issue of a company that's had 2 decades of time and unrivalled funding to show how they'd influence a market and help it thrive, yet have failed so bad they are outfight trying to spend $80b on publishers for yesterday's popular games and looking to corral the market to a business model that the market leader has costed to be beyond the production quality - and associated employment that brings - for its market leading AAA games, then that's a point I'm going to struggle to convince you of, regardless of citations. But thankfully the CMA isn't you, and they probably already understand the potential impact on the UK games industry if this acquisition goes through.

 

[reinking]

"according to SIE, gamers may expect that CoD on Xbox will include extra content"


Irony is truly dead and buried.

It is not Irony. It is a business practice that Sony knows works well because they have taken advantage of it. I am sure the regulators will see through their BS but Sony has reason to be concerned. They know first-hand that exclusive content can sway consumers.

 

[Sanepar]

I bet this deal will not be approved in UK and Europe.

 

[adamsapple]

It is not Irony. It is a business practice that Sony knows works well because they have taken advantage of it. I am sure the regulators will see through their BS but Sony has reason to be concerned. They know first-hand that exclusive content can sway consumers.

I'm sure/hope the regulators see through the BS because their commentary about being concerned about another version having any shred of exclusive content while putting out trailers and promos on prime time TV hours touting exclusive content on the PS4/5 versions of Modern Warfare 2 is nothing short of hypocritical.

But yes, I understand their legal dept is gonna say what it has to say.

 

[GHG]

Crazy, right. All those undisputed facts they referenced him saying.

Yeh it's a shame the CMA don't see it that way. Good luck using a journalist's twitter as a "source" that will definitely change their mind.

Cry me a river.

 

[PaintTinJr]

so a market leader should be protected because they are the market leader? that's sounds like a monopoly then

Is your comprehension really so poor you can't even discern the argument I am making?

I'll rephrase, just for you.

The CMA will likely try to protect the market - and by extension the market leader - from any deals that could result in the market leader being replaced with a leader that will degrade the market.

 

[Three]

In marketing terms a potential customer is anyone who has the potential to be interested in something. Anyone who has a phone IS a potential customer, even if that doesn't fit your definition. Aren't all PS owners a potential customer of GoW? Come on

You didn't get it. Every single person on the planet has the potential to be interested in something. Meaning every single person on the planet is a potential customer, even those who don't own phones yet. The differences are interests and barriers to those interests.

Not all phone users are interested in high quality gaming via console or streaming. The products and services they use shows their interest to be a potential customer, not simply what device they have. If they had a genuine interest they buy those gaming devices or services.

Subscribing to a streaming service or buying a console are those barriers which show they have an interest.

Not a lot of people have subscribed to a game streaming service on phones. A lot more have bought consoles like the Switch or PS. Calling every single phone owner out there "more potential customers" to Hellblade is a stretch when very few of them have legitimate interests in subscribing to a game streaming service (as is evident) all the while removing those who have shown legitimate interest and bought consoles like the Switch and PS.

 

[adamsapple]

Is your comprehension really so poor you can't even discern the argument I am making?

I'll rephrase, just for you.

The CMA will likely try to protect the market - and by extension the market leader - from any deals that could result in the market leader being replaced with a leader that will degrade the market.

And you've yet to prove how changing market leaders will 'degrade' the market in any way.

Repeating the same sentence in different wordings does not equal proving a point.

If this is your opinion, then its other folks opinion that it's complete BS.

 

[MikeM]

A lot of sad fanboy hot takes in this thread. The deal will likely go through but lets not pretend this is the CMA’s first rodeo with MS.

 

[Godot25]

And you've yet to prove how changing market leaders will 'degrade' the market in any way.

Repeating the same sentence in different wordings does not equal proving a point.

If this is your opinion, then its other folks opinion that it's complete BS.

Because it's BS of course.

 

[Kiraly]

And you've yet to prove how changing market leaders will 'degrade' the market in any way.

Repeating the same sentence in different wordings does not equal proving a point.

If this is your opinion, then its other folks opinion that it's complete BS.

You don't understand, Sony is only in it because of their love and passion for gaming while evil Microsoft only wants to extort money out of you by raising the prices of Game Pass years down the line. Just like eh.

 

[JLB]

Is your comprehension really so poor you can't even discern the argument I am making?

I'll rephrase, just for you.

The CMA will likely try to protect the market - and by extension the market leader - from any deals that could result in the market leader being replaced with a leader that will degrade the market.

Wait what? Since when protecting the market and the market leader are kind of the same thing? All the opposite in most cases. Do you think that when MS was forced to split on the 90s was to protect it? Nonsense.

 

[Menzies]

Yeh it's a shame the CMA don't see it that way. Good luck using a journalist's twitter as a "source" that will definitely change their mind.

Cry me a river.

Sorry, didn’t mean to interrupt your credibility attack with some inconvenient truths. Please proceed with the attacks.

 

[The_Mike]

TLDR
Microsoft: CMA is shilling for Sony

Problem really is that Sony can practically do whatever they want.

- buy developers while being able to block other companies doing the same.

-remove bad user reviews on MC while everyone else in the industry has to suck it up.

There's probably alot more but its from recent events.

 

[PaintTinJr]

And you've yet to prove how changing market leaders will 'degrade' the market in any way.

Repeating the same sentence in different wordings does not equal proving a point.

If this is your opinion, then its other folks opinion that it's complete BS.

Going by the last two decades of MSFT/Xbox in the UK, what's most likely to happen if PlayStation's UK investment in A-AAA games directly and indirectly reduces following an ACTIVI acquisition by MSFT?

Are they more likely to find their magic developer manual and finally rival PlayStation's UK output in the UK - with similar investment as PlayStation for dev work after blowing a $70b wad? Or do FCUK all and just sweat the IPs from the investments they made?

Even if you say the former option, I'll believe you, honest, no doubt at all. /s

 

[reksveks]

Dont know how often we have to repeat that the CMA is not in the business of protecting dying markets.

 

[adamsapple]

Dont know how often we have to repeat that the CMA is not in the business of protecting dying markets.

For the uninitiated, what would you classify as "dying" in this case ?

 

[GHG]

Sorry, didn’t mean to interrupt your credibility attack with some inconvenient truths. Please proceed with the attacks.

Oh hi Tom, I'm sorry you feel that way.

I have absolutely zero doubt with regard to your journalistic integrity and I'm absolutely certain you are an unbiased source when it comes to matters regarding Microsoft and the video games industry at large. The CMA ought to take your articles, tweets and opinions seriously, it would be to the benefit of everyone, not just Microsoft.

 

[reksveks]

For the uninitiated, what would you classify as "dying" in this case ?

Physical game distribution

 

[HeisenbergFX4]

 

[Spitfire098]

You know, I'm starting to think this UK place ain't so bad after all.

 

[Godot25]

Going by the last two decades of MSFT/Xbox in the UK, what's most likely to happen if PlayStation's UK investment in A-AAA games directly and indirectly reduces following an ACTIVI acquisition by MSFT?

Are they more likely to find their magic developer manual and finally rival PlayStation's UK output in the UK - with similar investment as PlayStation for dev work after blowing a $70b wad? Or do FCUK all and just sweat the IPs from the investments they made?

Even if you say the former option, I'll believe you, honest, no doubt at all. /s

What?

So. Your logic for this deal not going through is "if it goes through and PS gamers in UK will switch to Xbox, Sony will not have money to invest into their first-party?" What kind of stupid argument is that?

Do you know that Playground Games made a game that was probably more commercially successful than all PlayStation UK output combined, right? And I'm not even counting Sea of Thieves from Rare...

 

[GHG]

Physical game distribution

That's not their concern. They have clearly outlined multiple vectors that are areas of concern:

There is a realistic prospect of a substantial lessening of competition in gaming consoles, multi-game subscription services, and cloud gaming services

"The CMA is concerned that having full control over this powerful catalogue, especially in light of Microsoft's already strong position in gaming consoles, operating systems, and cloud infrastructure, could result in Microsoft harming consumers by impairing Sony's – Microsoft's closest gaming rival – ability to compete as well as that of other existing rivals and potential new entrants who could otherwise bring healthy competition through innovative multi-game subscriptions and cloud gaming services."

In terms of streaming, the CMA's concerns are around Microsoft's potential in this market due to its ownership of the Azure cloud gaming service, plus its PC operating system. It believes that there's a chance this, coupled with the ownership of Activision Blizzard, will give Microsoft and "unparalleled advantage" over other cloud streaming providers

UK regulator details concerns over Microsoft’s proposed acquisition of Activision Blizzard, Xbox responds

UK regulator CMA issues concerns over Microsoft's acquisition of Activision Blizzard

www.gamesindustry.biz

If anything they are more focused on any potential future than they are the present and past.

 

[Pelta88]

Oh hi Tom, I'm sorry you feel that way.

I have absolutely zero doubt with regard to your journalistic integrity and I'm absolutely certain you are an unbiased source when it comes to matters regarding Microsoft and the video games industry at large. The CMA ought to take your articles, tweets and opinions seriously, it would be to the benefit of everyone, not just Microsoft.

 

[reksveks]

If anything they are more focused on any potential future than they are the present and past.

Talking about a person argument in this thread. The CMA are looking at the right things.

The most interesting things won't be from the likes of Sony but Nvidia and BlackNut.

If SIE is the only company that will be complaining, this deal is going through. I suspect that some other of the smaller ones might complain

 

[Menzies]

Oh hi Tom, I'm sorry you feel that way.

I have absolutely zero doubt with regard to your journalistic integrity and I'm absolutely certain you are an unbiased source when it comes to matters regarding Microsoft and the video games industry at large. The CMA ought to take your articles, tweets and opinions seriously, it would be to the benefit of everyone, not just Microsoft.

Still no attack on the actual tweet itself, just the man?

Maybe, just throwing out a guess here, the CMA isn’t going to blindly accept the defence councils figures and MS is doing the least amount of effort in citing a supporting source. Microsoft isn’t going to do the CMA’s job for them. Let them find their own GHG certified impartiality industry source to corroborate or deny these figures, which everyone here already knows to be true.

 

[Draugoth]

The UK Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has described its issues with the Microsoft Activision/Blizzard acquisition It fears that the acquisition could lessen the competition in the gaming console, subscriptions service and cloud gaming spaces

Xbox has shared a statement with GamesIndustry saying that even if all COD players would switch, PlayStation would still have a "significantly larger" player base "While Sony may not welcome increased competition, it has the ability to adapt and compete"

UK regulator details concerns over Microsoft’s proposed acquisition of Activision Blizzard, Xbox responds

UK regulator CMA issues concerns over Microsoft's acquisition of Activision Blizzard

www.gamesindustry.biz

 

[ReBurn]

Going by the last two decades of MSFT/Xbox in the UK, what's most likely to happen if PlayStation's UK investment in A-AAA games directly and indirectly reduces following an ACTIVI acquisition by MSFT?

Are they more likely to find their magic developer manual and finally rival PlayStation's UK output in the UK - with similar investment as PlayStation for dev work after blowing a $70b wad? Or do FCUK all and just sweat the IPs from the investments they made?

Even if you say the former option, I'll believe you, honest, no doubt at all. /s

What leads you to believe that Sony intends to reduce their investment in games if Microsoft buys Activision? The change in market dynamics would probably require that Sony invest more, not less, to maintain their market position.

You're not making any sense.

 

[//DEVIL//]

Why does it look like CMA is a sony fanboy ? Lol

Just regular back and forth. Nothing gonna stop the deal from going through.