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.
Some people abuse these type of deals. Because of that, you have that restriction.
Did you seeThe PlayStation Nation laughs at your pleas for mercy.
Ass of Can Whooping
side kick?
I have no side kick
If course, but like I say, their intention is to kill the deal. So there's no point in having dialogue with Sony.
I get what you're saying. They already had a dialogue with Sony. But there's no reason to continue to do so.
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?
That maybe so. But that doesn't answer the real question here does it?It’s actually fun seeing you all chasing after your own tails.
As everyone knows: denial is the first phase of grief.
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.
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.
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.
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.
It did once it was live for gamepass. The 2.75m shows the playerbase rising up.
Let's be real what has been sonys loss since the Bethesda acquisition?
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.
If Microsoft didn't confirm the numbers, then it is hard to rule out that some of those players might have been part of some heavy network load testing using AI prior to launch and don't indicate real purchase numbers.
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.
How would the PlayStation Nation survive if the green rats decide to remove business from the country? No more excel!The PlayStation Nation laughs at your pleas for mercy.
Zenimax is the parent company. Bethesda Softworks is the subsidiary publisher.
Can you remind me, when did Ms buy them? Wasn't it 2019?
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.
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.
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.
September 2020 the acquisition was announced. It didn't even close then.
He's telling you when MS bought Zenimax not when the game released.
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.
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 them late 2020 but closed early 2021
Ah gotcha
sorry about that misunderstandingWhether you look at closing date (March 2021) or announcement (Sept 2020) it's both after Doom's March 2020 release date.
they did in 2020. around September. (Announcement)
Bethesda publishers sounds better. People dont really know Zenimax that much.
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.
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.
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.
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?
American law = an inhaler or epipen costing $300-$500 compared to £9 in the UK
give me a fucking break please.
American law = an inhaler or epipen costing $300-$500 compared to £9 in the UK
Cavity problem here.
