jm89
Member
I joined, even though im 50/50, doing it for the fun of it.
-
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)
- Status
Topher
Gold Member
That's your take on it and that's fine. But saying MS didn't make those statements to EC is simply wrong.
reinking
Gold Member
It will be interesting to see how many people that are on one side or the other vote the same. We are having these disagreements at times with many of us thinking it will end the same. I voted for structural changes to ABK but I doubt MS would agree to any. It is most likely behavioral changes or bust.
KungFucius
King Snowflake
And they are implying that a Trillion dollar company doesn't realize it is impossible and are wasting a shit ton of time and money.
The wheeling and dealing MS has been doing has changed things enough that any tax payer funded organization would be obligated to look at. Nvidia was against this merger, and now they are not. If a major player in an industry is a vocal opponent against a merger and then switches to being a supporter of the merger doesn't that indicate that the potential future state of the industry has changed from what the CMA was using as their basis of being against the merger? Isn't part of their decision based on inputs from the industry players as well as their own research and hasn't that changed enough to warrant a reevaluation? MS still working this tells me that they think it does, and I think their lawyers are better informed than people here.
Oddvintagechap
Member
The Activision will become an independent entity that Microsoft will hold a minority in like Pokemon Go developer Niantic.
Astray
Gold Member
Structural is likely gonna kill the deal, it's honestly a very complicated idea and will depend heavily on how much the CMA (or any other regulator that demands it) looks into the past works of each ATVI studio, take Toys for Bob for example, this studio has done Skylanders, Crash 4 and remasters of the PSX-era Crash and Spyro trilogies, which makes it surprisingly valuable for Microsoft's ideas of making 1st party games.
However, they also worked on COD Warzone in 2021 and COD MW2 in 2022, so if you are the CMA, and you and Microsoft are (hypothetically) discussing what parts of ATVI need to be divested, do you tell MSFT to divest Toys for Bob as part of the proposed COD spinoff company?
Even assuming that MSFT would even agree to said spin-off and sale, this is the kind of calculation that potentially makes the deal hard to justify, because what's the use of Keeping IPs if you are losing the best studios in the process of acquiring them?
Astray
Gold Member
IMHO, of course they will try to extinguish, it's in their DNA.
It's like someone telling me that Sony will definitely never ever force ridiculously priced proprietary memory formats (like they did with PS Vita and their cameras back in the day), or that Nintendo will suddenly become friendly to fan projects involving its IP, corporate cultures and ambitions never ever truly go away, because they're part of what a company is, it just lies dormant and continually tries to resurrect in new forms.
Psygnosis is one of those weird talking points that Xbox fans keep bringing up despite it having basically zero relevance.
Fair enough about the bing points/PS stars jabs, I apologize for saying them to you.
Rac3r
Member
I voted approved w/ behavioral concessions. My personal opinion is that it should be blocked outright (for a variety of reasons); but as a pessimist, I think Microsoft pushing their weight around will ultimately cause regulators to give in.
Reverse-jinxing this deal like my boy Pachter.
Reverse-jinxing this deal like my boy Pachter.
KungFucius
King Snowflake
They can't just do what they want though. MS is a publicly traded company. They can't just pull COD from other systems when that represents most of the revenue stream. Maybe things will be different in 10 years, but right now it would be now and if they said he guys (shareholders) we are going to sacrifice billions each year on the risky move that this is going to make enough people switch from Sony to our platform. Those 10 years of revenue will be on earnings reports for 40 fucking quarters with huge bumps in the fall quarter each year. That anyone doesn't see that as a major deterrent from making COD exclusive is beyond me.
bitbydeath
Member
I think it’s been dead for a while now.
Microsoft seem to be doing just enough to avoid legal trouble, but not enough to address the CMA, instead just doubling down on what’s already been rejected.
Microsoft seem to be doing just enough to avoid legal trouble, but not enough to address the CMA, instead just doubling down on what’s already been rejected.
ChuckeRearmed
Member
You literally described what Sony was doing for the whole Xbox One and Sony's plan for this gen. Conspiracy theory? Let's see.
- Fighting genre? Sony went after SF5 and it completely decimated fighting genre on Xbox. I do wonder how many fighting games skipped Xbox due to Sony's interference but we can't neither prove or disprove that. After all Xbox 360 was a very strong FGC platform, yet suddenly all of it was erased overnight.
- JRPG? Sony went after Final Fantasy, preventing Xbox from growing the community for JRPGs altogether as Xbox only got FF13-1-2-3 (unfortunately not great FF games) and FF15 (decent). Then we had Sega essentially being a first party for Sony the whole Xbox One gen with Yakuza and Persona games. So any chance for JRPG community to grow on Xbox was lost.
- The attempt to destroy FPS community on Xbox arguably started with Xbox One gen, but it was partially self inflicted due to Xbox not extending COD deal. At that time there was a rumor that COD deal was extended to the platform with the biggest market share (it was neither proved or disproved). There was also that Destiny deal with content being locked to PS for the full year (especially after Bungie leaving Xbox). Probably there were some other deals but I forgot at this point. And during this gen, Sony went hard after FPS games too with Deathloop and arguably Ghostwire.
- The crusade against WRPG started this gen. Recall the deals that Sony made (or tried to make). Sony tried to make a time exclusive deal regarding Starfield. They also went after KOTOR. Both games had a long history on Xbox. Would not be surprised if Sony went after some Bioware deals. Baldur's Gate? Probably nothing, but who knows. We also know from Imran Khan that Sony offered a lot of money for those deals.
Especially when you were describing such a dire situation with "developers supporting a platform with a bigger userbase more" etc. Which was exactly Xbox One.
Last edited:
Solidus_T
Member
I voted that I think it will be approved with structural changes. They will most likely be told that they can buy ABK but COD must be published by another party.
I think the deal should be blocked, and Microsoft is trying to buy their way back in a market that they have been getting strategically outclassed, with the intention of loss leading their competitors out of business and then performing an about-face.
I think the deal should be blocked, and Microsoft is trying to buy their way back in a market that they have been getting strategically outclassed, with the intention of loss leading their competitors out of business and then performing an about-face.
Last edited:
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Approved with behavioral concessions,
Topher
Gold Member
Love you, bro
ChorizoPicozo
Member
OMG the way you describe things is like:You literally described what Sony was doing for the whole Xbox One and Sony's plan for this gen. Conspiracy theory? Let's see.
So during Xbox One era, Sony contributed to a full demise of two genres. Let's take a look at this gen. There were 2 genres that were still associated with Xbox - WRPGs and FPSs.
- Fighting genre? Sony went after SF5 and it completely decimated fighting genre on Xbox. I do wonder how many fighting games skipped Xbox due to Sony's interference but we can't neither prove or disprove that. After all Xbox 360 was a very strong FGC platform, yet suddenly all of it was erased overnight.
- JRPG? Sony went after Final Fantasy, preventing Xbox from growing the community for JRPGs altogether as Xbox only got FF13-1-2-3 (unfortunately not great FF games) and FF15 (decent). Then we had Sega essentially being a first party for Sony the whole Xbox One gen with Yakuza and Persona games. So any chance for JRPG community to grow on Xbox was lost.
But Microsoft woke up and realized that they were actually a huge company. The irony is that both Bethesda and ABK deals were only partially planned - Bethesda was dying (if their games did not flop one after another, the situation would be different) and ABK was imploding with its lawsuits and stock's crash. We can argue whose conspiracy theory is better - "Sony was killing Xbox", "Microsoft is killing Playstation", but in the end, personally, I can only play the world's smallest violin for Sony
- The attempt to destroy FPS community on Xbox arguably started with Xbox One gen, but it was partially self inflicted due to Xbox not extending COD deal. At that time there was a rumor that COD deal was extended to the platform with the biggest market share (it was neither proved or disproved). There was also that Destiny deal with content being locked to PS for the full year (especially after Bungie leaving Xbox). Probably there were some other deals but I forgot at this point. And during this gen, Sony went hard after FPS games too with Deathloop and arguably Ghostwire.
- The crusade against WRPG started this gen. Recall the deals that Sony made (ortried to make). Sony tried to make a time exclusive deal regarding Starfield. They also went after KOTOR. Both games had a long history on Xbox. Would not be surprised if Sony went after some Bioware deals. Baldur's Gate? Probably nothing, but who knows. We also know from Imran Khan that Sony offered a lot of money for those deals.
but when you look at reality:
Badlucktroll
Member
Why is Microsoft keeping this going
BrutalTruth_
Banned
why wouldn't they? lol
ulantan
Member
I heard during the release of the Xbox one that sony threatened the family pets of retailers around the world. That if they sold to many Xbox ones they would kill all thier pets. That's why Xbox was behind he had nothing to do with thier management. That's just a rumor though. hopefully the FTC documents can shed some light on it.You literally described what Sony was doing for the whole Xbox One and Sony's plan for this gen. Conspiracy theory? Let's see.
So during Xbox One era, Sony contributed to a full demise of two genres. Let's take a look at this gen. There were 2 genres that were still associated with Xbox - WRPGs and FPSs.
- Fighting genre? Sony went after SF5 and it completely decimated fighting genre on Xbox. I do wonder how many fighting games skipped Xbox due to Sony's interference but we can't neither prove or disprove that. After all Xbox 360 was a very strong FGC platform, yet suddenly all of it was erased overnight.
- JRPG? Sony went after Final Fantasy, preventing Xbox from growing the community for JRPGs altogether as Xbox only got FF13-1-2-3 (unfortunately not great FF games) and FF15 (decent). Then we had Sega essentially being a first party for Sony the whole Xbox One gen with Yakuza and Persona games. So any chance for JRPG community to grow on Xbox was lost.
But Microsoft woke up and realized that they were actually a huge company. The irony is that both Bethesda and ABK deals were only partially planned - Bethesda was dying (if their games did not flop one after another, the situation would be different) and ABK was imploding with its lawsuits and stock's crash. We can argue whose conspiracy theory is better - "Sony was killing Xbox", "Microsoft is killing Playstation", but in the end, personally, I can only play the world's smallest violin for Sony
- The attempt to destroy FPS community on Xbox arguably started with Xbox One gen, but it was partially self inflicted due to Xbox not extending COD deal. At that time there was a rumor that COD deal was extended to the platform with the biggest market share (it was neither proved or disproved). There was also that Destiny deal with content being locked to PS for the full year (especially after Bungie leaving Xbox). Probably there were some other deals but I forgot at this point. And during this gen, Sony went hard after FPS games too with Deathloop and arguably Ghostwire.
- The crusade against WRPG started this gen. Recall the deals that Sony made (or tried to make). Sony tried to make a time exclusive deal regarding Starfield. They also went after KOTOR. Both games had a long history on Xbox. Would not be surprised if Sony went after some Bioware deals. Baldur's Gate? Probably nothing, but who knows. We also know from Imran Khan that Sony offered a lot of money for those deals.
Especially when you were describing such a dire situation with "developers supporting a platform with a bigger userbase more" etc. Which was exactly Xbox One.
Last edited:
bitbydeath
Member
They’re contractually obligated.
Activision insiders fret $69B Microsoft merger could fall apart: sources
Microsoft’s $69 billion Activision buyout is facing heightened scrutiny from regulators — and some insiders at the game studio behind “Call of Duty” are worried that the Xbox maker could …
nypost.com
Spitfire098
Member
DarkMage619
$MSFT
Yes it is a crazy conspiracy theory. None of those purchases prevent the other console manufacturers from competing in the market. MS is also far more likely to put their IP on other platforms which we know Sony and Nintendo do not do. This particular deal has MS putting CoD all over the place even places it isn't currently. None of this shows that MS is trying to extinguish the other competitors. You don't kill the competition by providing the platform with CoD.
HoofHearted
Member
Getting closer… keep up the good work.
And somebody needs to add an extra option to the poll of “I don’t fucking care… I’m here for the bourbon“
Last edited:
"On record" how gullible of you. You mean interviews. it has not offered anything to regulators beyond the contract deal and you reading Phil's interviews and words mean nothing beyond some PR.
You're going off a vague Spencer quote in an interview that doesn't even mention duration but it coming to other platforms, that's you reading between the lines
Spencer has said a lot of things that turned out to seem contradictory or mean something else when you went back and read it and people like you would then argue how he didn’t specifically mention this or that so it's not contradictory.
He has also gone on record and said he only guarantees it for several more years on PS. Which turned out to be a 3yr deal that people thought was some kind of maximum they couldn't go beyond.
If you see their actual regulatory arguments though instead of interviews you see that they offered 3yrs only, offered no commitments initially (which would have given them less resistance), had to extend it to 10yrs (they can go beyond this too), and they've argued in court why removing COD from PS would not be a problem.
Your interviews are tripe. It's what MS has put in writing to regulators, its commitments to them that's "on record". In 10years when people might not even remember who Phil Spencer is nobody will give a shit if he is caught saying something contradictory yet not specifically contradictory and people argue over it. As if the CEO doing that would be some kind of first anyway.
Last edited:
sainraja
Member
Crazier things have happened..... Naw
DarkMage619
$MSFT
You are free to believe what you want about MS. At this point they have provided a good value to their customers and they have offered numerous parties access to CoD. After over 20 years I don't see them extinguishing any of the older and more popular brands and Activision isn't going to change that. I appreciate your apology. Sometimes we get too heated over video games when it should be about fun. Cheers.
That's what I unintentionally voted for but I see that as unlikely. I think MS are more likely to abandon the deal than to accept structural remedies. So the two choices that seem more likely to me is approved with extensive behavioural remedies (which was what I wanted to vote for) or the deal not being approved (MS abandoning the deal).
DForce
NaughtyDog Defense Force
You literally described what Sony was doing for the whole Xbox One and Sony's plan for this gen. Conspiracy theory? Let's see.
So during Xbox One era, Sony contributed to a full demise of two genres. Let's take a look at this gen. There were 2 genres that were still associated with Xbox - WRPGs and FPSs.
- Fighting genre? Sony went after SF5 and it completely decimated fighting genre on Xbox. I do wonder how many fighting games skipped Xbox due to Sony's interference but we can't neither prove or disprove that. After all Xbox 360 was a very strong FGC platform, yet suddenly all of it was erased overnight.
- JRPG? Sony went after Final Fantasy, preventing Xbox from growing the community for JRPGs altogether as Xbox only got FF13-1-2-3 (unfortunately not great FF games) and FF15 (decent). Then we had Sega essentially being a first party for Sony the whole Xbox One gen with Yakuza and Persona games. So any chance for JRPG community to grow on Xbox was lost.
But Microsoft woke up and realized that they were actually a huge company. The irony is that both Bethesda and ABK deals were only partially planned - Bethesda was dying (if their games did not flop one after another, the situation would be different) and ABK was imploding with its lawsuits and stock's crash. We can argue whose conspiracy theory is better - "Sony was killing Xbox", "Microsoft is killing Playstation", but in the end, personally, I can only play the world's smallest violin for Sony
- The attempt to destroy FPS community on Xbox arguably started with Xbox One gen, but it was partially self inflicted due to Xbox not extending COD deal. At that time there was a rumor that COD deal was extended to the platform with the biggest market share (it was neither proved or disproved). There was also that Destiny deal with content being locked to PS for the full year (especially after Bungie leaving Xbox). Probably there were some other deals but I forgot at this point. And during this gen, Sony went hard after FPS games too with Deathloop and arguably Ghostwire.
- The crusade against WRPG started this gen. Recall the deals that Sony made (or tried to make). Sony tried to make a time exclusive deal regarding Starfield. They also went after KOTOR. Both games had a long history on Xbox. Would not be surprised if Sony went after some Bioware deals. Baldur's Gate? Probably nothing, but who knows. We also know from Imran Khan that Sony offered a lot of money for those deals.
Especially when you were describing such a dire situation with "developers supporting a platform with a bigger userbase more" etc. Which was exactly Xbox One.
You're wrong on so many levels.
Fighting games ran better on the 360 and that's why fighting games were popular on the platform. Most fighting game tournaments used 360s as the preferred console.
Xbox One still had Tekken 7, Dragon Ball FighterZ, Mortal Kombat X, Mortal Kombat 11, and Injustice. Many niche fighting games skipped the Xbox platform because the games don't perform well on that system. During the 360 days, fighting game players preferred the 360 and then this switched over to PS4 and PC this past generation.
JRPG
This argument is ridiculous. Once again, many JRPG games skip Xbox because they're niche on that platform. It's even a struggle when it comes to having a western release. Final Fantasy 7: Remake was released at the end of the PS4 era and didn't stop them from growing the JRPG scene.
By this same logic, you can say that Microsoft prevented PlayStation from growing WRPG on their platform on the PS3 with all the exclusive deals for Mass Effect, Oblivion, and Fallout
Last edited:
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
Voted 'No will not be approved,' because MS has publicly said that they are not interested in divestment.
If they change their stance, it may be approved with divestment/structural remedies.
If they change their stance, it may be approved with divestment/structural remedies.
Bumblebeetuna
Member
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
We've been through these exact same rehashed arguments with Zenimax.
Microsoft submitted in writing that they have no incentive to make Zenimax games exclusive. They even mentioned that it does not make financial sense -- showed all calculations to the EC that they are only expected to make x% of users to shift from PS to Xbox if Zenimax games were made exclusives, and that's financially unviable.
2 days after the acquisition is approved, Microsoft made Zenimax games exclusive and announced that the deal was always about exclusive games.
Xbox boss says Bethesda acquisition is ‘all about delivering great exclusive games’ | VGC
Phil Spencer says Xbox Game Pass exclusives are at the “root of this partnership”…
www.videogameschronicle.com
Oddvintagechap
Member
Dirk Benedict
Gold Member
Think that was a requested ban though. Not sure why he didn't just request to be unbanned.
Edit: yeah, it was
What the fuck is even the point??
Iced Arcade
Member
Yeah I never understood the ban request/account suicide like it was a step in AA for forums.
TheGodfather07
Member
i was gonna reply with the same thing until i realised ive already done this like 20 times already with other users. people making excuses for microsoft need to just admit that exclusivity is the only reason they are doing any of this to begin with. its stupid to think otherwise. why would microsoft want to release on their competitors platform? they dont. they will for call of duty out of necessity. notice how the contract is call of duty only and not all activision games for both sony and nintendo?
Yoboman
Member
Apparently the norm is one developer from the 20 they've bought?
POKEYCLYDE
Member
Man my numbers are patheticI'm sick of all you fuckers....
Man my numbers are pathetic
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Listen bud, getting a tag like that requires dedication, hard work and excellent gag reflexes. Until you've proven yourself worthy, don't even @ me.
Man my numbers are pathetic
I have 0 people on ignore, sometimes you really need to read takes so bad that it makes you laugh out loud.
Last edited:
SoloKingRobert
Banned
I don't think there be any changes. Microsoft has committed to release Call of Duty on PlayStation, it wouldn't make financial sense by not releasing it on that platform.
Last edited:
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
POKEYCLYDE
Member
Microsoft's response to the CMA's PF was pretty good though, it puts out some mathematical errors that the CMA relies upon to make it's case.
The CMA feels there is an incentive to make Call of Duty exclusive because the lost sales on Playstation would eventually be overtaken by the lifetime value of a new customer in just 5 years. (Essentially, stop selling on Playstation, get a % of new customers who will spend more in Xbox's ecosystem, the cost of the lost sales would be eclipsed by the benefit of a new customer in 5 years)
However, the CMA only accounted for 1 year of lost sales against 5 years of new customer lifetime value. Microsoft argues that this error in math, once corrected shows that losing those Playstation sales would not make financial sense and therefore they wouldn't have an incentive to remove CoD from Playstation.
The CMA could accept that they made an error and use that as justification for accepting behavioral remedies. Other than that, Microsoft is also making the case that divestment would take away all the relevant customer benefits this acquisition would offer. Which is another justification the CMA could use to accept behavioral remedies over structural or prohibition.
Don't forget Fighter Within and more importantly Killer Instinct. I'd even go as far as to say Killer Instinct at the time was partly why the deal for that iteration happened in the first place. There was this weird sentiment in the smaller fighting game community that Sony had nothing in the genre and Xbox One was where it's at.
Look at this gem of a post in that thread too:
Last edited:
3liteDragon
Member
Voted for "Won't be approved", unless MS goes through with structural remedies (which Brad publicly said "doesn't make sense") which convinces the CMA.
James Sawyer Ford
Member
Solidly in the NO camp.
If the CMA ain't blowing smoke up people's ass with their last report, combined with Microsoft's fairly staunch approach to their concerns of divestiture, I do not see a path forward on the deal getting approved from where we stand now.
It's going to take a dramatic reversal from either the CMA's stance or Microsoft's to get this through, IMHO.
If the CMA ain't blowing smoke up people's ass with their last report, combined with Microsoft's fairly staunch approach to their concerns of divestiture, I do not see a path forward on the deal getting approved from where we stand now.
It's going to take a dramatic reversal from either the CMA's stance or Microsoft's to get this through, IMHO.
jm89
Member
I'm pretty sure that option was put in just to have all avenues. Doubt anyone can defend it, when we know the concessions talks are already going on.
Last edited:
Drell
Member
1. "They said they'll keep releasing CoD on ps because it makes financial sense."
2. "But they also said that for Bethesda/Zenimax and did not respect it"
3. "It wasn't in the contract so it didn't count"
4. Some meme pictures.
5. Go back to 1.
Gobjuduck
Banned
Microsoft isn’t being demanded to make structural remedies. Sony’s lawyers are the ones that made that scenario in their response.
CMA is open to behavioral remedies, if they benefit the market and consumers. That’s why Microsoft is being extremely generous with behavioral remedies.
Read what the CMA says, not Sony.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked