• 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.

VGC: UK competition watchdog says it could expand Xbox Activision merger inquiry over competition concerns

Exactly. They keep saying Sony needs to create their own if they want to compete but they never ask the same to Microsoft. Phil fans are laughing at Sony for not creating a COD rival while cheering for Microsoft to get more established IPs.

The expectation is that Microsoft can buy whatever they want and then Sony needs to create their own IPs. That's competition for them 🙄

I think Microsoft knew this would be the only way to be competitive. What other way could they genuinely compete with Sony? All the smaller studio acquisitions would barely even be a scratch to sony. Their ip like halo and gears no longer have the selling power they used to and actually building new ip takes years and alot of effort. Something massive like a publisher acquisition was the only real way to get some mindshare back.
 

reksveks

Member
John Wick John Wick dont know why I can't quote the reply but imo there was no chance MS was going to go after one of the big publishers after ABK.

Off to try to get through a bit more of Soul Hackers 2
 
Last edited:

Clear

Member
Think could is the key word here; re the benefit that an gamepass user will be getting.

Personally as a gamer, I won't benefit much except for diablo 100% being on gamepass instead of some x percentage.

Its the exact same "could" as MS permitting titles from pubs/devs they own appear on other platforms. The argument I'm making is not that the acquisition isn't beneficial to MS in terms of market/product control, its that there's no real upside to the end user beyond bragging rights.

As I wrote, its solely about cheering on a corporate behemoth because... well, apparently some people have made MS their corporation of choice to stand behind.
 

DaGwaphics

Member
Its the exact same "could" as MS permitting titles from pubs/devs they own appear on other platforms. The argument I'm making is not that the acquisition isn't beneficial to MS in terms of market/product control, its that there's no real upside to the end user beyond bragging rights.

As I wrote, its solely about cheering on a corporate behemoth because... well, apparently some people have made MS their corporation of choice to stand behind.

Wouldn't GP subscribers getting the games included in the service be a "real upside" to them, beyond "bragging rights"?
 

adamsapple

Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Wouldn't GP subscribers getting the games included in the service be a "real upside" to them, beyond "bragging rights"?

Exactly. Having the activision back catalog and the promise of future games being on game pass, preferably day 1, is the real upside to the end user here.

Besides that, the games will continue to exist on other platforms means there's no real threat to Sony for losing the games either, hence CMA being clowned on by everyone.
 

Clear

Member
How could Microsoft get CoD on Gamepass when there's an existing contract with Sony who might have rights of first refusal to continue with it?

They have to wait for that contract to expire regardless, at which point they could make a better offer than Sony, so long-term... no diff.
 

quest

Not Banned from OT
They have to wait for that contract to expire regardless, at which point they could make a better offer than Sony, so long-term... no diff.
Except ABK could say no they rather be with the dominant market force and dont want their games on gamepass.
 

onesvenus

Member
They have to wait for that contract to expire regardless, at which point they could make a better offer than Sony, so long-term... no diff.
That's assuming Sony doesn't have rights of first refusal which nobody knows.
All the people like you that are saying that Microsoft would be able to get those deals if they really want to don't know it.
 

S0ULZB0URNE

Member
How could Microsoft get CoD on Gamepass when there's an existing contract with Sony who might have rights of first refusal to continue with it?
Isn't the Sony deal for early betas/access and extra cosmetic shit?

I don't see how the above would interfere with GP getting COD at the normal launches.
 

GHG

Member
Seen it all this week. Our hardcore Xbox bretheren going head to head with regulators and developers. Developers who don't want to put their games on gamepass are "trolls", and now the CMA are not being factual and are in Sony's back pocket.

You couldn't write this.
 

DaGwaphics

Member
Seen it all this week. Our hardcore Xbox bretheren going head to head with regulators and developers. Developers who don't want to put their games on gamepass are "trolls", and now the CMA are not being factual and are in Sony's back pocket.

You couldn't write this.

I never said that the CMA was in Sony's back pocket or that they were lying. I said the statements they make are the opinions and conclusions they draw, and are not indisputable facts until the process is completely finished with no room for appeal or additional processes. The only thing you can point to as fact from what has been released so far is that, yes, those are the opinions/conclusions they came to at this stage. It's a fact that they said that, not a fact that what was said is indisputably true or even has any bearing on the final result.
 
I'm looking forward to the FTC rulling. At the end of the day I can't see U.S. regulators taking the position that UK regulators are arguing.

They basically said Sony's market leading position needs to be protected. Nevermind Sony raising the price of their console and game prices to $70 being bad for consumers.
Price increase could not be good for pockets, although you should take a look at 90's console videogame prices and take into account inflation, but prices dumping destroys the market.
 

Sosokrates

Report me if I continue to console war
Exactly. They keep saying Sony needs to create their own if they want to compete but they never ask the same to Microsoft. Phil fans are laughing at Sony for not creating a COD rival while cheering for Microsoft to get more established IPs.

The expectation is that Microsoft can buy whatever they want and then Sony needs to create their own IPs. That's competition for them 🙄
At the end of the day the company with the most quality games, is going to be the most popular platform.

Weather companies buy companies slowly or quickly it ultimately will have the same results.

I think Microsofts play is instead of fighting sony for about 200 million console players, they think why not try and tap into the billions of mobile players, The only issue to pull this off is going to clash with sonys goals ultimately, so sony will try and go for this strategy too.
 

Kilau

Member
Wouldn't GP subscribers getting the games included in the service be a "real upside" to them, beyond "bragging rights"?
From my standpoint, I have less than zero interest in CoD and really nothing else from actiblizz is something I would play with the exception of maybe Diablo.

So no as a subscriber to game pass there isn’t an upside to this deal for me because I don’t want these games and it’s possible this huge addition of stuff I don’t want will push out the games I am interested or even more likely cause MS to be less agressive in securing bigger 3rd party titles.
 

Sosokrates

Report me if I continue to console war
From my standpoint, I have less than zero interest in CoD and really nothing else from actiblizz is something I would play with the exception of maybe Diablo.

So no as a subscriber to game pass there isn’t an upside to this deal for me because I don’t want these games and it’s possible this huge addition of stuff I don’t want will push out the games I am interested or even more likely cause MS to be less agressive in securing bigger 3rd party titles.
There is to me because COD games are somthing I would like to play but not so much that im willing to buy them at the relatively high price they seem to stay at.
 

C2brixx

Member
Price increase could not be good for pockets, although you should take a look at 90's console videogame prices and take into account inflation, but prices dumping destroys the market.
Cartridge prices varied because some had specialized chips inside or they were Nintendo titles. When the CD ROM era came with PS1/Saturn most games were $39 except EA games.
 

onesvenus

Member
Isn't the Sony deal for early betas/access and extra cosmetic shit?

I don't see how the above would interfere with GP getting COD at the normal launches.
From the Resident Evil VIII marketing contract we saw they had rights of first refusal on it going to any subscription service. CoD is arguably a much more important game for them. Do you really think they didn't negotiate something similar?

I mean, it's all hypothetical, nobody knows what's on those contracts and what's not, so saying Microsoft could or couldn't is just guessing
 

solidus12

Member
What’s fascinating to me, is the obsession with this acquisition. Imagine gaming fans being more concerned about the Activision acquisition than the year longue drought they’ve had.
 

Sosokrates

Report me if I continue to console war

Considering these statements are factually false, Microsoft should have an easy time pointing it out,even with COD on gamepass, PlayStation is still strong.

Also entities fighting the actiblizz deal is not something that may be in Sony best interests. If the deal does not go through, do they think Microsoft will just cease acquiring and making game related deals? No they won't, they will instead buy other studios and do more moneyhats that could be end up be more damaging to Sony.
 

Sosokrates

Report me if I continue to console war
They created those 20 and 30M sellers.
And that makes a difference because?
All it does is change the time line. Would it be better if Microsoft spent $69 billion hiring developers and creating there own studios? There is a limited number of game developers, and with Microsoft's superior funds it would be able to sway most of them.
 
Last edited:

Mr Moose

Member
And that makes a difference because?
All it does is change the time line. Would it be better if Microsoft spent $69 billion hiring developers and creating there own studios? There is a limited number of game developers, and with Microsoft's superior funds it would be able to sway most of them.
Yes, and they wouldn't need to spend that much.
 

Sosokrates

Report me if I continue to console war
Can you name even one that sells every year like Duty does?

Probably none, but it will still be on PlayStation and Sony's exclusive sell close to cod considering they are not on Xbox.
Do you think Microsoft first party with actiblizz would be so strong it would render PlayStation irrelevant?
 

MikeM

Member
I never said that the CMA was in Sony's back pocket or that they were lying. I said the statements they make are the opinions and conclusions they draw, and are not indisputable facts until the process is completely finished with no room for appeal or additional processes. The only thing you can point to as fact from what has been released so far is that, yes, those are the opinions/conclusions they came to at this stage. It's a fact that they said that, not a fact that what was said is indisputably true or even has any bearing on the final result.
Opinions and conclusions driven by documents from both sides that the public don’t see. But yeah, arm chair analysts on GAF REALLY know whats going on.
What’s fascinating to me, is the obsession with this acquisition. Imagine gaming fans being more concerned about the Activision acquisition than the year longue drought they’ve had.
Isn’t this the biggest gaming acquisition ever? Why wouldn’t it be news to discuss?
 

Menzies

Member
I never said that the CMA was in Sony's back pocket or that they were lying. I said the statements they make are the opinions and conclusions they draw, and are not indisputable facts until the process is completely finished with no room for appeal or additional processes. The only thing you can point to as fact from what has been released so far is that, yes, those are the opinions/conclusions they came to at this stage. It's a fact that they said that, not a fact that what was said is indisputably true or even has any bearing on the final result.
Yes, I don't think the comments are without merit, but I think the critique is with the public release of their concerns only. So we have the lazer-focused 'what about Sony' summary without the comprehensive general ledger of the decision making. Sure, we're not entitled to it but it would be great to see their columns of pro's and cons of such a deal. Including all the consumer benefits with pricing (subscription vs Sony raising) and the legacy of dominance.

Also whilst they've been discussing this deal, the 2:1 market and revenue leader has been busy making deals for more exclusive content.
 

Sosokrates

Report me if I continue to console war
Opinions and conclusions driven by documents from both sides that the public don’t see. But yeah, arm chair analysts on GAF REALLY know whats going on.

What exactly would stop PlayStations ability to compete if cod and other actiblizz games went to gamepass?

PlayStation would take a hit, but what's wrong with that? Why aren't Xbox allowed to compete better or surpass there competition?
 
Last edited:

MikeM

Member
Xbox just isn't practicing that strategy anymore. Phil has too much respect for gamers.
Sassy Red Wine GIF by Married At First Sight

What exactly would stop PlayStations ability to compete if cod and other actiblizz games went to gamepass?

PlayStation would take a hit, but what's wrong with that? Why aren't Xbox allowed to compete better or surpass there competition?
Sony will survive it. My beef with it is MS using fuck you money to buy market share (not a little bit either) as opposed to doing it the proper way.
What concerns me the most is MS inept ability to manage their IP. Having this many under their helm with their track record is scary…
 

S0ULZB0URNE

Member
From the Resident Evil VIII marketing contract we saw they had rights of first refusal on it going to any subscription service. CoD is arguably a much more important game for them. Do you really think they didn't negotiate something similar?

I mean, it's all hypothetical, nobody knows what's on those contracts and what's not, so saying Microsoft could or couldn't is just guessing
When we consider MS could have(has?) ownership of the franchise... that changes everything.
 

Hendrick's

Member
Sassy Red Wine GIF by Married At First Sight


Sony will survive it. My beef with it is MS using fuck you money to buy market share (not a little bit either) as opposed to doing it the proper way.
What concerns me the most is MS inept ability to manage their IP. Having this many under their helm with their track record is scary…
What's the "proper way"? Spending money to make money is practically the definition of business. I suppose the proper way would be in a way that was more friendly to you and your favorite box?
 
Last edited:

Sosokrates

Report me if I continue to console war
Sassy Red Wine GIF by Married At First Sight


Sony will survive it. My beef with it is MS using fuck you money to buy market share (not a little bit either) as opposed to doing it the proper way.
What concerns me the most is MS inept ability to manage their IP. Having this many under their helm with their track record is scary…

Sony has used fuck you money to, to get where they are.
Lol that some of amount of money is unacceptable to you but spending less is ok. Microsoft can manage there ip, the only trouble they have had is with HALO.
 

MikeM

Member
What's the "proper way"? Spending money to make money is practically the definition of business. I suppose the proper way would be in a way that eas more friendly to you and your favorite box?
Considering I run both boxes and have since the ps360 days, you can keep the console warrior nonsense to yourself.

The proper way is pretty obvious- think up your own IP. Buy a studio if your studios can’t do it, or contract it out to another one.

Spending money to make money is one thing (and obvious) but its another thing to have a trillion dollar company subsidize gaming in an attempt to drown out smaller competition (market cap and revenue).
 

MikeM

Member
Sony has used fuck you money to, to get where they are.
Lol that some of amount of money is unacceptable to you but spending less is ok. Microsoft can manage there ip, the only trouble they have had is with HALO.
When has Sony used anywhere near $75 billion in acquisitions?
 

C2brixx

Member
They have to wait for that contract to expire regardless, at which point they could make a better offer than Sony, so long-term... no diff.
There is no better offer Microsoft could really make. Developers need the largest user base for their games so the amount Microsoft would have to pay a developer for exclusivity is probably so high that it makes more financial sense for Microsoft to just buy the developer outright. Sony uses its position as the market leader to get developers to sign these exclusive deals because the financial risk for developers is low. The amount Sony is paying for exclusivity probably makes up for the sales a developer might lose delaying a Xbox release for year. So the developer gets to pocket Sony's exclusivity money, release their game on the platform with the largest userbase, and eventually make some money on Xbox with a BS Definitive Edition in a year. It's a slick way Sony is abusing its position as the market leader to slowly diminish its competition and keep them as a 2nd tier option.
 
Last edited:

MikeM

Member
Indeed, it does seem odd that people have an arbitrary amount for acquisitions, which once crossed becomes unacceptable or immoral.
You think Sony would have such restraint if they were a trillion dollar company?
No one knows. But I bet people would lose their minds if Apple bought Playstation then also Capcom, Ubisoft and EA.
 
Top Bottom