Microsoft: Call of Duty and other popular AB games will continue to be released on PlayStation and Nintendo platforms beyond current agreements
- Thread starter HeisenbergFX4
- Start date
Ass of Can Whooping
Member
Just for fun, but if you actually read the words, this only implies that existing games on PS will remain on PS after the contract is up. Technically, they did not say new titles would appear on PS. Very carefully worded imo. I think they probably will release new titles on PS, but those words don't say that.
So you think MS would intentionally try to mislead the FTC then?
Swift_Star
Banned
If they're trying to be shady with that, they'll get caught.Just for fun, but if you actually read the words, this only implies that existing games on PS will remain on PS after the contract is up. Technically, they did not say new titles would appear on PS. Very carefully worded imo. I think they probably will release new titles on PS, but those words don't say that.
DarthPutin
Member
They didn't have to promise them anything, but apparently they did during business talks. These are serious corporate talks, not pinky-swears. So what they promised Sony has to align with their public statements aimed at FTC. What's so hard to understand? If this (pretty clear) language is not definitive enough for you, I'm sure they were clear enough in conversation with their business partner (and rival). Or do you think it's a good idea to mislead both a rival-cum-partner corporation and FTC using some double-speak?
It's not about what they HAD to do as Activision owners, it's what they chose to sign up for. Going back on your word in these situations is even less likely than Sony breaking their promises to Bungie, which is already incredibly unlikely.
Last edited:
R3claimer117
Member
You're heavily misguided you're talking out of your ass. There's nothing legally Microsoft can promise anyone in regards to activision as they don't own them. All this is talk and intent which can change when Microsoft owns them and goes to the negotiating table with Sony or Nintendo.
Ass of Can Whooping
Member
They've already made their commitments to the FTC in order to get this approved. You're seriously misguided if you think they can do a 180 without any repercussions
Hendrick's
If only my penis was as big as my GamerScore!
It's not misleading. People just can't read. It's lawyer speak that gives them room to pivot.
Last edited:
Hendrick's
If only my penis was as big as my GamerScore!
After the deal when it won't matter.
laynelane
Member
Maybe the fact that multiple titles which were formerly on PS no longer are. I don't see anyone asking for Halo, for example. It's expected and was always on XBox and platforms of Microsoft's choosing. The same can't be said for AB and Zenimax titles.
Ass of Can Whooping
Member
You don't get "room to pivot" when you're making commitments to the FTC
You're either transparent with them. Or you're not and you face the consequences.
Last edited:
kingfey
Banned
That doesn't mean any zenimax game would go to the other platform.
They can talk about them as much as they want to, but they won't make them put on other devices.
As stated before, zenimax games aren't game changer. Last elder scroll game was 2011, fallout was 2014. They don't change anything at all. Unlike Activision, with the yearly COD games.
kingfey
Banned
Banjo hit switch online past months.
Plus ori too. MS is ok with Nintendo.
Any future banjo or Ori will hit switch, if they continue this trend. Spyro and crash are no exception too.
kingfey
Banned
Again, MS 1st party will benefit Sony only. And only way MS would allow their games on Sony devices, is the full package of Gamepass.
We know 100% Sony won't accept that, and MS won't put their 1st party games as gamepass only for Playstation consoles. Neither would agree on that part.
SlimySnake
Flashless at the Golden Globes
I have no idea how you can say that when the last elder scrolls game is still being repackaged 11 years later. It is the best selling RPG of all time at this point. It's a HUGE deal.
I am not saying Phil will be obligated to port it but the decision to make Bethesda games exclusive will make his case a whole lot more difficult. If he had to choose between getting a $70 billion purchase through FTC vs letting Starfield 1 go on PS5, what would he choose?
They are clearly on the defensive here making cable news rounds doing pre-emptive damage control. They wouldnt be doing that if they didnt think this was a done deal.
I am just saying its a possibility. I dont know why gamers hate dealing in assumptions. This is a well thought out assumption. Gaming is in a weird place right now where a $70 billion purchase is being made. COD is going exclusive. Bungie being bought for $3.6 billion by Playstation AND made multiplatform. Things are completely out of whack and we cant simply state that Starfield and elder scrolls might be a possibility just to get the deal done? Come on. It's not a asinine thing to say.
Hell, I got banned from era for saying MS should buy Take2 or Activision next when MS first bought Bethesda. They thought i was warring and making a completely outlandish prediction. 15 months later, Phil went and did exactly that. This is where we are. It's a whole new world. Nothing is off limits.
Hendrick's
If only my penis was as big as my GamerScore!
The FTC is not going to force them to put out content on specific platforms in perpetuity.
Ass of Can Whooping
Member
You don't know that at all. Figured we were past these absolutes when it comes to regulation
Ass of Can Whooping
Member
They can sue them for misleading them which could lead to a court order
They can also make their life harder. MS knows that. Hence why they've been trying to stay in their good books. But you think they'll risk that over COD?
Last edited:
Ass of Can Whooping
Member
Fucking hilarious how they kept gatekeeping discussion around consolidation and now it's become a main topic in the threads
Last edited:
Hendrick's
If only my penis was as big as my GamerScore!
All Microsoft has said is they won't pull existing titles off PlayStation and that they want to put future titles there. Nowhere have said they will put future titles anywhere. You guys have no idea what you are talking about anyway. A blog post is not what the FTC is going to hold them accountable to, they will establish terms as part of this process.
R3claimer117
Member
Lol
I don't think you know how this works and are talking out your ass. No government runs privately owned companies and tells them how to run their businesses. Also Microsoft leaving warzone on PlayStation still is the biggest COD game by popularity at the moment. Your argument is just a port begging excuse.
Ass of Can Whooping
Member
The blog post is literally addressed to regulators. Yes they are going to hold them accountable
Ass of Can Whooping
Member
Lol
I think this is the first time I've seen someone call MS a privately owned company. We've established how little you actually know just with that
Last edited:
R3claimer117
Member
It's not a legally binding document
stop spreading fud. Also again if they put out a future update to overwatch or warzone it's still counts as call of duty and no where in there they they say future titles only that they will continue tot support the games on those platforms in the future as is today so PlayStation fans could continue to enjoy the games they love not the games we continue to make.
Ass of Can Whooping
Member
It's not a legally binding document
Just stop. You've just shown us how ignorant you are. No one is going to take you seriously now
Last edited:
R3claimer117
Member
Just Because they're publicly traded doesn't meant it's not a private enterprise their ceo is not appointed by the government. They aren't beholding to decisions from the government. You make no sense.
Swift_Star
Banned
Oh, you think regulators can't separate companies? If they get caught, they'll get screwed. This is no joke.
SlimySnake
Flashless at the Golden Globes
Their latest decision is literally being held up by the government right now lol
Last edited:
Ass of Can Whooping
Member
Who do you think they need to go through to get the ActBliz acquisition approved?
R3claimer117
Member
Take off your fanboy hat and start using logic.
R3claimer117
Member
Getting approval to own a company translates to the government telling Microsoft now how to run their company? So why didn't the government tell them they couldn't make all the bathesda IP exclusive? Are you dumb?
R3claimer117
Member
Held up? What kinda of stupidity is this ? This process is regular happens with every purchase they went through the same with bathesda who saids it's being held up? Because it's under review that's standard your guys are just talking about y'all ass. The deal was announced last month it's not going to be approved in a month? Bathesda took over 6 months.
Ass of Can Whooping
Member
Do you think the FTC is going to just say "good job you got us bro" when they find out they mislead them just to get their approval?
SlimySnake
Flashless at the Golden Globes
But you said
When its clearly not the case even if it is the standard process. There are rules and regulations put in place by the govt for exactly these scenarios.
I dont know man. First you said MS is privately owned then admitted it was publicly traded only to then state that they arent beholden to govt regulations. Now you are admitting they are but its standard process. All people are doing are pointing out gaping flaws in your argument.
Topher
Identifies as young
More than likely because the Bethesda deal was a tenth the size of AB and was a privately owned company rather than a corporation owned by thousands of stockholders. And it really didn't have as much impact on the market. This deal clearly does. Microsoft knows this. They didn't pull Brad Smith out to make these statements and talk to the press for nothing.
Topher
Identifies as young
"Once the parties have submitted all of the additional information, the reviewing agency has a limited number of days to file a complaint challenging the proposed merger ahead of its consummation. The purpose of this process is to give the FTC and DOJ time to identify illegal mergers prior to their consummation. However, the law permits the antitrust agencies to determine that a merger is illegal even after the companies have merged and even if the merger was subject to premerger review. When the FTC does not challenge a transaction prior to its consummation, this does not constitute an "approval" or "clearance" of the deal, and the agency maintains the right to challenge a deal regardless of whether it was initially investigated. The FTC always has the right to take such further action as the public interest may require."
Adjusting merger review to deal with the surge in merger filings
Given the recent surge in merger filings, the FTC is reviewing its processes to determine how best to use its limited resources.
Last edited:
kingfey
Banned
We will see.
Warablo
Member
There is no misleading, all they said is they want to continue putting CoD on Playstation, that stipulation could be through Game Pass. Which would be Sony's decision, not Microsoft's.
Nothing is being held up either, they probably haven't looked at the paper work yet.
Nothing is being held up either, they probably haven't looked at the paper work yet.
Last edited:
Bernd Lauert
Banned
Bruh you're on some industry grade hopium right now. Microsoft didn't promise the FTC to release all new AB games on Playstation. This simply didn't happen. The FTC knows how to read lawyer-speak just fine. There is no misleading going on here.
Swift_Star
Banned
I'm really confused right now. Why do these people think it's easy for companies to lie and screw regulators and the government over? What do y'all think this is? MS is not more powerful than the government and they can't have it their own way. Lots of companies got screwed over for breaking the law. MS can and will get fucked if they lie.
Like I said before, this is no joke, people aren't playing here.
Like I said before, this is no joke, people aren't playing here.
Ass of Can Whooping
Member
Last edited:
R3claimer117
Member
Are you high? Elder scrolls is as big a IP as as some of activision biggest IPs not as big as call of duty but it's very big.
kingfey
Banned
Because zenimax deal is much smaller, and doesn't harm the competition, unlike Activision.
Zenimax games doesn't impact the gaming industry that much, compared to Activision.
The FTC needs a concrete evidence on whether zenimax deal is harming the gaming industry.
Swift_Star
Banned
You can't be serious.
Hendrick's
If only my penis was as big as my GamerScore!
The FTC is not going to give a shit 5 years from now if a COD game goes exclusive. Ridiculous."Once the parties have submitted all of the additional information, the reviewing agency has a limited number of days to file a complaint challenging the proposed merger ahead of its consummation. The purpose of this process is to give the FTC and DOJ time to identify illegal mergers prior to their consummation. However, the law permits the antitrust agencies to determine that a merger is illegal even after the companies have merged and even if the merger was subject to premerger review. When the FTC does not challenge a transaction prior to its consummation, this does not constitute an "approval" or "clearance" of the deal, and the agency maintains the right to challenge a deal regardless of whether it was initially investigated. The FTC always has the right to take such further action as the public interest may require."
Adjusting merger review to deal with the surge in merger filings
Given the recent surge in merger filings, the FTC is reviewing its processes to determine how best to use its limited resources.www.ftc.gov
Swift_Star
Banned
Oh but they can give a shit if requested.
kingfey
Banned
Topher
Identifies as young
Requiring Sony to utilize Microsoft's subscription service to keep COD on PlayStation hasn't even been mentioned in any of the SEC filings. That's not in the cards.
I didn't say Elder Scrolls wasn't a big as some of Activision's biggest IPs at all, now did I? I said the deal was much smaller and less impactful. That is a true statement.
Time will tell, but your assertion that it doesn't matter after the deal is done is just false.
"There is no clear answer to how long after consummation DOJ or FTC may challenge a previously blessed merger. Based on the "Time of Suit" doctrine derived from United States v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 353 U.S. 586 (1957), consummated mergers may be challenged at "any time when the acquisition threatens to ripen into a prohibited effect."11 The survey discussed above suggests that it could be as short as three days or as long as eight years after the closing."
Federal Trade Commission’s Pre-Consummation Warning Letters Signal New Risk of Closing After Hart-Scott-Rodino Act Waiting Period Expiration | White & Case LLP
On Tuesday, August 3, 2021, the Federal Trade Commission announced a new approach for merger investigations that the FTC does not complete during the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act (HSR) waiting period—the FTC may advise merging parties via a Warning Letter that its investigation remains open despite the...
Last edited:
SlimySnake
Flashless at the Golden Globes
Thats because for far too long the govt has let these companies get away with everything. We have seen $80 billion mergers like AT&T and Time Warner go through before. We just saw Comcast fail to buy Fox for $50 billion only to have Disney buy it for $70 billion. And MS singlehandedly put every single competitor out of business in the 80s and 90s. In fact, they literally had to step in and save Apple from bankruptcy because they realized their monopolistic policies had gone too far.
I think the fact that the ARM Nvidia acquisition fell through should give people hope in the govt. Though that was mainly the UK regulators. I like this new Lina Khan chick. She is hated by Amazon and Facebook which means she isnt in the pocket of those tech companies like other govt regulators who come from Wallstreet and Tech industry backgrounds.
We were too young to remember this, but the govt once broke AT&T formerly Bell into several smaller companies back in the 80s. Thats what the govt can do. Sadly, things have changed since and AT&T required pretty much all of its sister spinoffs but govt is definitely allowed to break up big banks and monopolistic tech companies in theory.
Ass of Can Whooping
Member
L
lastmessiah
You okay bro? Worried you might be inhaling too much copium with all those lol emojis you're giving me
You okay bro? Worried you might be inhaling too much copium with all those lol emojis you're giving me