Pelta88
Member
You are the most disingenuous poster on this forum. Please don't quote or @ me. Nothing you discuss is ever in good faith. Making a conversation/debate with you pointless.
Microsoft / Activision Deal Approval Watch |OT| (MS/ABK close)
- Status
You are the most disingenuous poster on this forum. Please don't quote or @ me. Nothing you discuss is ever in good faith. Making a conversation/debate with you pointless.
Frank Horrigan
Banned
It's an interesting point, but if they were that bothered about the duopoly of Apple/Google, would they have tried so hard to remove Huawei as competition?
Bernd Lauert
Banned
Can you refute what I said? Retail was barely hanging on with CoD, FIFA and a couple of Nintendo evergreens. Now all of these games are selling more and more digitally as time goes on.
The business that companies wants to be is in the digital store business.
Google has that in android app but more importantly for them, the ad tech distribution.
Google has that in android app but more importantly for them, the ad tech distribution.
National security and geo politics Trumps all. The move to remove Huawei from consumer hands and the infrastructure was extremely rushed imo.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Hence why they have regulators, "it's not MS's job," no shit you disigenuous corpo cock gobbler, it's the regulators jobs to assess what impacts it can have on their local economies.Retail is dead and is dying even more every year, deal with it
Last edited:
remember_spinal
Banned
If jim ryan got this deal blocked he would go down in history as the greatest CEO of all time.
Frank Horrigan
Banned
I don't think the main reason was national security, more than it was Huawei were going to wipe the floor with samsung, google and Apple. They were selling similar and better spec'd phones for 1/10th of the price. The Honor 5c was an incredibly powerful and cheap phone. But we're OT
Sony knows they can't replace CoD, they've said it themselves and it's why Jim is throwing such a big fit over Phil not promising CoD on PS until the end of time. Sony will obviously take a big hit when CoD moves over to Game Pass, but they're not going go out of business because of it.
If the acquisition doesn't go through Xbox will keep on doing what they've been doing, acquiring more publishers and developers to get content for Game Pass. There are plenty of other publishers with great developers and IP that I'm sure they're eyeing. Sega, Capcom, and Embracer and SE are probably on that list. Some of you should be careful what you wish for, if this deal doesn't go through that's 70 billion dollars to go towards other publishers.
Last edited:
Bernd Lauert
Banned
No need to babyrage. Microsoft is not responsible for keeping a dead market alive and regulators can't prevent the deal on those grounds.
they didn't buy Acti for GP though, it wasn't main reason. they are after GAAS aspect revenue stream and new markets (Mobile), Buying companies like Zenimax is for GP as main reason.
The arguments they publicly made was about national security, I do think that was kinda bs as well and it was about competition but they could only get away with it was raising national security issues. I think there might have been half a concern with the mobile infrastructure, UK/US don't really care too much about the likes of Nokia/Ericcisson too much imo.
Not really in the CMA/FTC purview. It might be in the future but it's not currently. The CMA and ARM case doesn't reference jobs at all. https://assets.publishing.service.g...Arm_-_Executive_Summary_of_the_Report__1_.pdf
There is a number for UK retail revenue but can't find it anymore.
Last edited:
Topher
Identifies as young
Retail is dead and is dying even more every year, deal with it
Well then it isn't dead if it is "dying even more every year". Even if physical exists as a niche market if there is enough demand for it that it makes money then it will live on. Music and movies still exist in physical formats and the transition to digital in those markets have been much more pronounced than video games.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Now show me the one from this software merger. nVidia wasn't putting ARM on a sub service with economic demographics at play, it didn't need to be a focus.
Last edited:
Bernd Lauert
Banned
The CMA won't block the deal to protect a niche market. Especially when EA, Activision and Nintendo (the guys who are keeping the corpse semi-alive) are all actively working on destroying that market by offering incentives to buy the digital versions of their games.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
What is this word salad of a post lol
"Google" hasn't said anything like that.
Last edited:
FalsettoVibe
Member
I mean......what does it hurt to try? lol
Maybe in the concessions (if/when the deal goes through) he'll get a better deal for CoD.
Either way......what he is doing is not abnormal.
https://assets.publishing.service.g...osoft_Activision_Summary_phase_1_decision.pdf
Just highlighting that there isn't a focus about jobs, using the CMA's words
Nothing about retail industry aka Bernd's point.
Last edited:
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Page 6 can be pretty broad when they were examining economic impacts on rivals and the industry, foreclose, etc..
Not retail specifically but impacting rivals in markets. Do we know that gets highlighted in Phase 2?
Last edited:
onesvenus
Member
I agree that their end game (and PlayStation's too) is to stop having to invest huge amounts of money in plastic boxes. That doesn't mean they are not interested in videogames and they are going to sell their division
John Wick
Member
They were ahead in 5g too. That was the killer. That'd why this story of Huawei spying was made up by the USA.
well they are living with it for many years to come, they still need console to reach players. the end goal is PC releases and streaming services but this will take years.
They don't call out retail anywhere in that document and are imo clearly implying Sony, Nintendo, BlackNut and other players in the multi-game subscription gaming/cloud gaming services space as those are the markets they have referenced.
I don't think we are going to have an answer to what 'rivals' mean here.
Chiggs
Gold Member
Uh, no.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/12/14/huawei-surveillance-china/
Totally innocent Chinese company doing totally innocent things!
Last edited:
pasterpl
Member
So basically some here want to use same logic as people suing Sony here
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/s...-action-lawsuit-11661974646?mod=mw_latestnews
By selling ps5 de Sony is also destroying retail market, being market leader it have even worse impact than gamepass
Am I doing this right?
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/s...-action-lawsuit-11661974646?mod=mw_latestnews
By selling ps5 de Sony is also destroying retail market, being market leader it have even worse impact than gamepass
Am I doing this right?
Last edited:
twilo99
Member
What kind of Sony deal have MS tried to block? I don't think they care one bit what Sony does with their money.
Frank Horrigan
Banned
Yeah i saw the arguments for national security about how the chinese are using huawei as spy ware, but i find it hypocritical seems as Google and Apple were named and shamed for stealing data and spying for American Security agencies like the NSA
I disagree with the Playstation end game. They want plastic boxes for free advertisement in living rooms and because I think that's just their strategy, the same as Nintendo. Both are still japanese companies at heart. Microsoft as a company make more money if all of their games were mobile gatcha or simple, cheap to make, console games with MTX. The more people they can get relying on streaming, be it console or preferably mobile (4 billion people own mobile phones) means they have more people relying on the Azure infrastructure. Microsoft are a software company, and they only use hardware to push their software.
Like i said above, Spencer, like Moore and Mattrick before him, has already said what the future of xbox is, and it isn't hardware and consoles long-term. This isn't a console fanboy idea or a dig at Microsoft, this is just taking the words from the horses mouth.
100%. I forgot about the 5G side tbh because the UK was all ready and raring to go and even had huawei draw up a contract to put 5G all over the UK. Then out of nowhere they shit it and kicked Huawei out
John Wick
Member
MS have tried blocking plenty of deals and complaining to regulators. Remember Epic vs Apple? Or complaining about Google and search etc.
John Wick
Member
So what's so different from what Apple, Google and Facebook do with your data?
How is it any different to what the CIA/NSA etc where doing with data which Edward Snowden exposed?
Oh wait a minute it's China so automatically its bad and worse.
Last edited:
pasterpl
Member
Interestingly when EU was looking into Microsoft zenimax deal their concerns were with;
But the activision deal is falling under different concern category;
https://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/case_details.cfm?proc_code=2_M_10001
But the activision deal is falling under different concern category;
https://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/case_details.cfm?proc_code=2_M_10646
yeah IPs not issue for them but Azure and cloud business what bother them same as CMA.
DarkMage619
$MSFT
It is interesting to see complaints about what MS could potentially do like raising prices on games and consoles or only selling digital software on their own stores yet these things have already happened elsewhere and people seem to be totally fine with it. Apparently the potential is worse than actually occurring.
SirTerry-T
Member
Shit, why didn't I think of doing that with my kids birthdays...
pasterpl
Member
So Sony cries would/should be potentially ignored in that scenario.
Last edited:
which interesting, if this go through and i think it will. the chance of xbox getting publisher after Acti is low. not MS don't want but What might regulators think, getting more Publishers will strength MS more in cloud business. i expect MS to go shopping spree for indie studios after Acti deal.
Last edited:
01011001
Banned
NomenNescio
Dual Sense Edger and Blower
I'm so fucking bored with all these MS acquisitions drama. I think we have enough with Putin trying to absorb every country around him. MS doesn't have shit until they effectively put out first parties at the level of Sony, doesn't matter if they buy Activision, Rockstar, Capcom, Sega, From Software, etc.
Bumblebeetuna
Member
Except we've already seen blowback on the types of console games you're describing.
MS stands to make the most money by supplying GamePass with a steady stream of quality content. Flooding it with "cheap games full of MTX" won't make anyone want to subscribe. And all of their games in the service are also available at retail.
ZehDon
Gold Member
You're re-writing history, and poorly. Halo built Xbox Live. Literally - Halo 2 established console online first person shooters and it did so on the original Xbox, and cemented Xbox Live as the place to play. Microsoft went out and built their online platform using their own titles. And when the Xbox 360 came out, right up until Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, Halo 3 was the most played game on Xbox Live. Microsoft take 30% of sales made on the platform it built, and continues to maintain. Sony takes 30% of the platform Call of Duty built and maintains for them. PSN didn't blow up like Xbox Live until the PS4. Now, it's PlayStation's biggest source of revenue. Sony didn't care when Zenimax got snapped up, losing the largest western RPGs in the world with tens of millions of copies sold on PlayStation alone. Because as long as it has PSN printing money, it doesn't need them. But, now, Microsoft is pocketing Call of Duty, the game that drives PSN, pushing PlayStation platform adoption and, by extension, ancillary sales. (Already own a PS5 for Call of Duty? Might as well buy all your other console games on PS5). Without Call of Duty, Sony didn't bother to maintain a Halo, a Gears of War, a Mech Assault - titles that actually push their own platform as the place to play. That's why Ryan is terrified.
Frank Horrigan
Banned
Boil the frog slowly. Games have become more casual and then more like mobile games. MTX and f2p are ideas taken directly from mobile games
It's inevitable and human psychology. Put 10 games a month on gamepass and after a while people will want 15, then 20. It can never be enough because that's how we are. Microsoft, like Netflix and hulu and the rest of the streaming services, need to put new content on constantly.
Microsoft could knock games about at the rate they did on OG xbox and 360, with the same high level of quality, and it wouldn't be enough. That's human nature.
Microsoft can and will have to pad gamepass out with games, and more importantly, throwaway shit games. Throwaway games because they need fresh content that doesn't have legs (otherwise games with legs that have a high player retention rate, take players away from playing new games and new content).
And shit games are required to push players along the conveyor belt of content.
Bumblebeetuna
Member
Nah. People will take five good games a year from MS and third party stuff sprinkled in over 50 trash filler games any day of the week. You mention stuff like Netflix, there have already been streaming services come and go because they did exactly what you're describing, just put out a bunch of trash. You need quality content to get people to subscribe.
And that's not even mentioning, again, that these games aren't just for GamePass. They are all available outside of the service.
And that's not even mentioning, again, that these games aren't just for GamePass. They are all available outside of the service.
I'm not doubting that a popular game like halo played a part in building xbox lives install base but if you really think that CoD exploded because of xbox live or that xbox would be happy to let CoD go because XBL was popular due to Halo then you are plain wrong. If that were the case there would have been absolutely no need for MS to pay Activision for 360 exclusivity deals during the PS3.
They were trying to obviously bag CoD exclusivity during 360 for you to not use competing products because they too wanted the 30% and you paying the monthly online fee too. They were trying to make paying their online fee seem enticing instead of getting free online on a competing product.
You also say that as if Sony were not out there during the PS3 trying to establish their own network making their own online games like Uncharted, Warhawk, Killzone, Last of Us Factions, MAG, Socom, Resistance, LBP, etc.
So the idea you are trying to peddle here that :
is absolutely ludicrous. If you think MS built it and continues to maintain it all on their own why would they need to spend $70b to aquire games they haven't built in the first place? Because both xbox and PS need the popular third party games like COD to maintain subscription numbers. Even back in the 360 days this was true.
It's also really weird how you blame Jim Ryan for focusing on single player games during the PS4. Jim wasn't even in charge then. If anything Jim is trying to now focus more on GaaS than his predecessors.
Last edited:
//DEVIL//
Member
I have a PS5. I hate Jim. I do not like this guy one bit. IMO him releasing games on PC alone is killing the PS5 ( keep in mind I say this and I have an awesome pc rig with 3090 in it and 300+ games ).
But just like MS killed the Xbox to me, Sony is doing the same. the only difference is, Sony is taking 1 to 2 years for their games to appear on PC. which makes the PS5 a somehow still valuable console if you absolutely can't wait to play an X first-party game they are releasing first on PS5.
However, I will do agree with you, If he manages to get this deal blocked, then yes he will be one of the greatest CEO of all time.
However, I do not think that's the case, I do not think he can block anything. if this deal approves in the US, nothing else matters. I just think he went there to discuss the option to keep COD multiplatform forever as a condition agreement for MS to own ACT.
remember_spinal
Banned
To be fair, Shawn Layden is the one who started the PC Initiative so he should get credit for it whether you disagree or agree with it.
I honestly think its a smart move as long as they continue to delay the ports and make sure they launch with good quality.
ZehDon
Gold Member
You're underplaying it to a laughable, almost fan-boy-ish degree. Simply put: there is no Xbox Live without Halo. Halo 2 and Halo 3 turned Xbox Live in the juggernaut it eventually became during the Xbox 360 era, and gave a place for games like Call of Duty to shine. It took four Call of Duty's for it blow up - Xbox Live is a huge part of that growth in the console space.
You know you're actually making my point here, and not yours, right? Sony couldn't compete with the behemoth that was Xbox Live even when they were literally giving away their own platform for free. So, when they started charging for multiplayer at the start of the PS4 era, they had to step up. Their own titles didn't drive it, outside of really Shadowfall, and eventually they had to outbid Microsoft for Call of Duty marketing and DLC to drive their platform. Now, PSN is larger than Xbox Live. That's what Call of Duty built for them. Outside of maybe Killzone, few of their own multiplayer exclusive titles really landed in a big way - and nothing ever approached the success Microsoft had with its titles like Halo and Gears.
Game Pass. And that I even need to explain that tells me you're out of your depth here.
What is this? I never said, insinuated, or alluded to Jim Ryan having implemented that shift. Don't put words in my mouth. Go and read my posts in this thread: I clearly said Jim Ryan would simply be left holding the bag.
Last edited:
//DEVIL//
Member
Don't worry. I hate that guy too lol.
The guy that I actually liked was the one before him. I forgot what was his name during the early PS4 days. the English guy who speaks fluent Japanese and introduced the PS4 at E3.
that dude was ruthless. the second-day Kojima had a split with Konami, he signed a deal with him for the exclusive game death stranding.
remember_spinal
Banned
Andrew House, he was good.
Sure lets say initially Halo was a huge part of that growth. Doesn't take away from the fact that MS rely heavily on COD for subs, more so than Halo. Let me do what you did word for word and swap Playstation for xbox (ignoring the fact that you are actually incorrect and Fortnite tops COD in most played for xbox and PS)
Do you think, even during the 360, MS would have been happy to NOT sign console exclusivity deals with COD and let Sony do it instead then? After all you are saying COD thrived due to XBL so it wouldn't have been an issue if PS3 got COD. They didn't need to spend that money to get 30% from sales and the XLG subs. COD was becoming popular regardless and it wasn't because of XLG.
I'm not making your point because you are trying to suggest that MS didn't drive adoption of XBL through COD marketing and DLC during the 360 to get XLG subs up. It blatantly did. You're suggesting that Sony doing the exact same thing during the PS4 was them "not building their own platform". During the end of the PS3 and beginning of PS4 Sony drove adoption of paying for PS+ through a game library and free games every month, that's how it got a lot of subscribers too. Giving away games like Rocket league also played a massive role and growth also was driven mostly by increased console sales. Which was why 2 yrs after PS4 launch Activision moved to PS4.
It's you who is completely underplaying any role Sony has had in building PS+ subs or its install base. The idea that Sony only built PS+ on a COD marketing deal or that MS built XBL on first party and didn't rely on COD is frankly stupid. If that were the case XBL would not have had a single problem with XLG subs during the xbox one, no? Let the marketing deal go because XBL and your subs is not under threat from losing COD. How stupid would that be.
They wouldn't have needed to spend money on the 360 CoD exclusives either. Why compete with something that
Yes COD plays a major role for the subs of PS+ but if you think for one second it doesn't play the exact same major role for xbox because they have built something that doesn't need COD for the 30% sales share you're dead wrong. Xboxs top sales charts are more CoD than PSs are. Just go look at them.
So you're telling me they are relying on COD to drive subscriptions?! ShockedPikachuFace.Jpg
That's the point genius. I'm saying if you are trying to paint a picture where xbox is not reliant on 30% from third party games or to drive their subs because "they built a platform on their own, and maintain it with Halo, Gears, Forza" why do you think it's spending $70b on Activison? Because both Sony and MS are heavily reliant on COD to drive their subscription service. They both want that 30% from COD sales too. The fact that you are trying to say otherwise is ridiculous. Until recently MS even used f2p games like Fortnite and Rocket League to drive their subs but with GP that is less relevant.
Apologies if that was not what you were saying but you said Jim Ryans strategy has been to largely continue to do nothing and that's not true either:
Last edited:
freefornow
Member
For now. Strategies evolve over time. Day and date will come.The dollars are far too compelling.
GhostOfTsu
Banned
Your arguments are meaningless because right now in 2022 none of those games you mention are the biggest drivers. Both MS/Sony depend on the same 3rd-parties. As you said PSN is also bigger than Xbox Live so I guess their strategy that you keep downplaying worked better than MS
Where is MS answer to COD? GTA? Fortnite? None of their games have the same engagement. That's just lazy according to you. They should make their own instead of pocketing that 30%, right?
Every NPD COD is at the top of Xbox charts. They rely on COD even more than Sony so that makes your nonsense even funnier
ZehDon
Gold Member
So, either you didn't read my posts, or you didn't understand them. In either case, your reply is the definition of "throwing shit a wall and hoping something sticks".Your arguments are meaningless because right now in 2022 none of those games you mention are the biggest drivers. Both MS/Sony depend on the same 3rd-parties. As you said PSN is also bigger than Xbox Live so I guess their strategy that you keep downplaying worked better than MS
Where is MS answer to COD? GTA? Fortnite? None of their games have the same engagement. That's just lazy according to you. They should make their own instead of pocketing that 30%, right?
Every NPD COD is at the top of Xbox charts. They rely on COD even more than Sony so that makes your nonsense even funnier
Let me draw it in crayon for you: Sony depends on third parties for PSN because it doesn't make multiplayer titles. With COD gone, they have - literally - nothing to drive PSN, because they don't develop those kinds of games. They've just started the GaaS initiative with their first party studios, so they're four or five years away from their live service games stepping in. What's the last major multiplayer game Sony made? And I don't mean a game with a multiplayer mode - I mean a game where multiplayer was front and centre. GT Sport? You think that's going to carry the entire PSN when COD's gone?
Microsoft has continued to make titles that people actively engage with on Xbox Live, titles like Gears, Grounded, Forza, Sea of Thieves, and Halo. If Microsoft lost COD, they still have plenty of titles to carry Xbox Live, and have shown ample willingness to build new ones.
If you fail to grasp this simple concept, this isn't the thread for you.
Last edited:
- Status