Support NeoGAF

[PaintTinJr]

What changes when the acquisition goes through?
Sony, Nintendo and MS will each have exclusive games. Same as it ever was.

what changes is that the company that has provided the least in critical success for games that advance the medium and have never proven to be valid competition by profitability - ie gamer choice - will have disrupted a $1B gaming revenue stream - cultivated by the market leader for decades - and then be able to use that marque title in ways that devalue the natural market leader and make it harder for them to sell hardware.

Why would any regulator choose to diminish a natural consumer chosen market leader that shares the market in preference for a company that has no pedigree in that business - losing money for decades - and will cause the market to crash, stagnate creatively causing market brain drain and become a monopolised market in time, because they bought success to overpower creativity that consumers reward with commercial success.

And a company that has previous of anti-competitive behaviour, and hold a monopoly on the commercial aspect of all computer operating systems and productivity tools, already, and were the richest company in the world for over a decade and still in the top three and have a market cap probably larger than the entire AAA-A games industry companies combined, so would be unbeatable from a winning position for 99.99999% of all companies in the future, even with lighting striking the same place twice luck.

 

[zzill3]

PlayStation helping Activision grow was beneficial to the market and to them - which is healthy market competition that regulators desire - which this whole thread is about - hence why PlayStation might get special regulator consideration, and this is what separates them from MSFT or Nintendo - although Nintendo still brings the greatest themselves for their own output IMO.

That's historic. Regulators should not be putting historic actions above current or expected future actions. That Playstation helped Activision - and the industry - grow, does not give them the right to rule the industry forever. If another company comes in and wants to make an acquisition that does not harm the industry, that should still be allowed to happen. MS buying ABK does not harm the industry, and that Sony helped the gaming industry grow a decade or so ago doesn't mean the MS/ABK should not be allowed to go ahead.

Complete revisionist history if you don't think the PS1 hardware was the source of their original console success.

It's not revisionist, as I'm not saying the PS1 hardware wasn't the source of their success, I'm saying third parties can change allegiance pretty quickly and for several reasons. Console success is one of them, acquisitions are another. Sony should be better prepared for the eventuality and work on improving their own studios.
If they didn't try to make a backup to ATVI changing allegiance, that's on them

 

[PaintTinJr]

That's historic. Regulators should not be putting historic actions above current or expected future actions. That Playstation helped Activision - and the industry - grow, does not give them the right to rule the industry forever. If another company comes in and wants to make an acquisition that does not harm the industry, that should still be allowed to happen. MS buying ABK does not harm the industry, and that Sony helped the gaming industry grow a decade or so ago doesn't mean the MS/ABK should not be allowed to go ahead.


It's not revisionist, as I'm not saying the PS1 hardware wasn't the source of their success, I'm saying third parties can change allegiance pretty quickly and for several reasons. Console success is one of them, acquisitions are another. Sony should be better prepared for the eventuality and work on improving their own studios.
If they didn't try to make a backup to ATVI changing allegiance, that's on them

So, as a gamer first, on the ultimate gaming forum for games industry enthusiast, you believe the market is just there for money - from mega corps to disrupt it- fcuk what's best for us and gaming, right?

 

[oldergamer]

You're being ridiculous. Does that mean GTA is no longer "an established franchise" because we haven't had a new one for 10yrs and we don't know how far out the next one is? You're just moving goal posts with absurdity instead of just admitting it's happened and you were wrong.

what part of "it is an established franchise though..." is difficult to understand? There's no guarantee which platforms its going to release on when its been that long between versions. You said it yourself you don't know when the next game is releasing. have they really taken it away yet?

 

[Three]

what part of "it is an established franchise though..." is difficult to understand? There's no guarantee which platforms its going to release on when its been that long between versions. You said it yourself you don't know when the next game is releasing. have they really taken it away yet?

Ok so, if GTA was to be removed from xbox. It wouldn't be a good example of an established franchise being removed from xbox but "a reach" because it's been 10yrs since the last installment and we don't know when the next one will release. Makes sense I guess, to you.

 

[zzill3]

So, as a gamer first, on the ultimate gaming forum for games industry enthusiast, you believe the market is just there for money - from mega corps to disrupt it- fcuk what's best for us and gaming, right?

The market is just there for money - that's called capitalism - but that's not necessarily against what's best for gamers.
Given there's no notable lack of quality in the games delivered purely as a result of the company that owns the publisher, the best thing for gamers is how to get the games the cheapest.

Microsoft has by far the cheapest current gen gaming console when compared to Sony and Nintendo.
Even not including game pass, Microsoft first party games are the cheapest compared to Sony and Nintendo.

Microsoft owning the publishers guarantees games being available at the best value for gamers.

There is no harm to the industry and consumers in general from MS owning ATVI. Sony will be harmed, as will people who absolutely refuse to buy an xbox for whatever reasons they have, but those are not the industry as whole, and should not be considered when where discussing acquisitions should go ahead.

 

[yurinka]

Everything you said valid. I'm particularly talking about a government regulator requiring you to publish games on your competitors platform in perpetuity when said platform requires a fee to do so. Will Sony increase their fee to 35% in the future because of "inflation"? That's why short tern contracts have been the norm. Having the hand of government come down and say, "you must publish games for platforms that require fees forever" seems like over reach to me.

I think that all regulators will approve the acquisition and won't require them to do this or anything else if they properly look at the market numbers.

I think they only would stop the acquisition or would ask them to do certain stuff if MS would be a clear market leader, not only being top 1 but also having a huge market share of gaming as a whole or in some key category (as coud be mobile, pc, or consoles). Or that this acquisition would put them on this position.

And this isn't the case at all, MS is far from being top 1 or having a big market share in gaming, consoles, PC or mobile, or even in VR, game subscriptions or (at least they never shown numbers to prove they are in a great market position) cloud gaming. Activision has great numbers but their revenue is a tiny part of the one generated by the games in gaming, console, mobile etc. Even on MS's main competitor platform, PS.

Even if the acquisition means ABK removes every single one of all their games published and to be published on other consoles and game subs there wouldn't be any important market shift and wouldn't harm competition at all.

So I bet nobody will ask them to stop the acquisition or to keep publishing their games in other platforms. But I think that at least for many games/series MS will continue in ABK with the full multiplatform strategy they have with Minecraft or Bethesda/Zenimax until now.

 

[oldergamer]

Ever heard of Elder Scrolls maybe?

https://www.gamesindustry.biz/the-elder-scrolls-6-confirmed-as-xbox-exclusive#:~:text="And that would be true,for PC and Xbox consoles.

Hold on a sec where did phil say this was exclusive? Show me the exact quote as i think people were reading between the lines without him actually saying it. I think my point still stands

 

[oldergamer]

You're being ridiculous. Does that mean GTA is no longer "an established franchise" because we haven't had a new one for 10yrs and we don't know how far out the next one is? You're just moving goal posts with absurdity instead of just admitting it's happened and you were wrong.

Show me where this was officially announced as Xbox and pc exclusive.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

Show me where this was officially announced as Xbox and pc exclusive.

So we're back to pretending they're not going to make Elder Scrolls exclusive eh?

 

[adamsapple]

So we're back to pretending they're not going to make Elder Scrolls exclusive eh?

Well Phil did say it'll be on every platform with game pass on it. So there's one sure fire way to bring it to all the platforms

 

[Topher]

So we're back to pretending they're not going to make Elder Scrolls exclusive eh?

That narrative seems to change from thread to thread, doesn't it?

 

[freefornow]

Why would any regulator choose to diminish a natural consumer chosen market leader that shares the market in preference for a company that has no pedigree in that business

Pedigree is not something that would be considered by regulators, but happy to be proven wrong.

and will cause the market to crash, stagnate creatively causing market brain drain and become a monopolised market in time, because they bought success to overpower creativity that consumers reward with commercial success.

A lot to unpack here.
Cause market crash- confident that would be no
Stagnate creativity- based on? "because they bought success to overpower creativity"? - seems counterproductive
Brain drain- based on?
Become monopolised market- dominant players remain in market. Competition will stay strong

 

[12Dannu123]

what changes is that the company that has provided the least in critical success for games that advance the medium and have never proven to be valid competition by profitability - ie gamer choice - will have disrupted a $1B gaming revenue stream - cultivated by the market leader for decades - and then be able to use that marque title in ways that devalue the natural market leader and make it harder for them to sell hardware.

Why would any regulator choose to diminish a natural consumer chosen market leader that shares the market in preference for a company that has no pedigree in that business - losing money for decades - and will cause the market to crash, stagnate creatively causing market brain drain and become a monopolised market in time, because they bought success to overpower creativity that consumers reward with commercial success.

And a company that has previous of anti-competitive behaviour, and hold a monopoly on the commercial aspect of all computer operating systems and productivity tools, already, and were the richest company in the world for over a decade and still in the top three and have a market cap probably larger than the entire AAA-A games industry companies combined, so would be unbeatable from a winning position for 99.99999% of all companies in the future, even with lighting striking the same place twice luck.

Why should a regulator protect a competitor? Their focus is on protecting competition and not specific competitors.

If the market decides that lower quality games is the way to go, then Regulators cane stop that.

 

[Three]

Hold on a sec where did phil say this was exclusive? Show me the exact quote as i think people were reading between the lines without him actually saying it. I think my point still stands

So it's not exclusive now? Great. Maybe some great game journalist could ask Phil to clarify then instead of letting a year go by with interviews. You would think that's pretty big news. What with regulators siting it and all:


"The CMA notes that Microsoft has followed this approach in several past acquisitions of gaming studios, where it made future game releases from those studios exclusive on consoles to Xbox (such as the upcoming Starfield and, based on Microsoft's public statements, Elder Scrolls 6 from Bethesda)."

 

[BeardGawd]

cultivated by the market leader for decade

Call Of Duty gained its popularity off Xbox 360. If anything Sony having the comarketing deal with Activision helped PlayStation's sales. Not the other way around.

 

[Three]

Call Of Duty gained its popularity off Xbox 360. If anything Sony having the comarketing deal with Activision helped PlayStation's sales. Not the other way around.

Xbox had a COD comarketing deal on 360 to help the 360. DLC exclusive and no crossplay. The idea that COD is popular due to 360 or that PS is popular due to COD is flawed. COD was a popular game and people played it more on 360 because it had a comarketing deal for exclusive map packs.

PS4 had 2 years of massive sales with xbox one having the COD comarketing deal during that period.

Now if either the xbox one or PS4 didn't get COD however... that console would have struggled hard.

 

[Three]

What?
Competition Commissions ensure and help SONY not lose top-level developers?

Is that really a reason why a competition commission should focus its protection on Playstation? It's a joke right?

It's called input foreclosure. Yes they look at suppliers (publishers) to competitors (platform holders) in mergers.

 

[DarkMage619]

So it's not exclusive now? Great. Maybe some great game journalist could ask Phil to clarify then instead of letting a year go by with interviews. You would think that's pretty big news. What with regulators siting it and all:


"The CMA notes that Microsoft has followed this approach in several past acquisitions of gaming studios, where it made future game releases from those studios exclusive on consoles to Xbox (such as the upcoming Starfield and, based on Microsoft's public statements, Elder Scrolls 6 from Bethesda)."

This whole question about Bethesda games is weird. Phil said Bethesda titles will be taken on a case by case basis. This is obvious because they are still releasing new Bethesda updates and expansions for multiple platforms but they never claimed all titles would hit other consoles. Phil was also pretty clear about CoD. They would honor the current agreement and give an additional 3 years. After that I'm sure it would come down to negotiation.

Elder Scolls might be a case where MS has decided to just keep it Xbox/PC. It isn't multi-player and wouldn't benefit from being on multiple consoles. In addition Elder Scrolls wasn't always on PlayStation anyway. The first console Elder Scrolls wasn't even on PlayStation. Some MS properties will hit multiple consoles and some will not. CoD is one such title that will remain multi console for now. At least there is a chance which can't be said for properties other platform holders own.

 

[pasterpl]

And a company that has previous of anti-competitive behaviour, and hold a monopoly on the commercial aspect of all computer operating systems and productivity tools, already, and were the richest company in the world for over a decade and still in the top three and have a market cap probably larger than the entire AAA-A games industry companies combined, so would be unbeatable from a winning position for 99.99999% of all companies in the future, even with lighting striking the same place twice luck.

If we reaching out to past, Sony was fined multiple times for being part of price cartels (you know agreeing higher prices for customers with other manufacturers) and subject to multiple antitrust investigations, this is only in the last 15-20 years and EU, globally there is even more dirt. Why you are thinking that company that was scrutinised, found guilty and fined almost 2x times more often than ms in the eu in the last w decades compared vs Microsoft is worth defending. What I am seeeing is whole spectrum of anti-customer behaviour from Sony.

 

[twilo99]

Really, at this juncture, all I wanted is to not have to pay $70 for MW2

 

[T0kenAussie]

Yep yep, he said that a few months ago as well.

I think if FTC or EU demands it, they'll be happy to keep COD multiplat for a long/indefinite time just to get their hands on King.

100% they will because it would be silly not to release cod on PlayStation anyways

These guys want money. The best way for MS to make money is to get 100% of COD Xbox sales, 100% of new gamepass subs who want the cod perks and 70% of COD PlayStation sales

COD is so big because it's everywhere like minecraft. I reckon MS will even try port it to switch

The exclusive stuff will be the activision kids catalogue imo. Tony hawk, Spyro, crash, kart racers and platform fighter entries

Xbox could revive titles like fusion frenzy etc with all their IP as mascot characters

 

[Darsxx82]

It's called input foreclosure. Yes they look at suppliers (publishers) to competitors (platform holders) in mergers.

It is one thing for them to examine it, and another thing is for it to be considered a reason to deny the comparison with Nintendo. And much less to dismiss or admit an acquisition process, which is what the colleague has expressed.

And in any case, a Commission examines the effects for all parties and would not only focus on SONY. And it is that not allowing the acquisition could have the same effect (loss of high level developers) in Activision (most of them want that merger).

So no, it is not reason, and in fact the CADE is appraisal in that respect. Sony, however market leader it may be, does not deserve special treatment and the example of Nintendo serves irrefutably.

 

[Three]

It is one thing for them to examine it, and another thing is for it to be considered a reason to deny the comparison with Nintendo. And much less to dismiss or admit an acquisition process, which is what the colleague has expressed.

And in any case, a Commission examines the effects for all parties and would not only focus on SONY. And it is that not allowing the acquisition could have the same effect (loss of high level developers) in Activision (most of them want that merger).

So no, it is not reason, and in fact the CADE is appraisal in that respect. Sony, however market leader it may be, does not deserve special treatment and the example of Nintendo serves irrefutably.

If Activision itself didn't want to be acquired at 45% above market value it wouldn't have agreed with the deal to begin with. The fact that people at Activision want this or not is not a point of contention.

I think Nintendo is arguable because the Wiis had COD and Nintendo did struggle in the home console market. The fact that it had success with its handhelds (which never had COD) and made a hybrid doesn't support the fact that there wouldn't be input foreclosure. You might as well be mentioning Apple and Google with mobiles at that point which did fine without any of the big publishers until they started buying King, Zynga etc.

 

[Robb]

The fact that it had success with its handhelds (which never had COD)

Haven't been following the discussion here but I'm certain I played COD: MW on the DS back in the day.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

Guys...there is nothing to discuss. The
"Brazilian Papers" were clear as water. And is also clear that, if even Sony can't make and present a good case in their favor, how are a bunch of warrior supposed to do a better job?.

 

[Three]

Haven't been following the discussion here but I'm certain I played COD: MW on the DS back in the day.

You're right. I wasn't aware.

 

[oldergamer]

So it's not exclusive now? Great. Maybe some great game journalist could ask Phil to clarify then instead of letting a year go by with interviews. You would think that's pretty big news. What with regulators siting it and all:


"The CMA notes that Microsoft has followed this approach in several past acquisitions of gaming studios, where it made future game releases from those studios exclusive on consoles to Xbox (such as the upcoming Starfield and, based on Microsoft's public statements, Elder Scrolls 6 from Bethesda)."

Its pretty easy for them to refute or clarify when it hasn't been explicitly announced as platform exclusive. Even still its not a franchise that has always been on PlayStation. Not only that its too far out for them to need clarification publically at this point. Yet another reason why the cma notice reads like the defense of a sony fan.

 

[oldergamer]

So it's not exclusive now? Great. Maybe some great game journalist could ask Phil to clarify then instead of letting a year go by with interviews. You would think that's pretty big news. What with regulators siting it and all:


"The CMA notes that Microsoft has followed this approach in several past acquisitions of gaming studios, where it made future game releases from those studios exclusive on consoles to Xbox (such as the upcoming Starfield and, based on Microsoft's public statements, Elder Scrolls 6 from Bethesda)."

Just not a good example to which i dont think there are any others

 

[PaintTinJr]

If we reaching out to past, Sony was fined multiple times for being part of price cartels (you know agreeing higher prices for customers with other manufacturers) and subject to multiple antitrust investigations, this is only in the last 15-20 years and EU, globally there is even more dirt. Why you are thinking that company that was scrutinised, found guilty and fined almost 2x times more often than ms in the eu in the last w decades compared vs Microsoft is worth defending. What I am seeeing is whole spectrum of anti-customer behaviour from Sony.

But we are specifically talking about the market, and the impact of each company on the market.

No matter how you dress this up, PlayStation, unlike Nintendo has gained its success - xbox hasn't been a profitable success - and defined the size of the AAA-A market by cultivating and sharing its success with all the significant devs and publishers in the market since 1996. Regulators can look at PlayStation's track record and easily conclude they have been good for market competition long term and will most likely continue to be if the ACTIVI acquisition was blocked.

Risk versus reward, letting MSFT buy ACTIVI is high risk for the potential impact on fair market competition prospects for regulators compared to blocking it to maintain a status quo - that's just common sense when gaming is so successful right now. I suspect this was the overriding gut feeling by regulators in the Nvidia and ARM acquisition decision too.

People like yourself keeping wanting to frame this as a PlayStation versus MSFT, but it is actually the market versus MSFT, PlayStation could be any other company doing the same as them, doing well by helping all the market stakeholders and producing content to advance the medium. It could have even been MSFT sharing it with them, but their history in gaming started with an embrace, extend, extinguish of Opengl to produce DirectX, which is the very core of the direct-X-box brand, a disruptive single vendor proprietary API that only exist to protect the Windows monopoly.

 

[PaintTinJr]

Call Of Duty gained its popularity off Xbox 360. If anything Sony having the comarketing deal with Activision helped PlayStation's sales. Not the other way around.

CoD was still a very successful IP before then - at a smaller scale - but I'd like to see the sales numbers for you to back up that claim, given that Live was another paid barrier to play on xbox when PSN was still free in the PS3 gen, and I highly doubt it was the 360 bringing the majority of the online players even if they had sales parity between 360 and PS3.

 

[pasterpl]

People like yourself keeping wanting to frame this as a PlayStation versus MSFT, but it is actually the market versus MSFT, PlayStation could be any other company doing the same as them, doing well by helping all the market stakeholders and producing content to advance the medium. It could have even been MSFT sharing it with them, but their history in gaming started with an embrace, extend, extinguish of Opengl to produce DirectX, which is the very core of the direct-X-box brand, a disruptive single vendor proprietary API that only exist to protect the Windows monopoly.

But we have seen the market response in Brazil, where no one except Sony was against the deal. Market doesn't care, some even see this as an opportunity eg. EA. you are trying to dress this acquisition as market flipping thing, while the only losing party is Sony. ABK will continue to be on Xbox, pc, probably will come back to steam, might even get switch ports. Only party losing anything in this deal is Sony. Pc (steam) players will probably gain, switch users will gain, mobile users will gain (king will have access to all ms and Bethesda IP's). Again, the only company losing something is Sony and this is what Brazilian controller said.

 

[jigglet]

Someone explain it to me like I'm 2:

If a tiny market like say Australia or NZ doesn't approve, how would this affect the deal?

 

[adamsapple]

Someone explain it to me like I'm 2:

If a tiny market like say Australia or NZ doesn't approve, how would this affect the deal?

Not too much. As those market would need to lay out some concessions for approval especially in light if they're the only ones holding it back.

Like how Brazil was a hold-up for a while for the Marvel-fox merger but they approved after some concessions.

 

[reksveks]

Someone explain it to me like I'm 2:

If a tiny market like say Australia or NZ doesn't approve, how would this affect the deal?

Microsoft and ABK can decide to pull their business (could be the whole company) from those markets so unless Au/NZ was a decent chunk their business, not much.

 

[HoofHearted]

 

[ReBurn]

So we're back to pretending they're not going to make Elder Scrolls exclusive eh?

Without official confirmation of the what-ifs we're just all pretending really

 

[ReBurn]

And a company that has previous of anti-competitive behaviour, and hold a monopoly on the commercial aspect of all computer operating systems and productivity tools, already, and were the richest company in the world for over a decade and still in the top three and have a market cap probably larger than the entire AAA-A games industry companies combined, so would be unbeatable from a winning position for 99.99999% of all companies in the future, even with lighting striking the same place twice luck.

I really enjoy how you make stuff up. It's quite entertaining.

Microsoft neither holds a monopoly in computer operating system nor holds a monopoly in productivity software. They never have enjoyed a true monopoly in either, but they have enjoyed being the market leader in the PC OS space. But Apple also sells a bunch of hardware with their own OS. There are a dozen different OS variants I could install on one of my computers right now.

I can use free productivity software from Google or Apache right now, even in my Windows PC. A growing number of businesses are going with G-Suite over Office 365. None of these are options Microsoft has tried to keep from the market or their OS.

Being the richest company in the world is irrelevant. Sony has the most revenue in the console space. Are they a monopoly in video games because they make more money in the video games business? Despite their cash Microsoft has lost many times and closed many businesses as a result. If money alone could buy a monopoly we'd all be using Windows phones right now.

 

[Topher]

I really enjoy how you make stuff up. It's quite entertaining.

Microsoft neither holds a monopoly in computer operating system nor holds a monopoly in productivity software. They never have enjoyed a true monopoly in either, but they have enjoyed being the market leader in the PC OS space. But Apple also sells a bunch of hardware with their own OS. There are a dozen different OS variants I could install on one of my computers right now.

I can use free productivity software from Google or Apache right now, even in my Windows PC. A growing number of businesses are going with G-Suite over Office 365. None of these are options Microsoft has tried to keep from the market or their OS.

Being the richest company in the world is irrelevant. Sony has the most revenue in the console space. Are they a monopoly in video games because they make more money in the video games business? Despite their cash Microsoft has lost many times and closed many businesses as a result. If money alone could buy a monopoly we'd all be using Windows phones right now.

Not sure why a monopoly of any kind is even being brought up here. The video game industry is extremely competitive. Multiple platforms and no single company holds a majority share in that space at all. As far as Windows is concerned, Microsoft did have a monopoly in the OS space twenty years ago before Apple's re-emergence but even then simply having a monopoly isn't illegal. Using that monopoly to squash competition is and that's what Microsoft was accused of. But again.....no idea what the relevance of any of that has to do here.

 

[DarkMage619]

Not sure why a monopoly of any kind is even being brought up here. The video game industry is extremely competitive. Multiple platforms and no single company holds a majority share in that space at all. As far as Windows is concerned, Microsoft did have a monopoly in the OS space twenty years ago before Apple's re-emergence but even then simply having a monopoly isn't illegal. Using that monopoly to squash competition is and that's what Microsoft was accused of. But again.....no idea what the relevance of any of that has to do here.

I believe the relevance is that some think that MS buying Activision would mean that MS would become a monopoly in video games. It of course is nonsense but it is used to show how concerned some are. It is interesting to see Apple mentioned because if we wanted to get an idea of how MS behaved against a competitor look at the investment MS made in Apple. You would not know it today but Apple almost went bankrupt in the late 90s. MS could have finished them off to secure PC dominance but instead offered a lifeline and now Apple is more valuable company than MS.

There is no evidence that MS has or would harm the video game industry, an industry they have invested heavily in to, and I'm glad that at least CADE was able to clearly articulate that this acquisition, while huge, will still allow for plenty of competition in this space. Video games are much bigger than any competitor in the market and competition will benefit customers as a whole even if it does not benefit Sony specifically.

 

[phil_t98]

CoD was still a very successful IP before then - at a smaller scale - but I'd like to see the sales numbers for you to back up that claim, given that Live was another paid barrier to play on xbox when PSN was still free in the PS3 gen, and I highly doubt it was the 360 bringing the majority of the online players even if they had sales parity between 360 and PS3.

50% More U.S. Gamers Play Online Through Xbox 360 Over PS3

Statistics show that North American gamers prefer the Xbox Live online gaming experience more than PlayStation Network. Will this change with the next-gen consoles?

gamerant.com

 

[Topher]

I believe the relevance is that some think that MS buying Activision would mean that MS would become a monopoly in video games. It of course is nonsense but it is used to show how concerned some are. It is interesting to see Apple mentioned because if we wanted to get an idea of how MS behaved against a competitor look at the investment MS made in Apple. You would not know it today but Apple almost went bankrupt in the late 90s. MS could have finished them off to secure PC dominance but instead offered a lifeline and now Apple is more valuable company than MS.

Yeah, that helped Apple get through the rough times caused by Gil Amelio's horrible tenure at Apple. Microsoft benefitted from that investment as well as it settled the outstanding litigation between the two companies and made Internet Explorer the default browser for Mac. I remember the shock of Bill Gates coming up on the big screen at Macworld that year. Crazy times.

 

[HeisenbergFX4]

http://[URL]https://gamerant.com/xbox-360-vs-ps3-online-player-stats/

[/URL]

Back in those days the 360 was where it was at to play online free or not

Xbox made it so convenient just plugging in a headset into the controller for one

 

[HoofHearted]

what changes is that the company that has provided the least in critical success for games that advance the medium and have never proven to be valid competition by profitability - ie gamer choice - will have disrupted a $1B gaming revenue stream - cultivated by the market leader for decades - and then be able to use that marque title in ways that devalue the natural market leader and make it harder for them to sell hardware.

Why would any regulator choose to diminish a natural consumer chosen market leader that shares the market in preference for a company that has no pedigree in that business - losing money for decades - and will cause the market to crash, stagnate creatively causing market brain drain and become a monopolised market in time, because they bought success to overpower creativity that consumers reward with commercial success.

And a company that has previous of anti-competitive behaviour, and hold a monopoly on the commercial aspect of all computer operating systems and productivity tools, already, and were the richest company in the world for over a decade and still in the top three and have a market cap probably larger than the entire AAA-A games industry companies combined, so would be unbeatable from a winning position for 99.99999% of all companies in the future, even with lighting striking the same place twice luck.

 

[onesvenus]

No matter how you dress this up, PlayStation, unlike Nintendo has gained its success - xbox hasn't been a profitable success - and defined the size of the AAA-A market by cultivating and sharing its success with all the significant devs and publishers in the market since 1996. Regulators can look at PlayStation's track record and easily conclude they have been good for market competition long term

I won't touch all the other things you said but you keep bringing this point and I think you need to be quite biased to see it like you do.
Growing a market is not the same as being good for the marketing competition. Using your own examples, the productivity market, where you say Microsoft has a monopoly, has grown a lot these last years.

 

[nikolino840]

Without official confirmation of the what-ifs we're just all pretending really

They don't need exclusive of some games ..just the "play first" or like dlc in exclusivity for a year ... don't mind if elder scrolls cod to be multiplatform...if the uk/eu have something to say they could use hogwarts legacy and the actual cod as example ...

 

[Three]

Just not a good example to which i dont think there are any others

Try another beginning with H but I'm sure you will say that also isn't one for some arbitrary reason.

Its pretty easy for them to refute or clarify when it hasn't been explicitly announced as platform exclusive. Even still its not a franchise that has always been on PlayStation. Not only that its too far out for them to need clarification publically at this point. Yet another reason why the cma notice reads like the defense of a sony fan

And I'm sure when that time comes your argument will change from "MS buying them is best because they haven't taken away established franchises" to "why should MS release these franchises on other platforms". Changing your logic and values to defend your plastic box maker.

 

[Timberwolf25]

Why are we even arguing IF MS decides to make any ABK game exclusive? Like if doing so would somewhow be unethical, illegal or immoral.

It doesn't matter if a game was only ever played on 1 platform before the acquisition. Gamers that want to contimue playing that game would still have a choice. They could buy it on platform that now has the game. Even if it was true, it's not happening in this case.

Does this acquisition make it harder on a certain competitor? Sure it does. Still doesn't change the fact that there really isn't any legal basis for this deal to not go through or why any concessions need to be made either.

The arguments of the future of gaming is doomed if this happens is laughable considering MS marketshare in every place other than NA.

 

[Neofire]

But we are specifically talking about the market, and the impact of each company on the market.

No matter how you dress this up, PlayStation, unlike Nintendo has gained its success - xbox hasn't been a profitable success - and defined the size of the AAA-A market by cultivating and sharing its success with all the significant devs and publishers in the market since 1996. Regulators can look at PlayStation's track record and easily conclude they have been good for market competition long term and will most likely continue to be if the ACTIVI acquisition was blocked.

Risk versus reward, letting MSFT buy ACTIVI is high risk for the potential impact on fair market competition prospects for regulators compared to blocking it to maintain a status quo - that's just common sense when gaming is so successful right now. I suspect this was the overriding gut feeling by regulators in the Nvidia and ARM acquisition decision too.

People like yourself keeping wanting to frame this as a PlayStation versus MSFT, but it is actually the market versus MSFT, PlayStation could be any other company doing the same as them, doing well by helping all the market stakeholders and producing content to advance the medium. It could have even been MSFT sharing it with them, but their history in gaming started with an embrace, extend, extinguish of Opengl to produce DirectX, which is the very core of the direct-X-box brand, a disruptive single vendor proprietary API that only exist to protect the Windows monopoly.

Been saying this for a long time. Unfortunately MS will grease the wheel to get this deal green lit. Industry balance be damned.

 

[zzill3]

Been saying this for a long time. Unfortunately MS will grease the wheel to get this deal green lit. Industry balance be damned.

You should stop then, it's pretty much nonsense.

That Sony have been more successful and got in to gaming earlier than Microsoft did doesn't mean Microsoft shouldn't be allowed to buy a publisher. If regulators can't prove Microsoft buying Activision is bad for gaming then the deal will go ahead. "Playstation are more successful than Xbox" does not do that.