twilo99
Member
On the contrary, Microsoft is about to introduce much needed balance to the industry.
Microsoft / Activision Deal Approval Watch |OT| (MS/ABK close)
- Status
On the contrary, Microsoft is about to introduce much needed balance to the industry.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
There you have it folks, regulators should block the deal to "maintain status quo". Competition be damned
Meanwhile, here's the rationale of an actual regulation body:
Last edited:
It may be none of those things but we are arguing about it because somebody tried to paint MS in some altruistic good light by saying they DONT do that sort of thing and are the only ones who wouldn't . Even when there is clear evidence they are doing those things and others haven't done anything of the sort. The post that started this:
By posting this it's clear that person believes that making it available on everything is the good thing for the industry and MS are the best people because they do it. To then turn around and say when it happens that MS are allowed to do this and it's fine only shows you're throwing your past values away to defend whatever your favourite company is doing at the time.
PaintTinJr
Gold Member
Please tell me you see the stupidity in your own claim that it is "competition" to buy a $70b publisher.There you have it folks, regulators should block the deal to "maintain status quo". Competition be damned
No one in the AAA-A games industry can afford to buy a company of that value - and neither can most companies in the world - so how does it equate to "games market" competition for papa MSFT to buy it for xbox to lever it to its advantage?
The_Mike
I cry about SonyGaf from my chair in Redmond, WA
Because it is illegal that Microsoft has exclusive titles.
It says that in the law of confederation
The_Mike
I cry about SonyGaf from my chair in Redmond, WA
Gaf "I wish Microsoft could up their game so sony wont be so comfortable and lazy from no competition. They are dominating and it's boring"
Also Gaf:" noo Microsoft can't buy ActiBlizard it's bad for the competition Sony can't do it"
PaintTinJr
Gold Member
Did you read the headline and check the date? If so, do I have to tell you that US is not the world, and the gen didn't start in 2013?
CoDs were selling on PS3 long before 2013 and the EU+UK is the largest game market in the world for consoles and pretty sure they favour PlayStation at the point of buying a console, so I'm not sure you can boost those numbers you are looking for when PlayStation sells more in the rest of the world than the US delta in xbox to PlayStation online use(for that period) .
Timberwolf25
Member
I hope that's not directed at me, but if it is, what values might you be talking about?
It would be one thing if MS had dominant market leadership in the 80%+ among the big three and they buying ABK would further push that dominance, but they aren't in that position....far from it. We got Sony, Nintendo, Apple, Tencent and others with a good chunk of that market.
That said, MS will do what makes business sense to them. Buying ABK and making COD exclusive doesn't make sense to them right now. That could change in the future. Maybe with other properties, it does make sense to make them exclusive and that's fine as well.
In my perfect world, I'd be able to buy any game on any platform I'd like. For example, I'd love to be able to buy God of War, Bloodborne and some PS only titles for my Xbox. I have a mid-range PC, but dislike playing on PC for the most part. I'd never argue that Sony should have to put those titles on other platforms. As the owner that's up to them as much as I'd like it to be different.
The points the Brazilian regulators made were valid as their doesn't seem to be much disputed here on the merits of the document other than somehow trying to associate them with somehow being corrupt because they approved an acquistion. In the end, both the US and EU regulators will address the same points. What they decide will be interesting as well as what justification they come up with.
Last edited:
twilo99
Member
yep
Loosing the "xbox has no games" slogan must be seen as catastrophic event in many fanboy circles.
ChuckeRearmed
Member
I don't think that Youtube is under any threat for now. Google App Store and Apple App Store are in more precarious situation now and they generate a lot of revenue for Google.
I don't believe that any regulator will demand COD to come to Playstation. At all. In Brazil the market share of Xbox 30-40% and in Europe the market share of Xbox will be even lower. Not to mention just like Brazil, COD is not the main seller in Europe either. So COD issue is irrelevant - not a single regulator mentioned COD. Europe specifically mentioned only cloud and even then it had no relation to gaming.
Neofire
Member
My guy, don't give the troll you are responding the energy. He lives to make snide remarks to anyone not praising this deal.
YouTube ad revenue is 30bn
Google Play Store revenue is about 50bn.
However I think YouTube has much higher margin and the network effect is YouTube being locked to their own buying platforms is probably worth the 20bn diff.
The DMA is coming for the adtech monopoly.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Buying exclusive content has been a cornerstone of the industry since it's beginning, buying exclusivity is one of the core pillars that has allowed Sony to assert its quote unquote market dominance for multiple generations.
The issue here isn't that Microsoft are buying activision, if Sony had the capital, they would have done the same sooner. They were in the running to buy zenimax just like multiple other studios as well, for example.
Despite all of the above, saying that a deal should not be allowed to go through to maintain a status quo completely defeats the point of competition in the first place.
But that is something that the regulators have to decide.
Last edited:
The_Mike
I cry about SonyGaf from my chair in Redmond, WA
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Doubly hilarious when you read their recent post history in this topic.
phil_t98
#SonyToo
Read your own previous post. Xbox 360 was getting more players online than PS3 was, that's an example of it right there. Yes 2013 that was coming to the end of the that generations life and they had the stats to show more online players for Xbox at the time. Add to the fact you said they PS3 would have more online players because it was free online but yet Xbox still had more players.
Also from a previous post of yours again you said that PlayStation had marketing rights for cod for 2 decades which is wrong beach's that generation Xbox has the marketing rights for the whole gen.
oldergamer
Member
Thats a bullshit statement by you there. What i said was and still is fact. They have yet to take away an established franchise from other platforms. They are being accused of a certain behavior ( by a company that routinely exhibits the behavior they complain about ) without anything recent to back it up. Note I don't have a favorite company (unlike yourself), there is no point in liking companies. I hated MS for years but liked Xbox as a product, I dislike sony's heavy handed market practices for years, yet bought all their products up to PS3. I dislike Nintendo price gouging people, but I have a switch because its a good console.
I like products that give me good value for my dollar. Right now ( and for a while ) that is Xbox imo. If you don't agree, well there is no need to cry about it.
ZehDon
Gold Member
With the PS3, "arrogant Sony" was a meme for a reason, and Microsoft's competition with the Xbox 360 forced Sony to change for the betterment of its own customers, because Microsoft offered better hardware, games, and services at better prices. Of course, Microsoft tried to abuse its own position with the Xbone, and Sony profited greatly from that disaster because it offered better hardware, games, and services at better prices. Here, we see the benefit of competition. Without, who knows where we'd be?
With the PS5, we're starting to see the return of a dominant player using its position to unfair advantage: Sony attempted to lock up third parties across the industry prior the PS5, looking to lock out competitors already struggling to compete. It's used its position to increase the cost of games by 25% in my country (Australia), and even had the balls to increase the cost of its hardware in specific regions (such as mine) when not a single other console manufacturer did so. We have good info that says if Microsoft hadn't of bought Bethesda, games like Starfield would've been timed PlayStation exclusives, because they didn't want to leave Microsoft with anything. That's not competition, that's monopoly. Microsoft's investment in Xbox with the Zenimax and Activision-Blizzard purchases mean that has the resources it needs to actually compete with Sony, and position itself against giants like Amazon and (lol) Google. We know this, because Jim Ryan is crying. Now, Sony has to compete again: it needs to offer better hardware, software, and services. The last time Sony was put in a corner, it turned its first party studios into an industry leading powerhouse and gave us the legendary "It Only Does Everything" marketing and services push. Which are all objectively good things for PlayStation owners. Microsoft being able to compete is a good thing.
oldergamer
Member
That says it right there. Good post.
DarkMage619
$MSFT
MS has released a statement about the Brazilian regulatory agency's decision. Nothing too amazing here but MS will most likely use this decision in future arguments.
//DEVIL//
Member
I think few countries already approved this deal . If I remember Saudi Arabia was one of them too ?
Honestly all the matters is US. If it goes through there it's game over for other countries they will follow. Because if they don't it's their loss as less income tax from those games they will block ( and fans of these games will raise hell in these countries anyway ) . And yes that's include Uk
Last edited:
ChorizoPicozo
Member
It will only be able to compete if MS is able to make the content they actually need to do so. Regardless of acquisitions.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Yes, Saudi and Brazil have openly released press statements about it.
Bobby Kotick in September said that they've received approvals "from multiple countries" or something to that extent.
DarkMage619
$MSFT
Yup jury is out if people want to play CoD or Starfield. I guess we'll see how it turns out.
ChorizoPicozo
Member
Two games ain't gonna be enough.
Timberwolf25
Member
Good thing it's more than 2 games then. Overwatch 2 PvE, Diablo 4, Starfield, CoD with more that I can't think of right now.
Also, King that is supposedly the real catch in the acquisition.
avin
Member
^ Depends on the game. One is enough, if it's truly great.
So far, Sony doesn't have one either, but that could change in just a few weeks.
avin
Last edited:
ChorizoPicozo
Member
Lol. Those game were not made by MS.
ChorizoPicozo
Member
Timberwolf25
Member
We are talking about the acquisition of Activision Blizzard King...those games are made by them.
Of course not. I quoted the post it's directed at but you were asking why it was being discussed.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Yes .. that's why they're acquiring studios which make content .. you know .. to make content.
Last edited:
ChorizoPicozo
Member
My comment wasn't talking about them. Even so. Combining Zenimax + Activision + Blizzard is not going to be enough.
ChorizoPicozo
Member
if MS is able to make the content
It's not fact though when it has been confirmed by MS that Hellblade 2 and Elder Scrolls 6 are removed. The fact that they have yet to release those games doesn't take away from that fact and MS are saying COD some years later might be to.
You liked and defended xbox through the xbox one launch. 'Value for your dollar' MS and 'heavy handed market practices' by Sony after PS3? Ok
Last edited:
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
The whole point of the acquisitions is to get studios/developers to make the content that helps them be competitive.
But you've already come to the conclusion that it's not going to be enough regardless .. so it's a moot point anyway.
Last edited:
ChorizoPicozo
Member
And I wasn't talking about the acquisitions.
Because the acquisitions alone are not going to be enough.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Hellblade is a singular game, it's not an established franchise yet by any stretch.
Yes, that's what I said. To you, nothing they do will be enough. And that's OK.
Last edited:
DarkMage619
$MSFT
25+ studios should be able enough to make plenty of content. This will be quite the competitive generation.
ChorizoPicozo
Member
Is not about me. Is about what MS needs to do to compete (in general)Yes, that's what I said. To you, nothing they do will be enough. And that's OK.
ReBurn
Gold Member
Is not going to be enough to do ...what?
ChorizoPicozo
Member
It should....yet....games aren't going to be made magically
ReBurn
Gold Member
No, they're made by the people who are actively making them right now. What point are you trying to make?
DarkMage619
$MSFT
Sounds like MS should have you as a support witness for this acquisition. If all these studios won't make them competitive this deal should be waved through immediately.
I knew some new arbitrary excuse would be made for Hellblade too. It's established with the sequel no longer coming to other plaforms.Hellblade is a singular game, it's not an established franchise yet by any stretch.
Yes, that's what I said. To you, nothing they do will be enough. And that's OK.
The thing is, you haven't even seen games from any franchises getting announced post acquisition. The likes of Doom or Wolfenstien but you can bet your bottom dollar what's going to happen. ones that have been announced Hellblade 2, Elder Scrolls 6, and their new IPs have been confirmed to be removed. To arbitrarily suggest they don't count because of reasons is just illogical.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
It's not arbitrary, you can't really classify something with only 1 product out as a franchise.
True. I, myself, don't agree with why there is extra scrutiny on why MS needs to make sure it puts out its games on other platforms in the first place. Once a studio/IP becomes first party, it's their prerogative to do what they will. They (Phil and co) have said multiple times in reference to big games like Starfield and TES VI tha they will be available on any platform Game Pass is on. Which already means its not restricted to Xbox alone.
But the fact that they're pledging Call of Duty to PS platforms 3 years at minimum beyond current agreements is like nothing that's been done in the industry before anyway. Hell I think they'll likely keep putting it out there for a lot longer anyway.
ChorizoPicozo
Member
They will make MS competitive. But I said that they will not be enough.
ChorizoPicozo
Member
Competitive enough.
DarkMage619
$MSFT
Good. That means the industry is robust enough for MS to make any acquisitions they want. It also means Game pass will be getting tons of new games.
- Status