Kagey K
Banned
It was actually something a mod said to me in 2018 or so, just opposite.
I thought it was an appropriate callback for you in 22
Microsoft / Activision Deal Approval Watch |OT| (MS/ABK close)
- Status
I thought it was an appropriate callback for you in 22
onesvenus
Member
Come on Panajev, there's nothing there that says they are using the EEE strategy. It's shit that they develop some closed source components to an open source project but it's not the same as embracing it and extinguishing. Let's let our voices be heard if that happens, not before.
Miguel de Icaza Leads Uproar Over Closed-Source VS Code C# Tool -- Visual Studio Magazine
'An unacceptable abuse of power from the stewards of the platform, and a betrayal of the community.'visualstudiomagazine.com
I am sure you can find more… but.
Look at his post
Do you really agree that Microsoft is "attacking a competitor's finances with NOTHING more than money"?
- "No talented coup with amazing games"? Last year Xbox was announced the best publisher with an average score that PlayStation has never reached. Shouldn't that tell people if those are or are not great games?
- "No revolutionary hardware or accessories"? Xbox introduced both Xbox live, which was a more serious approach to online gaming than what existed before and cemented the way we play online now, and Kinect
- "just straight anti-competitive monetary slugging match"? You both can't be serious.
I didn't comment on all those things because it's obviously a really biased take on things and I didn't think it deserved even answering them.
It breaks my heart seeing posters like you, which I have an enormous respect for, acting like fanboys
Last edited:
PaintTinJr
Gold Member
It is slightly different, as the competitor still has an option to compete for content from that content creator and fund new iterations or new IPs, as the other company is still independent and any deals they do, serve their interests first, let's not forget that, there's no gun and head situation - otherwise they wouldn't do the deals. Buy a publisher removes them from the board, so it has to be a symbiotic purchase for most of the affected parties IMO.
So, it is nothing like being the only company able to buy a $70b company, of which the console leveraged part is probably only half ($35b) but still beyond any market competitors' reach.
The xbox deal for timed Tomb Raider shows the risk of such deals, so each time Xbox, PlayStation or Nintendo does one it has to be oaky with gamers. The xbox deal for Tomb raider probably saved the IP in the eyes of Square at the time, despite it clearly being a bad look as PlayStation was again responsible for providing the platform with most gamers - over the decades - to sell the IP, that helped the franchise most - including having coveted game spots in the roster of available titles advertised on the consoles (see spoiler-ed images for PS1 console box advertising)- and so it felt for many in gaming that this multi-platform title being taken from its main audience was a poor decision, and the fallout has probably damaged the IP beyond recovery - hence Square selling it on to Embracer.
IMO that has been Xbox's real problem, they don't want to grow the content creation from studios with the associated risk to partner new successful content with Xbox - because they aren't good at it judging by their attempts over 2 decades - they just want to use money to take what has already been homed elsewhere. They aren't a real competitor IMO like a Sega or Atari were, and if they were, then they certainly wouldn't be spending $70b on ACTIVI when they could be besting PlayStation and Nintendo where it matters - with amazing new game experiences.
Kagey K
Banned
Why can't they be doing both?It is slightly different, as the competitor still has an option to compete for content from that content creator and fund new iterations or new IPs, as the other company is still independent and any deals they do, serve their interests first, let's not forget that, there's no gun and head situation - otherwise they wouldn't do the deals. Buy a publisher removes them from the board, so it has to be a symbiotic purchase for most of the affected parties IMO.
So, it is nothing like being the only company able to buy a $70b company, of which the console leveraged part is probably only half ($35b) but still beyond any market competitors' reach.
The xbox deal for timed Tomb Raider shows the risk of such deals, so each time Xbox, PlayStation or Nintendo does one it has to be oaky with gamers. The xbox deal for Tomb raider probably saved the IP in the eyes of Square at the time, despite it clearly being a bad look as PlayStation was again responsible for providing the platform with most gamers - over the decades - to sell the IP, that helped the franchise most - including having coveted game spots in the roster of available titles advertised on the consoles (see spoiler-ed images for PS1 console box advertising)- and so it felt for many in gaming that this multi-platform title being taken from its main audience was a poor decision, and the fallout has probably damaged the IP beyond recovery - hence Square selling it on to Embracer.
IMO that has been Xbox's real problem, they don't want to grow the content creation from studios with the associated risk to partner new successful content with Xbox - because they aren't good at it judging by their attempts over 2 decades - they just want to use money to take what has already been homed elsewhere. They aren't a real competitor IMO like a Sega or Atari were, and if they were, then they certainly wouldn't be spending $70b on ACTIVI when they could be besting PlayStation and Nintendo where it matters - with amazing new game experiences.
We haven't played the XGS announcements yet.
You know you can grow internally at the same t8me as buying external,
Or Sony hasn't grown in years because they keep buying studios, every two months they announce a partnership or buyout it seems.
Last edited:
PaintTinJr
Gold Member
So, a Metacritic styled argument about game quality - that can be influenced by money - which in this thread has already been discussed as being a weak way to discuss games - Dead Poet Society graph paper anyone?
That's a service offering. The hardware is just standard networking hardware, VoIP, etc, etc
They are spending $70b to ultimately take a couple of hundred million or billions (per year) CoD revenue away from PlayStation to massively weaken it - because Sony/PlayStation aren't a multi-trillion dollar company that can easily see such profit decline. MSFT could see ACTIVI turn into a Zune or Rare or Lionhead - effectively seeing the entire $70b purchase devalued to a fraction of its current value - in 12months and MSFT would be completely undamaged by that outcome because of their dominance in computing elsewhere.
And as an aside, not recent, but still ongoing, if Direct-X-box isn't still a long running EEE on SGI's OpenGL - which Xbox is at the centre of - then what is it? They embraced opengl - then backed out of the deal - extended it with DirectX, and setup Xbox to extinguish Opengl by making Xbox number 1 in gaming and thereby cojoining the graphics API of console game development with Windows PC game development to make Window OSes the only place for games graphics programming with a proprietary extended copy of Opengl that only they own. The ACTIVI purchase is all part of that, and don't be surprised when all King mobile games start using DirectX - instead of Opengl ES.
Last edited:
onesvenus
Member
Should we use your opinion instead when talking about game quality?
Kinect is not a service offering but anyway, you just dismiss Xbox Live because it doesn't fit your arguments. Nobody that's not a fanboy can say with a straight face that Microsoft hasn't done anything relevant for the gaming industry.
They are not spending 70$b to "take a couple of hundred million or billions per year CoD revenue away from PlayStation to massively weaken it". They've gone on record saying that they will keep CoD on Playstation and that the main interest of buying Acti/Blizzard is their mobile branch. Why should we believe what you think will happen instead? You've proved again and again which is your opinion on Microsoft. It's obvious you can't or don't want to be fair with them
Saying that DX is, nowadays, an extension of OpenGL is crazy.
Are GNM and GNMX, which PS5 use and which are not OpenGL at all, setup to "extinguish OpenGL by making" Playstation number 1?
Has there been any indication that Microsoft wants to stop supporting OpenGL/Vulkan or any other graphics API on Windows?
Where does " to make Window sOSes the only place for games graphics programming with a proprietary extended copy of Opengl" come from?
How can you say that King mobile games will start using DirectX instead of OGLES when DirectX is not supported neither on iOS or Android? Are they going to bring WindowsPhone from the graveyard?
Yet again they are not taking COD away just like they didn't take Minecraft away. That would just devalue the IP and allow another game to fill the void hence every third party prayed it might happen. Microsoft is not going to sign a forever deal that favors Sony. I say extending to the end of the generation was generous with the terms. Microsoft would of had to wait until next generation to get the same deal Sony has right now of the superior version. The Activision deal is not good for xbox gamers since they will get almost no exclusives out of this. The money could bought up lots of other studios instead.
PaintTinJr
Gold Member
I take it you weren't around for the trainwreck (in the UK) of Philips CD-i, Sega 32x.CD, Atari Jaguar, (PCEngine too IIRC) - after Amiga/ST's second outings hit the buffers?
Sony weren't just money joining the market but one of the world's best electronics manufacturers with R&D that naturally aligned to the needs of bringing the tens of thousands of dollars type SGI 3D hardware of a Sega Virtua Rally arcade game to a commodity console without the $10-20 cost of cartridges.
Philips were in the same boat with R&D, tried and failed. Panasonic clearly didn't fancy getting in and barely dipped a toe years later in their outing with the Panasonic Q with Nintendo GameCube, and that just leaves Samsung, really who seem to have stayed away directly and just partnered for things.
So, who exactly were you thinking of that could deliver what Sony could with relevant technology to be in a "similar position"?
So are you saying Jim describing setting up SCE with IKEA furniture they had to build by hand themselves in a rather amateurish setup was them using everything Sony had?
PaintTinJr
Gold Member
No, look at the commercial success of their first party investment versus console sales, as they are supposed to shift units. Xbox has never sold more than 85m IIRC. Both Nintendo and PlayStation have done so more than once with a console in since Xbox joined the market.
They bought the hardware. Or will you credit them for CoD's and all of Activision's creativity portfolio too after they buy that?
What's about all the customers that never bought any of their offerings, because they weren't entice? Are they just fanboys then?
They can take that money away just by the disadvantage of marketing spend and consumers knowing the IP is owned by MSFT, so xbox can get preferential treatment forever more, by being on Gamepass day one, they don't have to take CoD off of PlayStation once the deal has cleared - doubt will have already set in, in gamers minds and achieves the same result.
OpenGL 1.1 is native in Windows for contractual reasons. They got a huge head start seeing how Opengl worked back in the day in the Embrace and Extend phases, and then made DirectDraw/Direct3D. If you don't believe the point, then ask why there isn't an open source, open standard version of DX12 ultimate for linux. Same with nvidia proprietary close source video drivers for linux - probably being related to HLSL/CgSL development for Xbox OG. native to the metal APIs from close systems(variants of Opengl es) are hardly competing with Opengl/Vulkan, are they? And if you remember, PlayStation made 3 different graphics API levels for PS4 development last-gen, one of which was a DX wrapper - to remap to GNM - which showed up some interesting bugs, because on normal Opengl styled APIs native to the console, you can't force a mipmap level, like you can in DX, so weird times the PS4 version of a game would be using an inferior mipmap because of that bug.
When they make it open source, open standard - so it can't be weaponised as an API - then check my opinion about DX and EEE.
onesvenus
Member
Can't argue with feelings.
I'll stop answering you because you have made your points clear enough and I don't think they are worth repeating on and on in this thread
phil_t98
#SonyToo
so because they haven't sold more than 85 million they need to do something different to address that and by buying studios publishers they are doing that. thanks for pointing that out for us. good job your here to point out what they did wrong so they can correct it
pasterpl
Member
He obviously knows nothing about the industry. /s
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
This is the kind of responses most of the major publishers will give out, if EU is reaching out to them for their investigation.
onesvenus
Member
And some people here were just saying that the industry was against this deal just some pages ago
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
"If we create great hits, which is our business, then consumers will show up, and no one can take that away from us."
pasterpl
Member
Based on what we have heard from Brazilian questioners there is only on publisher/company being negative about it - Sony. Rest of the martlet leaders, EA, UBi, now Take2 are all positive about this.
twilo99
Member
I stull think Sony is heavy enough to block this, or at least drag it out to annoy everyone...
DarkMage619
$MSFT
GeForce Now does stream on Xbox. You brought that up. It doesn't address the point that if PlayStation supposedly loses an unannounced game there are a multitude of other devices you could still get those games on and those devices outnumber PlayStation. More devices.
We are talking about games MS will 'take' from PlayStation though right? Not just a random game that isn't on PlayStation anyway.
Let's take Boosteroid as an example. If those titles are removed from that service and put onto Game pass will it reach more or less people? I don't think it's even available in the entire US. Game pass certainly is. I am not sure what you are arguing anymore.
It absolutely is changing the subject. This entire conversation stated on the ill conceived notion that MS was taking something from Sony. Something Sony themselves could do something about with a fully functional web browser. You don't need an Xbox to play their games which is quite different than when Sony takes a title console exclusive. Any titles 'lost' could easily be played on PlayStation still. GeForce Now doesn't address this at all.
You want to focus on Hellblade but as we've already gone over multiple publishers add and remove games on sub services and they are hardly all MS' doing. With your Boosteroid example the reach will increase not contract as you claim.
1) Unless those services offer the alleged missing titles they aren't a alternative. Will those services cover any PlayStation owner potentially affected by the loss of certain games better than Game pass will? I've seen no evidence this is true.
2) I'd like to see the receipts on this. What are you basing this on? Game pass last count was 30 million subscribers alone. Do Boosteroid and Blacknut have more subscribers and the same reach?
I still think people who don't have a PlayStation but a phone or tablet outnumber people who just have a PlayStation. All of these people could potentially access Game pass. If a game wasn't streaming previously and it would be after the acquisition, then more people would have access. PlayStation people with phones and tablets would still have access as well assuming the game isn't on that platform.
All this conversation seems pretty moot anyway because I can't think of a single title MS has removed from any hardware platform it is already on. MS continues to honor all previous contracts and supports titles on multiple platforms the same as always. You know as well as any that no sequel is ever promised to anyone. No one on Xbox should hold their breath for Final Fantasy 7 Remake or Octopath 2 for instance. In those cases the reach has certainly contracted.
That much is clear. Nobody is changing the subject but you. Let me refer you back to where you replied to me:
That's you changing the subject there with cloud. I replied by mentioning that Hellblade 1 was on GFN for years prior to the MS aquisition who had it removed along with all their other Microsoft Studio games to push their own platform xcloud. That doesn't mean more platforms or more devices if it was available on cloud before. Then you started talking about country availability (which turned out GFN had more of) and other games which again are available on other cloud platforms, games in browsers, and all this other irrelevant stuff.
What I'm arguing is simple
1) The number of platforms has not increased. It's decreased. There were cloud compatible devices before which could have played it.
2) the amount of cloud streaming service customers at the moment is far, far smaller than Switch and PS even if there are more phones or tablets out there. Contrary to what you say the potential customers is smaller.
Gamepass last count wasn't 30M and not every gamepass user can use xCloud silly. Now compare that to the number of PSs and Switches out there even if you were to use your very generous 30M. I'm not sure why you bring up Boosteroid and blacknut. Are you having difficulty interpreting this very basic numbered point you replied to?:
Who mentioned a comparison to Blacknut or Boosteroid? You are changing the subject again.
I only mentioned services like Boosteroid and Blacknut exist because you said "games that currently aren't streaming anywhere" when they are. Nothing to do with point 2.
Last edited:
onesvenus
Member
Why does the number of platforms matter and not the number of potential customers?
The number of potential customers is the set of people who own a device that can play a game. You can't say that is smaller with a straight face.
Because somebody mentioned number of platforms will increase when it won't. The "potential customers" was a tangent which would be smaller anyway if you look at it with any common sense with streaming subscription install bases. Both because it was available on cloud prior and because simply owning a phone doesn't make you a potential customer.
Why must only "owning a device" make you a potential customer?
People simply owning a phone doesn't make them potential Hellblade customers the same as you owning a phone doesn't make you a potential customer to escort services.
Everyone on the planet is a 'potential customer' but there are interests and steps to becoming a customer in both and different likelihoods in both. Exist, buy a console, play hellblade. Exist, buy a phone, subscribe to streaming service, play hellblade. Not everyone who buys/owns a phone is paying for a streaming service to be a potential customer to hellblade. Just like how not everybody goes out and buys a console. Interests matter. Who do you think is a more likely customer to Hellblade though? Anybody who went out and bought a phone or somebody who went out and bought a console?
I'm saying it with a straight face because simply owning a phone doesn't make you a potential customer. Your/Their interests do. Owning a phone and being subscribed to a cloud gaming service does. Those numbers are small though.
Last edited:
intheinbetween
Member
No it's not. Also, wake up, Sony is not the industry, or its core, the video games industry/market could would still make billions without Sony just as it started 60 years ago without it.
Stop thinking Sony is the judge in this, or any acquisition, they're just a vendor, a company making business, making money. Don't act like any M&A should be reviewed and approved by Sony.
Last edited:
PaintTinJr
Gold Member
Yes, I did and if you had actually absorbed the point I was making, you would have remembered I specifically excluded the opinions of people like this that aren't creatives - a million miles away from the opinions of the actual workforces that create games.
Of course, people in his position want the deal to go through, if it fails it signals a size cap on publishers before acquisition, which could devalue the company he is CEO of right now, and potentially block offers for the company he might be happy to entertain, currently. But don't let that stop you trying to convince yourself and others that the "industry" supports this type of industry consolidation - which costs "workers" jobs.
PaintTinJr
Gold Member
Microsoft spitting straight facts
Maybe MSFT might want to consider that they as a company have decades of history that our CMA will be familiar with and feel their suspicious are justifiable.
Criticising the CMA is unlikely to make getting approval easier IMO, and I'm still of the opinion that enough games industry vets that interface for grants and the like will all be against this deal, and the deck will be stacked towards it being much safer to block the deal than approve. No one is potentially going to have made the worst decision in history for the Uk games industry by blocking the deal, whereas "only time will"(MGS5 vibes) if they do approve it, if the same is true in reverse.
skit_data
Member
Microsoft spitting straight facts
Lol @ MS quoting Tom Warren as a "industry commentator".
He may not be wrong on the subject or whatever but using him as some sort of litmus test of what journalists in the industry think about it is pretty funny.
ZehDon
Gold Member
Not likely.
A Japanese company complaining to European regulators about two American companies will only go so far. In terms of harming the global industry, the only ones being really hurt by this are the ones who stand to lose access to Activision Blizzard's games - and that's literally just Sony. Most regulators will do their best for appearances with a song and dance and then just sign off on the deal. Their job isn't help keep Sony stay atop the industry - it's to make sure consumers interests are protected. Sony's history of money hats, and attempts to money hat much of the industry prior to the PS5, will undermine Jim Ryan's screeching.
oldergamer
Member
Like those people know what they are talking about
Chukhopops
Member
Microsoft spitting straight facts
I wish there was a paid version where you could see all the data behind the «
« .Otherwise, it's all common sense especially the part about abusing dominant position to raise prices.
PaintTinJr
Gold Member
You complete misunderstand the UK games industry if you don't think the CMA see this move as far more than just protecting PlayStation. PlayStation are merely the console brand that are the market leader, just like Sinclair was back in the day of home computers. The deal is going to be about the impact it might have now and in the future of those working in the industry, and those going into higher education looking to get jobs in that industry.
Too much uncertainty surrounds the impact on those jobs, because most of them came back as a result of PS1's early success, and despite Xbox being an employer in the UK games industry, their own first party fails - despite their unlimited budget from MSFT - has a couple of decades to view how little they've done to push on to create and sustain the level of jobs that PlayStation has directly and indirectly, by comparison.
If you were a civil servant accountant looking at it, blocking the deal would almost certainly be your preferred option IMO.
Pelta88
Member
I mean no disrespect but I read the first sentence of your post and was staggered by your lack of basic business acumen. The rest of your post is also not based in any sort of fact and ends with a CEO "screeching." Again I don't intend to mock... And I'm thinking that perhaps it's the nonsense in this thread that somehow shaped and informed your post. But the entire post is void of any actual fact and unrelated to how business actually works.
Just in case you read my post as me being for/against the deal, as a way to deflect, I've stated in this very thread that I'm happy with any outcome.
Last edited:
xHunter
Member
Microsoft spitting straight facts
I want to see this deal get blocked just to witness Warrens meltdown on twitter.
Are you for real mate?
Didn't Sony closed several of their UK studios few years ago? It's not like they have great track record as an employer in UK. Same for Microsoft which closed Lionhead. But on the other hand they have Playground Games, Ninja Theory and Rare. And especially PG and Rare are right now more than successful and stable studios.
Too much uncertainty surrounds impact on those jobs? Where?
PaintTinJr
Gold Member
You mean the Ninja theory that has this in their wiki page?
The studios that PlayStation expanded ran for years and then wrapped still had people go on to make new studios - free of previous studio issues - which again worked with PlayStation as an essential part of their business. PlayStation since the PS1 has been the main supplier of customers to UK A-AAA games companies, even in recent years No Man's Sky developer Hello Games partnered with PS4 and has gone from strength to strength.
For all MSFT's investments they weren't developing a free AAA multi-platform game engine (PhyreEngine) like PlayStation did, which powers an entire Souls genre, that resulted in bluepoint getting more work from PlayStation this and last gen. The list of studios like MediaMolecule, etc is vast, and MSFT have only really been buying established AA-AAAs in the UK like the three you mentioned, and then have overseen them putting out less polished and less successful content IMO.
Last edited:
And what all of that has to do with Activision Blizzard? As far as I know, only partly UK based studio for ActiBlizz is King and this deal would have literally no impact on King.
And didn't Microsoft saved Bungie from financial turmoil, made them one of the prestigious FPS studios in the world and now Sony owns them?
It's honestly just grasping a straws.
But I fully expect Microsoft to sue CMA if they try to block this deal. Because huge part of their argumentation is based around "it will be bad for Sony" which is big no-no. Because regulators should take care of consumers and not company's bottom line.
Last edited:
ZehDon
Gold Member
No disrespect, but is this a copypasta I'm not familiar with?
You're attempting to float the concept that the regulator's job is indeed to protect Sony's market leader position because, apparently, without PlayStation in the market leader position the British games industry would have so few jobs left that the Government needs to intervene - because Microsoft's "first party fails - despite their unlimited budget from MSFT". This makes less than no sense. You'll now need to provide a detailed and cited correlation between Call of Duty launching on PlayStation - PlayStation's president's only voiced complaint with the acquisition - and the existence of the British game's industry, and a detailed breakdown of how Microsoft's "first party fails" correlates to unfair competition impacting the consumer.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding... but are they complaining about Microsoft doing what PlayStation currently does, with their timed exclusive content and marketing deals, designed to convince consumers Call of Duty is "best on PlayStation"?
Last edited:
intheinbetween
Member
Also, did MS axe any jobs after acquiring Bethesda and any of its studios, or Ninja Theory? If anything, and based on public complaints, toxic environment in AB would be axed, that's for sure
Last edited:
Lol. You literally can't make this stuff up.
Sony is complain about practice that THEY ARE USING with Call of Duty despite the fact that Microsoft promised them in writing full feature parity of PlayStation version of Call of Duty games.
This is so pathetic and so funny at same time
Last edited:
Well. I'm sure that on publishing side there is some jobs that were made redundant and if person A left the role it would not be filled again. But from what I understand, Bethesda is operating in their usual way as almost a separate company.
yeah PS don't want to lose "best on PlayStation" and afraid from Xbox doing the the same here, tbh i don't think that xbox would do that. both version will be equal in term of content under MS. MS play here for COD is Cloud and GP exclusivity.
Last edited:
Mephisto40
Member
I really hope people are prepared for console / TV that has gamepass and PS+ streaming apps built into it's UI
Give it ten to twenty years and acquisitions like this just aren't going to matter, the streaming services are going to be built into the UI of any TV you buy
I honestly cannot wait for the meltdown from fanboys on both sides when that happens
Give it ten to twenty years and acquisitions like this just aren't going to matter, the streaming services are going to be built into the UI of any TV you buy
I honestly cannot wait for the meltdown from fanboys on both sides when that happens
Kiraly
Member
The audacity of these clowns.
Mephisto40
Member
I know, but i'm still going to laugh my ass off at the meltdown that ensues
most of us will look like this in twenty years......
Last edited:
PaintTinJr
Gold Member
PlayStation are merely the flag bearer today, MSFT don't look like they care about anything deep down; certainly not creativity and gaming, it is just a big money move so if they damage PlayStation and aren't looking to pick up the slack, then that's not good for UK gamers or developers or publishers. It isn't about PlayStation, it is about MSFT failing to show they want to wear that crown or would be capable of wearing it.
In those tweets Microsoft stated the majority of CoD players are on PlayStation, and that is true long before any online MP or map pack marketing deals. PlayStation did well to revive the UK market, and the CMA is only likely to let a deal like this pass easily if the company doing it will do a similar or better job for the market - in employment and taxable revenue - IMO.
intheinbetween
Member
As expected with any other M&A, redundancy jobs usually get axed, but some might survive to some extent
- Status