Support NeoGAF

[The_Mike]

See below for just how out of touch in gaming these UK regulators are:

Sony is literally doing this right now, as we speak, and also as the market leader. Yet they're crying behind the scenes to the CMA that even if CoD is available on PlayStation that gamers may expect additional benefits on Xbox and therefore influence their console of choice.

You can't make this shit up.

What a fucking joke. Like Sony wouldnt do stuff like this with Destiny.

Theres a saying in my country. "A thief believes that everyone's stealing".

 

[Coloress_Kafka]

It also says that Sony's current market leadership has seen it 'conduct' practices such as raising the price of its console "without fear of losing market share".

This is so massively tone deaf, it's not like Sony woke up one day and said let's fuck the rest of the world on the price of the PS5.

There are legitimate economic pressures happening on a global scale, to pretend like that's not true while also trying to throw down $69 billion reeks of arrogance.

 

[Three]

God of war franchise has sold 51 million games which is an awesome amount

All the god of war games as a franchise over several consoles and PC?

God of war is a great seller but God of war 2018 as of March 2022 sold 20.4 million. 19.5M the PS4 version, rest on PC. Not anywhere near the 120M PS4 install base was the point being made. Even owning a PS4 you are not a "potential customer" of God Of War if you are not interested in it even though you have removed the barrier of owning the console. There are billions of phones out there but not even 10M of them have any type of cloud streaming subscription. The other barrier to being a potential customer of Hellblade.

 

[Topher]

A monopoly is a company that exists in a market with little to no competition and can therefore set its own terms and prices when facing consumers, making them highly profitable.

By stopping the deal it would empower Sony even more in the market and stifle the growth of a competitor

There is a ton of competition in the video game market. Sony is not a monopoly and if this deal is rejected Sony will not be elevated to the status of a monopoly. Sony isn't even the largest entity in the video game industry. Sony doesn't even have majority market share. The word "monopoly" simply does not apply.

 

[phil_t98]

All the god of war games as a franchise over several consoles and PC?

God of war is a great seller but God of war 2018 as of March 2022 sold 20.4 million. 19.5M the PS4 version, rest on PC. Not anywhere near the 120M PS4 install base was the point being made. Even owning a PS4 you are not a "potential customer" of God Of War if you are not interested in it even though you have removed the barrier of owning the console. There are billions of phones out there but not even 10M of them have any type of cloud streaming subscription. The other barrier to being a potential customer of Hellblade.

they are a franchise and now that Sony are putting games on PC there is potential to have more on Pc
same with call of duty, just because you own the game doesn't mean people will flock to your console.

 

[reksveks]

Personally would argue that a potential costumer largely based on the actual capability of buying that product (physical/digitally and financially).

Interest's change over time and is related to costs/value/quality

 

[Three]

they are a franchise and now that Sony are putting games on PC there is potential to have more on Pc
same with call of duty, just because you own the game doesn't mean people will flock to your console.

Not sure what you're trying to say there but ok that's total franchise sales and GoW didn't sell to 51/120M ps4 users.

 

[phil_t98]

There is a ton of competition in the video game market. Sony is not a monopoly and if this deal is rejected Sony will not be elevated to the status of a monopoly. Sony isn't even the largest entity in the video game industry. Sony doesn't even have majority market share. The word "monopoly" simply does not apply.

does Sony set its own terms on prices when facing consumers? are Sonys prices on games different to the competitions prices? Is Sony the only console maker to raise prices?

 

[Azurro]

is acquiring Activision the industry then?

Bethesda, then Activision, who says they'll stop?

 

[FalsettoVibe]

What a fucking joke. Like Sony wouldnt do stuff like this with Destiny.

Theres a saying in my country. "A thief believes that everyone's stealing".

Literally how many times are you going to bring up the Destiny situation only for someone to explain it to you for the 1000th time?

 

[Infamy v1]

This is so massively tone deaf, it's not like Sony woke up one day and said let's fuck the rest of the world on the price of the PS5.

There are legitimate economic pressures happening on a global scale, to pretend like that's not true while also trying to throw down $69 billion reeks of arrogance.

Except no other console manufacturer raised their prices and the one that did happened to be the same one raising prices in multiple cases elsewhere.

Also, Hoeg explained in detail how companies regularly test the market power by raising prices incrementally and seeing if it affects their marketshare negatively. If it doesn't then it's a testiment to their market power and they can do it again, rinse and repeat; there's a term for this that he said that I don't remember.

Trying to pretend that "legitimate economic pressures happening on a global scale" makes this statement "massively tone deaf" when 99.9% of other home consumer electronic devices are not having their prices raised reeks of corporate apologism.

 

[The_Mike]

Literally how many times are you going to bring up the Destiny situation only for someone to explain it to you for the 1000th time?

Whats the difference?

Destiny will be multi platform, call of duty will stay multi platform.

People keep saying call of duty won't be exclusive so I don't see the difference.

 

[IFireflyl]

Not to mention the massive PR hit they would take by suddenly yanking COD off of PS. None of this is in Microsoft's interest. That is why MS is doubling down on their commitment to PS. I think CMA is doing its due diligence here and putting Microsoft through all the phases of their review, but in the end I think this will be approved.

I agree to an extent, but I wouldn't be surprised if Microsoft sent out a notice (possibly even an in-game notice) towards the end of the console generation letting people know that Call of Duty on next generation console would be Xbox exclusive. That would tempt people to purchase a new Xbox console over a PlayStation console, and Microsoft wouldn't have to give up 30% of its micro-transaction revenue to Sony anymore. I'm not saying that this will happen, mind you. I'm only saying it wouldn't surprise me if it did happen.

 

[IFireflyl]

Whats the difference?

Destiny will be multi platform, call of duty will stay multi platform.

People keep saying call of duty won't be exclusive so I don't see the difference.

The difference is that Sony has no control over Destiny remaining multi-platform while Microsoft could make Call of Duty console-exclusive whenever it desires.

 

[Three]

Personally would argue that a potential costumer largely based on the actual capability of buying that product (physical/digitally and financially).

Interest's change over time and is related to costs/value/quality

So you agree that the potential customers has been reduced?

 

[The_Mike]

The difference is that Sony has no control over Destiny remaining multi-platform while Microsoft could make Call of Duty console-exclusive whenever it desires.

But if Microsoft does it if they promise the regulators otherwise it will prevent them, or make it harder for them to acquire companies in the future.

And I don't think Microsoft is for short term.

 

[reksveks]

So you agree that the potential customers has been reduced?

Think that the issue of potential customer is such a subjective thing that I haven't really thought about it too much. I can see the argument both ways, the fact that you can access xcloud via basically most browser does complicated things. I would probably end up as a yes but it's a marginal loss of potential customers.

What's the baseline?

 

[Louay]

That's not their concern. They have clearly outlined multiple vectors that are areas of concern:

UK regulator details concerns over Microsoft’s proposed acquisition of Activision Blizzard, Xbox responds

UK regulator CMA issues concerns over Microsoft's acquisition of Activision Blizzard

www.gamesindustry.biz

If anything they are more focused on any potential future than they are the present and past.

Streaming is not proven market still after what like more than 7 years of launch ? so how they can base their concern here in market have not been proven.
Companies saying streaming is the future but companies also said VR is next big thing and after 10 years that big thing still have not arrived, Streaming could be a success or failure or what VR today in market which is nothing.

 

[Topher]

does sooty set its own terms on prices when facing consumers? are Sonys prices on games different to the competitions prices? Is Sony the only console maker to raise prices?

Yes to all your questions. Plenty of companies set prices higher than their competition. Doing so doesn't make them a monopoly. The fact they have competition suggests the opposite. Now explain how Sony has "little to no competition". Xbox and Switch somehow don't exist?

I agree to an extent, but I wouldn't be surprised if Microsoft sent out a notice (possibly even an in-game notice) towards the end of the console generation letting people know that Call of Duty on next generation console would be Xbox exclusive. That would tempt people to purchase a new Xbox console over a PlayStation console, and Microsoft wouldn't have to give up 30% of its micro-transaction revenue to Sony anymore. I'm not saying that this will happen, mind you. I'm only saying it wouldn't surprise me if it did happen.

I don't think anything will surprise me anymore. My gut tells me PS market share would have to fall dramatically for MS to pull COD off of PS. I certainly don't see that happening.

 

[FalsettoVibe]

Whats the difference?

Destiny will be multi platform, call of duty will stay multi platform.

People keep saying call of duty won't be exclusive so I don't see the difference.

Who are people??
You clearly know what has been publicly stated by PlayStation as to what the deal for CoD would be. Existing contract + 3 years. Period.
Why do you think everyone is having this whole back and forth if the game won't go exclusive at the end of this generation?

 

[Tripolygon]

See below for just how out of touch in gaming these UK regulators are:


Sony is literally doing this right now, as we speak, and also as the market leader. Yet they're crying behind the scenes to the CMA that even if CoD is available on PlayStation that gamers may expect additional benefits on Xbox and therefore influence their console of choice.

You can't make this shit up.

That's the point? It is a market tactics that works so they are rightfully worried that someone owning the entire publisher would abuse that power?

 

[SportsFan581]

The difference is that Sony has no control over Destiny remaining multi-platform while Microsoft could make Call of Duty console-exclusive whenever it desires.

Why is that exactly? Because so far they've said so?

 

[The_Mike]

Who are people??
You clearly know what has been publicly stated by PlayStation as to what the deal for CoD would be. Existing contract + 3 years. Period.
Why do you think everyone is having this whole back and forth if the game won't go exclusive at the end of this generation?

People on this forum.

I read more people saying it would be stupid for Microsoft to make it exclusive as they need the money back, than saying it will be exclusive.

And yes I am aware of what they have stated. They haven't directly said that it will be exclusive, but will be on playstation for at least three more years.

Yeah I also believe people in here are fucking stupid for not believing call of duty won't be exclusive. I believe it will, but people keep putting up the reason with Minecraft not being exclusive after the acquisition so I kinda have my doubts on what will happen.

 

[Tripolygon]

But if Microsoft does it if they promise the regulators otherwise it will prevent them, or make it harder for them to acquire companies in the future.

And I don't think Microsoft is for short term.

You can't pinky promise which is what Microsoft is doing. You have to make legally binding concessions.

 

[Tripolygon]

Why is that exactly? Because so far they've said so?

Because that appears to be their terms for buying Bungie. Bungie remains independent.

 

[GHG]

Streaming is not proven market still after what like more than 7 years of launch ? so how they can base their concern here in market have not been proven.
Companies saying streaming is the future but companies also said VR is next big thing and after 10 years that big thing still have not arrived, Streaming could be a success or failure or what VR today in market which is nothing.

Well the thing is, nobody knows what the future holds so all potential avenues and outcomes will be considered.

 

[twilo99]

Bethesda, then Activision, who says they'll stop?

Who says they wouldn't?

 

[onesvenus]

Your GOW example only proves my point. GOW didn't sell 120M copies

So you don't understand what potential customers are but keep talking about them. Gotcha.

 

[Three]

Think that the issue of potential customer is such a subjective thing that I haven't really thought about it too much. I can see the argument both ways, the fact that you can access xcloud via basically most browser does complicated things.

What's the baseline?

Not sure what the baseline is but I think not many people have an interest in cloud streaming and more people who had an interest in the franchise (Hellblade 2) no longer can play it due to console removal. The potential cloud streaming customers who can play it is lower since they had no interest in it prior either even with low barriers (Hellblade 1 available on GFN and xcloud). The proof is in the pudding as they say.

 

[Coloress_Kafka]

Except no other console manufacturer raised their prices and the one that did happened to be the same one raising prices in multiple cases elsewhere.

Also, Hoeg explained in detail how companies regularly test the market power by raising prices incrementally and seeing if it affects their marketshare negatively. If it doesn't then it's a testiment to their market power and they can do it again, rinse and repeat; there's a term for this that he said that I don't remember.

Trying to pretend that "legitimate economic pressures happening on a global scale" makes this statement "massively tone deaf" when 99.9% of other home consumer electronic devices are not having their prices raised reeks of corporate apologism.

Of the other console manufacturers, there's Microsoft which obviously has the cash reserves to mange it and Nintendo which refuses to lower the price of the Switch after 5 years of being on the market.

It's clear Nintendo is artificially keeping the Switch price the same to make more profit as component costs have obviously declined in 5 years. There could easily be an extra $100 of savings they could pass on to the consumer if they wished.

Also it's not true that other consumer electronic prices haven't been increasing. Apple raised the price across the board on the iPhone in the UK, Japan, Australia and other foreign markets, the same markets as Sony did with the PS5.

It has nothing to do with being an apologist, it has everything to do with being rational about what's happening on a global economic scale.

 

[twilo99]

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.

Everyone sounds so sure about that, which is exactly when they get proven wrong.

Sony has very strong lobbying in certain countries, including the US, so just keep that in mind.

 

[Three]

So you don't understand what potential customers are but keep talking about them. Gotcha.

I do, you dont. what stops every single person on the planet being a potential customer? The answer is interest.

 

[KingT731]

This process has been so funny because both Sony & MS are being facetious. Sony yelling doom and gloom and MS saying they suck at everything and need the deal to compete.

 

[phil_t98]

Who are people??
You clearly know what has been publicly stated by PlayStation as to what the deal for CoD would be. Existing contract + 3 years. Period.
Why do you think everyone is having this whole back and forth if the game won't go exclusive at the end of this generation?

Do you think destiny will still be a thing in its currant form in 6 years?

 

[Roberts]

I think I will go invent a time machine, go into the future so that I don't have to read this shit anymore. And then play a few unplayed CoD games on GP.

 

[DForce]

Twitter is not a source. Opinions are not facts.

It's sad that I even need to say that but this is how we arrive at a place where people are willing to run with false narratives to such a degree that they've been willing to get banned here for it.

They're so close to using a tweet from Colteastwood.

 

[Torrent of Pork]

Who says they wouldn't?

They have no reason not to when the bean counters are looking at the liquid cash reserves being devalued on a daily basis by inflation. Gaming has long since overtaken the entire rest of the entertainment industry combined in revenue, and everybody wants a slice.

We're balls-deep in what I predicted almost a year ago that cash-heavy corporations are going to be making crazy purchases to get that rapidly-depreciating cash off their balance sheets while it still has value.

 

[sainraja]

People on this forum.

I read more people saying it would be stupid for Microsoft to make it exclusive as they need the money back, than saying it will be exclusive.

And yes I am aware of what they have stated. They haven't directly said that it will be exclusive, but will be on playstation for at least three more years.

Yeah I also believe people in here are fucking stupid for not believing call of duty won't be exclusive. I believe it will, but people keep putting up the reason with Minecraft not being exclusive after the acquisition so I kinda have my doubts on what will happen.

You're not impartial, the furthest from being that.

So, no surprise that you have seen "more people" saying it would be stupid for MS to make it exclusive.

Many people, majority most likely, believe that MS will make it exclusive at some point. The question always has been of the 'when' and the only reason there has been some debate over COD vs Destiny in regards to exclusivity, is because both Sony/Bungie started from clarity by stating upfront what they will do with their current and future franchises (Sony agreed to the terms presented to them by Bungie). Your bias shows over and over again, no matter how much you try to hide it (or you aren't lol).

And here is the real kicker, the statement you are latching on, the one where people have said "it would be stupid of MS to make it exclusive" does not actually say that a person thinks MS will or won't do something. It is just highlighting the person's opinion that it would be stupid of MS to do so, leaving room for them to acknowledge that in a scenario, that could definitely happen BUT it'd be a stupid move.

 

[FalsettoVibe]

Do you think destiny will still be a thing in its currant for on 6 years?

You got some typos in there but I think you are asking will it still be a thing in 6 years?
I don't what Destiny will be in 6 years. I do know that Bungie is an independent company.

 

[FalsettoVibe]

You're not impartial, the furthest from being that.

So, no surprise that you have seen "more people" saying it would be stupid for MS to make it exclusive.

Many people, majority most likely, believe that MS will make it exclusive at some point. The question always has been of the 'when' and the only reason there has been some debate over COD vs Destiny in regards to exclusivity, is because both Sony/Bungie started from clarity by stating upfront what they will do with their current and future franchises (Sony agreed to the terms presented to them by Bungie). Your bias shows over and over again, no matter how much you try to hide it (or you aren't lol).

This...lol. I didn't even want to respond initially because it's like talking to a brick wall. Being a fan is one thing, being completely blind to factual information is another.

 

[skit_data]

Yeah, looking at the arguments from Sony I don't see how any potential concessions will be made due to them.

It's entirely possible there will be concessions made to grease the deal on the cloud/mobile/subscription front though.

 

[Ansphn]

I know I'm feeding the troll but, Game Pass was the innovation in response to shifting the gaming market. They're completely changing the landscape and Sony doesn't want the status quo changed, hence their opposition to cloud, Game Pass and losing CoD (which not only affects their revenue since they're so dependent on it but feeds Game Pass, so it's like taking two on the chin instead of one). Sony themselves said it would take many years and lots of money to be able to compete with XGP. Their words.

Innovating by paying indies to release games in their subscriptions? In what way is that bringing something new? Just look at the games they release on the subscription service. You guys are supporting a monopolizing move of the gaming industry by one of the biggest company in the world (Microsoft). Xbox is not releasing games, just buying up competition (30 studios) and huge publishers (Zenimax, Activision). Next is EA, Take2, and Ubisoft while Playstation and Nintendo releasing games.

 

[Three]

I wonder if the CMA are smart enough to see through MS' statement that the PS has an "install base" of 150 million vs Xbox's "install base" of 63.7 million. it completely ignores the fact that it combines legacy sales.

PS4 sales 10 yrs ago mean nothing if your PS5 sales are to people replacing PS4s. What's your active install base compared to the competition in the UK currently? that's what the CMA should ask for. They were gloating about market share gains and selling mainly to non-xbox customers recently. You don't do that if you don't think it's important.

 

[elliot5]

I wonder if the CMA are smart enough to see through MS' statement that the PS has an "install base" of 150 million vs Xbox's "install base" of 63.7 million. it completely ignores the fact that it combines legacy sales.

PS4 sales 10 yrs ago mean nothing if your PS5 sales are to people replacing PS4s. What's your active install base compared to the competition in the UK currently? that's what the CMA should ask for. They were gloating about market share gains and selling mainly to non-xbox customers recently. You don't do that if you don't think it's important.

what? That's the PS4 + PS5 install base aka actively supported users. Sony is still actively putting out PS4 titles + PS4 titles will come from 3rd party for the next two years probably. As mentioned in the filings with Brazil and UK, brand loyalty is a real thing and it's likely Sony will continue to have a massive install base as people upgrade from PS4 to PS5.

 

[reksveks]

I wonder if the CMA are smart enough to see through MS' statement that the PS has an "install base" of 150 million vs Xbox's "install base" of 63.7 million. it completely ignores the fact that it combines legacy sales.

Not sure MS would have the data to answer your question in the second paragraph .

Maybe cma could ask both MS and Sony for that data

 

[SlimySnake]

I wonder if the CMA are smart enough to see through MS' statement that the PS has an "install base" of 150 million vs Xbox's "install base" of 63.7 million. it completely ignores the fact that it combines legacy sales.

PS4 sales 10 yrs ago mean nothing if your PS5 sales are to people replacing PS4s. What's your active install base compared to the competition in the UK currently? that's what the CMA should ask for. They were gloating about market share gains and selling mainly to non-xbox customers recently. You don't do that if you don't think it's important.

Well, its not even about the install base TODAY. It's about what would happen to the install base AFTER the acquisition. CoD is played by HALF of the console playerbase. If Sony loses HALF of the 150 million, they are down to 75 million and if MS gains that Sony half, they literally switch places. Yes, Sony is first and MS is at third place TODAY but they switch places in one fell swoop.

Not to mention the fact that this would effectively nerf Sony's entire business. Assuming they lose 30% of their userbase, thats their entire profit margin. That means they would have to downscale their entire business. Which means fewer first party releases. Fewer third party exclusives. Fewer investment in consoles. We've seen what happened to Nintendo. They went from selling 150 million DS and 100 million Wiis to just selling 120 million Switches. A lost of 130 million units in just a little over 10 years. They literally had to bow out of the console business and their AAA output has been a shell of what it used to be. Zelda and Mario in 2017 were their last AAA games. They simply cant afford to release AAA games on a regular basis.

MS says they are in third place. No. Nintendo is a non factor. CoD hasnt been on Nintendo since Black Ops 2 in 2012. This is a battle for second place and the install base is 150+63 million which will completely switch the moment cod goes exclusive. There is so much deception in MS's comments, it's frustrating.

 

[HeisenbergFX4]

 

[Ozriel]

What in the actual f* man

That's the standard response to most of his arguments

 

[KingT731]

This has always been the case with CoD. People got it on the 360 because it got map packs etc 21-28 days earlier.

 

[DeepEnigma]

I wonder if the CMA are smart enough to see through MS' statement that the PS has an "install base" of 150 million vs Xbox's "install base" of 63.7 million. it completely ignores the fact that it combines legacy sales.

PS4 sales 10 yrs ago mean nothing if your PS5 sales are to people replacing PS4s. What's your active install base compared to the competition in the UK currently? that's what the CMA should ask for. They were gloating about market share gains and selling mainly to non-xbox customers recently. You don't do that if you don't think it's important.

So going by the rough final numbers of last gen that were announced... MS is saying they only sold 13m (or less) XS consoles and claim Sony sold 30m+ PS5s? And is this admitting CoD will be cross-gen forever much like sports games?

They know this works, it's why MS did the deal on the 360 and had the player base %/software sales in their favor even when both systems themselves were neck and neck sales wise.