Microsoft / Activision Deal Approval Watch |OT| (MS/ABK close)

Do you believe the deal will be approved?


  • Total voters
    886
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
Was Sony Justified in refusing GP on PlayStation?
Sony already has their own game subscription on PS, it wouldn't make sense to put their direct competitor there and specially if they want to do it not paying Sony the 30% and not publishing some of these MS games on PS.

No third parties, just first party catalogue, Sony take 30% of all PS Game Pass subscriptions.
Sony could accept this, if in addition to this the games are also sold in retail and in PSN.
 
Last edited:
No, they would make more money with their own sub services.
Yes . The game pass condition on PlayStation should be limited to only the games on Xbox only . Games owned by MS studios.

There are many ways they can come up with an agreement .

Hell maybe an a weird deal lol no more Xbox console and we will give you game pass on our system . Imagine that ? MS didn't like hardware as much as software and licenses .

Sony is just ignorant and just flat out refused
 
They would .. if they get a cut since it's on their platform . 30% or something from doing nothing but having the app on their platform ..
Instead of just banking 100% of the profits from their own offerings without having to compete in their own ecosystem.


patrick-star-dumb.gif
 
Last edited:
Hot Take:
Microsoft will not release another traditional console as we know it but only a streaming stick and a controller.
Gamepass will also be available everywhere (Steam, PlayStation, etc...)

Probably not, but if that happen, I'll quote myself in a few years and feel proud of myself for an hour.
MS was trying to release online-only consoles a decade ago. What you mention is not that weird. I just think it's not next gen that's happening. Cloud gaming won't be there yet.

Gamepass won't be on Playstation. Sony has NOTHING to gain from that.
 
Does MS think that this is somehow surprising or a point in their favour of getting their ACTVIBL deal accepted?

Does MS sincerely think that any right-minded person with even half a brain cannot see why Sony would reject this absurd offer? If so, some of the folks at MS are either delusional or wholly disingenuous.
 
They would .. if they get a cut since it's on their platform . 30% or something from doing nothing but having the app on their platform ..

Defeats the entire purpose of a closed ecosystem. I'm not hearing any talk of Microsoft offering to let PS+ Extra/Premium on Xbox and for good reason. It makes no sense.

There are many ways they can come up with an agreement .

Hell maybe an a weird deal lol no more Xbox console and we will give you game pass on our system . Imagine that ? MS didn't like hardware as much as software and licenses .

Sony is just ignorant and just flat out refused

No way that is a serious take. You forgot the /s though
 
Last edited:
Yes . The game pass condition on PlayStation should be limited to only the games on Xbox only . Games owned by MS studios.

There are many ways they can come up with an agreement .

Hell maybe an a weird deal lol no more Xbox console and we will give you game pass on our system . Imagine that ? MS didn't like hardware as much as software and licenses .

Sony is just ignorant and just flat out refused
Nah, Playstation has already its own Sub service, no need for more sub services. If MS want to release their games on Playstation then just go for it Sony will allow it just like they allow other 3rd party games, and they will sell very well i'm sure. But they can keep their gamepass and subs stuffs for Xbox only. MS need to stop forcing their Gamepass on everything and understand not everyone is interested on this thing.
 
[GI.Biz]: Could the UK regulator end Microsoft's acquisition of Activision Blizzard? | Opinion
The Competition and Markets Authority can be hard to predict.
The UK's Competition and Markets Authority is the wildcard in Microsoft's bid to acquire Activision Blizzard. Whereas you can make educated guesses on what the US and EU regulators might do, the CMA has made some big and surprising decisions since the UK exited the European Union.

This is because the group now has more powers to look at a broader range of mergers and acquisitions, which would have previously only been seen by the European Commission. As a result, the CMA blocked three deals from taking place over the last year, the highest it's ever prohibited. This included Facebook/Meta's acquisition of Giphy. The CMA also blocked the high-profile merger of Sainsbury's and Asda in 2019, which shows it's unafraid to get in the way of some of the biggest deals.

When it comes to the digital economy, the CMA has been paying close attention to the increasing dominance of players such as Google, Meta and Amazon, and has talked extensively at the importance of competition and innovation in the digital world. In other words, Microsoft is right to be anxious over what the CMA might do in terms of its proposed acquisition of Activision Blizzard. And it's why both Microsoft, and its chief competitor Sony, have devoted so much time and energy into reacting and counter-reacting to what's going on in the UK.

So much of the focus around the Activision Blizzard acquisition has been on Call of Duty, and whether it might become exclusive to Xbox consoles. Microsoft insists it won't do that, and that even if it did, it wouldn't suddenly make them a dominant player in the market. In fact, according to its calculations, Sony would still operate the world's most popular games console even without Call of Duty.

Sony disagrees. But regardless of which side of the debate you fall on, the CMA's concerns go deeper than just whether one console is likely to defeat the other. Because the regulator also talks about the potential harm that might happen should Call of Duty be exclusive to Microsoft's subscription service (Game Pass) and streaming service (Xbox Cloud Gaming).

This is likely to alarm Microsoft, because although it may intend to release Call of Duty on PlayStation consoles going forward, it almost certainly has no intention of putting the game into Sony's PS Plus service, or to allow the game to be streamed via a competitor. Xbox leader Phil Spencer has frequently talked up Microsoft's potential in game streaming by citing 'Content, Cloud and Community', which he says are the three things you need to launch a successful streaming service.

Community refers to large groups of engaged players, which Microsoft has through Xbox, PC and – potentially – Call of Duty. Cloud is about the technology needed to deliver such an experience, and Microsoft is one of the biggest providers of cloud services in the world (namely through Azure). And finally, and most importantly, it's about 'Content', which are the games that will drive players to the service. Microsoft has a strong line-up of games already, and with Activision Blizzard, would add some of the biggest titles in the world to that roster.

Microsoft is really the only company that tickets all three of those 'Cloud, Community and Content' boxes. Google and Amazon also operate big cloud services, and they have access to large gaming communities via the likes of YouTube and Twitch, but they are lacking in content. PlayStation and Nintendo have some big games, but are having to use other cloud partners for its technology (including Microsoft's Azure). Whereas Valve has a significant audience, plus a plethora of developer partners, but it's lacking when it comes to regular first-party content.

There are other potential players in this space, including publishers and investors such as Embracer and Tencent. But ultimately, if the industry does pivot towards streaming and subscriptions (as it has in movies and music), it's not hard to imagine that Microsoft might emerge as a clear leader in this space.

But could it dominate at the expense of strong competition? It's certainly a formidable offering.

But you can also argue that although Microsoft has a big gamer community, it's not (currently) on the same scale as Valve or PlayStation. Yes, Microsoft operates its own big cloud service and that will provide some advantages, but it isn't essential. After all, Netflix and Disney Plus – two of the biggest TV streaming services – don't operate their own cloud system (they use Amazon's service). And as for games, although you don't get much bigger than Call of Duty or World of Warcraft, there are other massive brands out there. Granted, most of them are third-party and are therefore non-exclusive, but Sony is investing heavily in its franchises and new IP (including more than ten live service titles). Meanwhile, Nintendo has some pretty massive game IPs, should it decide to go down such a route.

Yet before all of that, there's no guarantee that subscriptions and streaming are the future of games. Streaming games is far more complicated and intensive than a CD or movie, and the experience isn't currently good enough. And how successful can subscriptions become when so many of the big games are either free-to-play or unavailable – most major AAA publishers have confined their activity to just putting older games into these services.

It's tempting to compare what's going on in games to music and TV, but the size of games, the time people spend on them, their interactivity and even the current market dynamics are wildly different. The idea that people will access and pay for Call of Duty in the same way they access and pay for Stranger Things is by no means a given. The future of the games industry is hard to predict even for us who live and breathe it, let alone for someone like the CMA. Yet the organisation will be trying to look at where the industry is heading, and ultimately whether Microsoft's buy-out of Activision Blizzard has the potential to limit competition and innovation in the future.

In Microsoft's response to all that, it described the concerns as 'novel and without precedent'. Which are four words that can somewhat sum up the CMA itself.
 
Nah, Playstation has already its own Sub service, no need for more sub services. If MS want to release their games on Playstation then just go for it Sony will allow it just like they allow other 3rd party games, and they will sell very well i'm sure. But they can keep their gamepass and subs stuffs for Xbox only. MS need to stop forcing their Gamepass on everything and understand not everyone is interested on this thing.

they allow EA and Ubisoft's sub service. why would you not want the option to play elder scrolls, fable, starfield, forza, etc?
 
MS was trying to release online-only consoles a decade ago. What you mention is not that weird. I just think it's not next gen that's happening. Cloud gaming won't be there yet.

Gamepass won't be on Playstation. Sony has NOTHING to gain from that.
Can be a lower tier version of GP with Microsoft exclusives.
Cancel Think About It GIF by John Crist Comedy
 
obviously lol xD did they really go to sony with that idea?
That would be one great conversation. Want to have the video xDD
 
If Sony allowed game pass on playstation I'd sell my xbox, why have an xbox when you can play everything on playstation. That's why they should do it.
 
Gamepass (native) wouldn't make any sense. That means that all of their games need to have a PS version. That means that Bethesda need to start developing a version of StarField for the PS5 (they might still have it somewhere).

The only thing that could happen is cloud access and only with Xbox first party games. Both MS and Sony offer the same third party games in their sub service.

Why are people even make a big deal out of something Microsoft said that they want? We know by now that they want their shit on every device with a screen in the world. It looks like gaining new subs for their service isn't going fast enough.
 
Why would they allow Gamepass on PlayStation? That would be like asking Microsoft to allow PlayStation Plus Premium on Xbox. It's a complete non-starter.
 
Microsoft was on the side of letting Epic sell stuff on IOS. Looks like they want the concept of Console to go away.
Looks like we may be getting Steam and Epic on the xbox soon.
 
Of course they would get a percent of each game pass subscription
How would this work though? I go and buy a years subscription of GPU on the MS store. I go on a PS5 6 months later and log in? What now? How would they get a percentage in this model? The only way is if you tie purchases to the console but we all know how that turned out with people complaining about Fortnite.
 
Fair Trade practice protects competition. It scrutinises deal which will weaken its competitors and have massive impact on its revenue.

Just because you can afford it, doesn't mean you are allowed to buy that, if you are a business. This isnt same as an individual. A distinction most here cant really grasp at.

This deal is disastrous for the industry and has potential to weaken its competitors. Largest fanbase of the said company is on the competitor platform and the commission will take the consumer interest also in consideration.

There is a reason why Apple is being forced into putting USB type C chargers on iphone.
 
What's MS next desperate move? Going full 3rd party to be accepted inside their master's lap? Cancelling consoles and going 100% cloud? If that happens I think Sony won't mind a 30% cut from every transaction there, driving the subscription to around $230/year vs PS+ Extra $100/Premium $120.
 
It would be interesting to know exactly what Microsoft proposed. If they said to Sony, we want to provide Game Pass (with whatever cut they both agree on) on PlayStation (and we will continue to publish all our games on your platform for purchase) and Sony turned that down, then Sony made the wrong call. They have subscription services from EA/Ubisoft+ on their system already.

If they [MS] simply said, let us put Game Pass on PlayStation so your player-base has access to our games (no cut, no purchase option) then as a business, it would be stupid of Sony to agree to such a deal.

What's MS next desperate move? Going full 3rd party to be accepted inside their master's lap? Cancelling consoles and going 100% cloud? If that happens I think Sony won't mind a 30% cut from every transaction there, driving the subscription to around $230/year vs PS+ Extra $100/Premium $120.
I don't know MS's end goal here but they can have their own console and become a full 3rd party publisher which will give them a lot of leverage in pushing Game Pass on other ecosystems. There is no rulebook saying they can't do that.
 
Last edited:
Why? Sony would have just lost the money they made on Fifa sales from the PS store because of this back door. What would be the point of a console (walled garden) then?
Right. I was saying that MS would have an invested interest in Sony.

Things I think everyone can agree on:
  • Gamepass is the #1 reason to buy an Xbox.
  • Worldwide, Playstation sells far more consoles than Xbox.
  • MS would sell many more subscriptions being available on Playstation.
  • If Gamepass and MS exclusives were on PS5, their would be no reason to own a Series X.
So if all the above is true and MS put Gamepass (and it's exclusives) on Playstation, they would rely on Sony to provide the platform for a large chunk of the subs. Meaning the ball would be in Sony's court giving them leverage on what could be on the subscription or not (Fifa).
 
Right. I was saying that MS would have an invested interest in Sony.

Things I think everyone can agree on:
  • Gamepass is the #1 reason to buy an Xbox.
  • Worldwide, Playstation sells far more consoles than Xbox.
  • MS would sell many more subscriptions being available on Playstation.
  • If Gamepass and MS exclusives were on PS5, their would be no reason to own a Series X.
So if all the above is true and MS put Gamepass (and it's exclusives) on Playstation, they would rely on Sony to provide the platform for a large chunk of the subs. Meaning the ball would be in Sony's court giving them leverage on what could be on the subscription or not (Fifa).
I see where you are coming from but I don't think it would play out to the point where sony could influence what comes to gamepass even with more PS sales. MS wouldn't have a vested interest in Sony doing well. Their only interest would be marketing and reach to a wider audience of gamers for their sub. Not to mention they could very easily embrace and extinguish with this strategy. Somebody buys a PS5 and subscribes to gamepass, they buy fewer games. They rely heavily on MS' ecosystem now, gamepass for the games and MS cloud for their game saves, access on their phone etc. PS6 and Xbox Series Y comes out and MS don't offer gamepass on PS6 anymore. What would that person do do you think?
 
Last edited:

You['re entitled to your opinion. There's absolutely no reason to get triggered over this.

And at the exact same time, the Sony CEO said:

https://www.videogameschronicle.com...-step-forward-in-becoming-more-multiplatform/

Unless you believe Sony plans to bring their games to Xbox, it's clear that Sony's definition of 'multiplatform' most likely does not include xbox.

I'm not saying Bungie doesn't intend to be multiplatform or to keep putting games on Xbox, but don't hang on to that pledge like it's gospel. There's also nothing legally binding Bungie from going full exclusive.

It wouldn't surprise me to learn that their live-service games plan to come to Xbox just for that extra micro-transaction money. But again, I'm looking at Bungie's history as a studio and what they got fed up with in past mergers/acquisitions. You're assuming that Bungie didn't have a contractual agreement that prevents Sony from forcing them to make multi-platform games. I suppose I'm assuming differently, but only because that was a major contention and Bungie was burned once before (by Microsoft). I don't think they're morons, but they would have to be to go back to being under someone's thumb again.

No doubt Sony purchased Bungie due to their exceptional knowledge of live service games. Sony wanted their expertise and their technology. It allows Sony to get their other live service games to market faster than if they were trying to build the tech from the ground up. That's why Bungie was able to command a price of $4 Billion. I agree with all of that.

I do not believe that Bungie is fully independent within Sony. A few snippets from the PR after the acquisition doesn't outline their entire relationship. If Bungie craps the bed and a big budget game they make bombs do you think Sony is just going to say "oh well, these things happen" and just forget it?

I sincerely believe that Sony will allow Bungie to have freedom to make the games they want to make as long as those games meet earnings expectations. If they don't I believe Sony will absorb the parts of Bungie that were the basis of the acquisition and divest themselves of the rest. I believe this because of past experience. When DriveClub was struggling Shawn Layden told the press that he supported how Evolution Studios was handling the game. Then Sony laid off a chunk of the studio and tried to make DriveClub a live service game. When that didn't work Sony closed the studio.

It's not an agenda, it's an observation. Bungie games can bring in lots of money. If they do then they will enjoy a great future with Sony. If their future games don't make money I feel there's a good chance that Bungie as we know it becomes a platform support team and their game development people are let go. Just my opinion.

I'm way more on board with this response than your original response. This post was thoughtful. I still disagree, but more amicably than before. Neither of us knows for certain since we don't have access to the contracts they signed. I don't think Bungie would have been foolish enough to sign an agreement with Sony that gives Sony massive amounts of control over them. They did this once before with Microsoft and they absolutely hated it. But sometimes stupid decisions are made, and its possible you're right. Only time will tell us for certain.
 
the way microsoft talk about reaching as many people as possible sounds like they really want to just be publisher and get the hell out of having their own hardware. if your a subscripton and service company, than it makes no sense to have your own hardware when you can put those services on much more popular products and open it up to so many more people and gain so many more subscribers as a result. having your own hadware is a barrier to microsoft right now. they want their subscription available on more devices.
 
Hot Take:
Microsoft will not release another traditional console as we know it but only a streaming stick and a controller.
Gamepass will also be available everywhere (Steam, PlayStation, etc...)

Probably not, but if that happen, I'll quote myself in a few years and feel proud of myself for an hour.

It could only be on PS and Steam if it's a first party only tier (ex : EA Play, Ubisoft+), and most likely would have to sell native versions of their games on the PS Store and Steam store too.

MS end game isn't 'GanePass everywhere'.

It's 'GamePass everywhere on MS terms'.

They're not a charity. They're as much interested in having a walled garden as any platform holder.
 
Last edited:
Microsoft are smart in this regard.

We all laugh at how stupid it is and it would never be possible. But regulators are probably stupid and doesn't know shit about gaming, being like

"oh so they try but Sony blocks".

Making a loophole to Sony declining something they can't approve, saying its on sonys end.
 
Microsoft is like a time traveler trying to show a caveman how to make fire and the caveman gets keeps putting it out or getting scared and running away

Don't throw the gamepass rock away sony! bad sony!
207-prometheusandbob.gif
 
Microsoft are smart in this regard.

We all laugh at how stupid it is and it would never be possible. But regulators are probably stupid and doesn't know shit about gaming, being like

"oh so they try but Sony blocks".

Making a loophole to Sony declining something they can't approve, saying its on sonys end.

In that case, Sony is smart for making the case that Microsoft will be able to take advantage of Call of Duty in the same way Sony does now?
 
Microsoft is like a time traveler trying to show a caveman how to make fire and the caveman gets keeps putting it out or getting scared and running away

Don't throw the gamepass rock away sony! bad sony!
207-prometheusandbob.gif

In the gif the caveman is crushing the time traveler with the rock so....

Bored Gilligans Island GIF by TV Land Classic
 
Last edited:
Fair Trade practice protects competition. It scrutinises deal which will weaken its competitors and have massive impact on its revenue.

The goal should be to block deals that damage a competitors ability to compete in the market, not to worry about what deals may hurt the top dogs bottom line. Competition, almost by definition when used in a business sense, is the ability for another company to gain market position (almost always hurting the bottom line of competitors in the same field). Thus, forcing competitors to compete more aggressively themselves. CoD simply isn't as important to Sony as they let on, Nintendo has been just fine without it, as was Steam when they couldn't distribute the title.
 
I see where you are coming from but I don't think it would play out to the point where sony could influence what comes to gamepass even with more PS sales. MS wouldn't have a vested interest in Sony doing well. Their only interest would be marketing and reach to a wider audience of gamers for their sub. Not to mention they could very easily embrace and extinguish with this strategy. Somebody buys a PS5 and subscribers to gamepass, they buy fewer games. They rely heavily on MS' ecosystem now, gamepass for the games and MS cloud for their game saves, access on their phone etc. PS6 and Xbox Series Y comes out and MS don't offer gamepass on PS6 anymore. What would that person do do you think?
Solid point. I'm sure some would jump ship but obviously not all. And that means less subscriptions for MS.
I think MS is more worried about subscription numbers than hardware numbers at this point.
 
Right. I was saying that MS would have an invested interest in Sony.

Things I think everyone can agree on:
  • Gamepass is the #1 reason to buy an Xbox.
  • Worldwide, Playstation sells far more consoles than Xbox.
  • MS would sell many more subscriptions being available on Playstation.
  • If Gamepass and MS exclusives were on PS5, their would be no reason to own a Series X.
So if all the above is true and MS put Gamepass (and it's exclusives) on Playstation, they would rely on Sony to provide the platform for a large chunk of the subs. Meaning the ball would be in Sony's court giving them leverage on what could be on the subscription or not (Fifa).
If MS proposed that with profit sharing and making their games available then I have to say, turning that down is a bit short-sighted by Sony.
 
Microsoft are smart in this regard.

We all laugh at how stupid it is and it would never be possible. But regulators are probably stupid and doesn't know shit about gaming, being like

"oh so they try but Sony blocks".

Making a loophole to Sony declining something they can't approve, saying its on sonys end.

Exactly, MS perfectly knew that Sony will never accept GP on PS, but they have tried and now they have an extra card in their deck.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom