Support NeoGAF

[adamsapple]

Read the document linked above. Sony aren't the only ones responding to the CMA for comment during their investigation, far from it.

People seeing this as simply "Microsoft vs Sony" are failing to see it for what it really is as far as the CMA are concerned.

Others are responding and CMA (and EU and any other regulatory body) should/would be reaching out to other parties as well.

But we've already received comments from EA, Take 2 recently that they're OK with the sale to go through.

I don't see any reason Meta would have any issue.

The only other entity besides Sony that may have objections are Google.

 

[bluecowboys]

Others are responding and CMA (and EU and any other regulatory body) should/would be reaching out to other parties as well.

But we've already received comments from EA, Take 2 recently that they're OK with the sale to go through.

I don't see any reason Meta would have any issue.

The only other entity besides Sony that may have objections are Google.

Honestly, I don't even know why google would have any concerns. They didn't fail because Microsoft is making these purchases. Most of Bethesda games were already on Stadia to begin with. They had the capital to invest and they didn't.

 

[Darsxx82]

Nothing you are saying applies to this. CMA asked for Sony's opinion. Sony gave it. They made no demands.

You definitely show ignorance of legal and legal terms...

The CMA is not asking for an simple opinion, it is asking Sony and other parties to express whatever is of interest to them.
The letter that Sony sends as a response are its assessments based on which it makes its request or plea for the CMA not to approve the agreement between MS-ACTV. Legally and juridically it is a request. There's no more.

In fact, if the matter goes to court, Sony could be called as a party to the lawsuit just because of its opposition brief to the merger sent to the CMA.
if the matter goes to court, Sony could be called as a party to the lawsuit just because what Sony responds to the CMA has legal consequences that could later be used in Court.

 

[DeepEnigma]

My fault falling into Twitter warrior stuff using the word demands before I actually read the wording.

Its still funny though Sony basically saying we are afraid MS will do what we are doing right now

There is much more to it than that isolated social media gacha war.

Go to the document GHG linked and search 'content' ... there is far more to it that was elaborated on.

 

[RubberedDucky]

Microsoft going out acquiring Activision and more publishers wouldn't be a monopoly?

If you guys want to be taken seriously, then you should start being honest with yourselves.

What's great for the industry is keeping the game multiplat, not taking a game from a user base over 100 million.

You should look up the definition of monopoly before speaking down to others. The FTC defines this clearly, and Microsoft buying A/B doesn't qualify.

 

[GHG]

Others are responding and CMA (and EU and any other regulatory body) should/would be reaching out to other parties as well.

But we've already received comments from EA, Take 2 recently that they're OK with the sale to go through.

I don't see any reason Meta would have any issue.

The only other entity besides Sony that may have objections are Google.

This is normal when it comes to things like this, some parties will be ok with it, some indifferent and some opposed. For example there were some chip companies that were ok with Nvidia/Arm. Where it got messy is that in some jurisdictions certain chip companies seemed to be in supportive but then those same companies went and expressed concerns in other regions. The types of questions being asked matter.

Until we get details of the questions being asked and the responses from various parties it's impossible to understand anyone's position outside of the information already published.

 

[IFireflyl]

But we've already received comments from EA, Take 2 recently that they're OK with the sale to go through.

Do you have sources for this? This is the first I've heard of that.

 

[Darsxx82]

No request is being endorsed. What are you even talking about? Sony are also not the only party that have expressed concerns regarding the deal.

LOL.
Who are the other parties apart from Sony that have expressed opposition to the acquisition?

Google? This has only expressed some concern but certainly no opposition or request that it not be approved.

All the rest directly say that they do not see any problem for competition in the market or directly give their approval.

But I think it's you who hasn't read the text or you definitely haven't wanted to understand it.

 

[RubberedDucky]

Do you have sources for this? This is the first I've heard of that.

Here's one: https://www.gamesindustry.biz/take-two-ceo-says-microsoft-activision-acquisition-a-good-thing

 

[DForce]

You should look up the definition of monopoly before speaking down to others. The FTC defines this clearly, and Microsoft buying A/B doesn't qualify.

You should read my posts before replying.

 

[Topher]

You definitely show ignorance of legal and legal terms...

That makes two of us. Regardless, no one is using the word demand or requirement here in legal terms.

 

[Neofire]

No, it doesn't make it a monopoly. Exclusivity to a few ganmes isn't the same as having a monopoly of the industry.

If they bought Sony and Nintendo then we'd be talking monopoly.

The ActiBliz purchase probably wouldn't even give them number 1 market share.

The industry is not COD.

And Activision Blizzard doesn't just own the CoD IP lol. If they were ONLY getting the CoD IP most probably wouldn't give a damn. I'm 100% sure Activision Blizzard isn't one of the largest (if not the largest) developers just because of CoD.

 

[IFireflyl]

Here's one: https://www.gamesindustry.biz/take-two-ceo-says-microsoft-activision-acquisition-a-good-thing

This actually made me laugh.

"We're certainly of the belief that it's a good thing for Microsoft and for the industry," Zelnick said. "We're in favor… It's a highly fragmented business and there's plenty of room for creativity to go around. Microsoft is an ally of ours, and if this makes their business more powerful, we think that's good for us."

Zelnick acknowledged that Microsoft and Activision Blizzard games may compete with Take-Two's in one way, but added that every game needs to stand alone in a way that outweighs concerns about competition.

So essentially it's good for Take-Two because they can use their partnership with Microsoft to plan the best route to release their games so as not to directly compete like they have been doing. So, it's anti-competitive.

 

[GHG]

LOL.
Who are the other parties apart from Sony that have expressed opposition to the acquisition?

Google? This has only expressed some concern but certainly no opposition or request that it not be approved.

All the rest directly say that they do not see any problem for competition in the market or directly give their approval.

But I think it's you who hasn't read the text or you definitely haven't wanted to understand it.

You're still responding to me in a state of ignorance while there's a whole 76 page document waiting for you to delve into. "LOL" indeed.

 

[adamsapple]

Do you have sources for this? This is the first I've heard of that.

Sure. It's not like in a formal venue answering CMA, but these are the public statements they've made when asked.

Microsoft's Call of Duty acquisition could be great for Battlefield

Microsoft's acquisition of Activision Blizzard has drawn the attention of the entire games industry, and EA's boss looks to be in full support of the deal, saying that it could be a "tremendous opportunity" for Battlefield.

www.trueachievements.com

"In a world where there may be questions over the future of Call of Duty and what platforms that might be on or might not be on," Wilson said. "Being platform agnostic and completely cross-platform with Battlefield, I think is a tremendous opportunity."

-

Take-Two CEO says Microsoft-Activision acquisition "a good thing"

As international anti-trust regulators examine Microsoft's proposed acquisition of Activision Blizzard, Take-Two CEO St…

www.gamesindustry.biz

"We're certainly of the belief that it's a good thing for Microsoft and for the industry," Zelnick said. "We're in favor… It's a highly fragmented business and there's plenty of room for creativity to go around. Microsoft is an ally of ours, and if this makes their business more powerful, we think that's good for us."

 

[Darsxx82]

That makes two of us.

Thanks for quoting an expression error. It says a lot about where the discussion is on your part

Regardless, no one is using the word demand or requirement here in legal terms.

It is not necessary, by nature and for legal purposes they are... It is what you should know. .

 

[xHunter]

Others are responding and CMA (and EU and any other regulatory body) should/would be reaching out to other parties as well.

But we've already received comments from EA, Take 2 recently that they're OK with the sale to go through.

I don't see any reason Meta would have any issue.

The only other entity besides Sony that may have objections are Google.

They might be ok, but according to the newest document most of the competitors seems to be concerned about the deal going through:

But then again, i dont know why EA or Take2 would not be ok with this, since this deal would literally give them a shot at getting the shooter crowd.

So it makes sense that only competitors that actually have a storefront for multiplatform titles like sony or valve or epic would be against this deal.

 

[Topher]

Thanks for quoting an expression error. It says a lot about where the discussion is on your part

 

[Hero of Spielberg]

And Activision Blizzard doesn't just own the CoD IP lol. If they were ONLY getting the CoD IP most probably wouldn't give a damn. I'm 100% sure Activision Blizzard isn't one of the largest (if not the largest) developers just because of CoD.

The post I was responding to was discussing COD. Even with all the other IPs ActiBlizz own, acquiring them still wouldn’t come anywhere close to a monopoly.

 

[IFireflyl]

Sure. It's not like in a formal venue answering CMA, but these are the public statements they've made when asked.

Microsoft's Call of Duty acquisition could be great for Battlefield

Microsoft's acquisition of Activision Blizzard has drawn the attention of the entire games industry, and EA's boss looks to be in full support of the deal, saying that it could be a "tremendous opportunity" for Battlefield.

www.trueachievements.com

-

Take-Two CEO says Microsoft-Activision acquisition "a good thing"

As international anti-trust regulators examine Microsoft's proposed acquisition of Activision Blizzard, Take-Two CEO St…

www.gamesindustry.biz

Take-Two:

"We're certainly of the belief that it's a good thing for Microsoft and for the industry," Zelnick said. "We're in favor… It's a highly fragmented business and there's plenty of room for creativity to go around. Microsoft is an ally of ours, and if this makes their business more powerful, we think that's good for us."

Basically they're happy that this will reduce competition because they are already allied with Microsoft.

EA:

In a world where there may be questions over the future of Call of Duty and what platforms that might be on or might not be on, being platform agnostic and completely cross-platform with Battlefield, I think is a tremendous opportunity. – Andrew Wilson

They are also happy about potential reduced competition because Call of Duty's fate is unknown.

Both developers are happy about the merger because it's anti-competitive, and one of them is only talking about it being good because there is uncertainty with the franchise, and the could possibly grow by Microsoft doing what you said they won't do (which is making Call of Duty an Xbox exclusive title). Both of these are reasons against the merger, not for it. At least, from a consumer standpoint. I'm not sure why you're trying to mislead people into thinking that these companies think this merger is pro-consumer or pro-competition. They are both admitting that the reason this is good for them is because it is reducing competition. That's called anti-competitive, which is anti-consumer.

 

[adamsapple]

Both developers are happy about the merger because it's anti-competitive, and one of them is only talking about it being good because there is uncertainty with the franchise, and the could possibly grow by Microsoft doing what you said they won't do (which is making Call of Duty an Xbox exclusive title). Both of these are reasons against the merger, not for it. At least, from a consumer standpoint. I'm not sure why you're trying to mislead people into thinking that these companies think this merger is pro-consumer or pro-competition. They are both admitting that the reason this is good for them is because it is reducing competition. That's called anti-competitive, which is anti-consumer.

?

I said other publishers are OK with it and that seems to be the case. We haven't heard from Ubisoft recently but IIRC they were also one of the big names CADE contacted and they raised no objections to it either. What is or isn't 'good for the industry' is highly subjective and we'll probably not see eye to eye on it.

But objectively speaking, authorities will likely contact all major players in the industry for their investigations and they will likely get similar responses from them that they're OK with the acquisition as they don't see it being a detriment to consumers.

Basically they're happy that this will reduce competition because they are already allied with Microsoft.

That is just a generic statement, Take 2 doesn't have any kind of marketing partnership with MS for any of their projects. They'll probably say Sony are their allies too if asked.

 

[Topher]

My fault falling into Twitter warrior stuff using the word demands before I actually read the wording.

Its still funny though Sony basically saying we are afraid MS will do what we are doing right now

No worries. You certainly were not the one to send it down an armchair lawyer rabbit hole. I agree that Sony's argument is eyebrow raising, to say the least, considering the current state of COD.

LOL, this thread seems to be all about people taking whatever they want to hear and focusing on that. For example, the Brazilian document vs the CMA document.
1 thing for sure is there is going to be some crow to be eaten whenever this is all said and done. Possibly myself included.

I still think it will go through with little to no concessions

I'm sure it will still go through, but there have already been plenty of concessions as far as COD is concerned.

 

[Badlucktroll]

If i buy some activision blizzard stock, will it convert to 1x1 of microsoft shares? Or will i just get the amount of money i invested in microsoft shares (not pro-rated)

 

[Topher]

If i buy some activision blizzard stock, will it convert to 1x1 of microsoft shares? Or will i just get the amount of money i invested in microsoft shares (not pro-rated)

You'll get paid what the other stockholders have agreed to.

 

[DarkMage619]

If i buy some activision blizzard stock, will it convert to 1x1 of microsoft shares? Or will i just get the amount of money i invested in microsoft shares (not pro-rated)

I think your shares would get purchased for the price MS offered. That's why I invested.

 

[Timberwolf25]

I'm sure it will still go through, but there have already been plenty of concessions as far as COD is concerned.

What concessions have gone through? Nothing official from the deal that I've heard other than what MS offered Sony.

 

[BlitzerRadic]

That's what I think. How is this not a clear path for Sony to taking over the console space?

Some of y'all got no sense. Think about what you are saying. Do you believe magic tricks are real too??

 

[Topher]

What concessions have gone through? Nothing official from the deal that I've heard other than what MS offered Sony.

That's what I'm talking about. Microsoft is doing that in order to make sure the deal goes through. If you are talking about legally binding concessions then yeah, I'm not sure about that. After the deal is done I think Microsoft is going to have to hold to what they said they would do. CMA has shown they are not afraid to act post-acquisition.

 

[elliot5]

If i buy some activision blizzard stock, will it convert to 1x1 of microsoft shares? Or will i just get the amount of money i invested in microsoft shares (not pro-rated)

each share you own is exchanged for $95 to which you will be able to invest in whatever you want. it's cash on hand in your account.

 

[Hendrick's]

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 are merely stating facts. It's you who is injecting meaning into it.

 

[Neofire]

The post I was responding to was discussing COD. Even with all the other IPs ActiBlizz own, acquiring them still wouldn’t come anywhere close to a monopoly.

Who said anything about just them buying Activision Blizzard? Uncle Phil himself said they will be buying more developers. The job of the regulators is to stop a Monopoly not wait till the companies gain Monopoly status. Not only that they are supposed to make sure buyouts and mergers doesn't create an environment where it's difficult to compete for other businesses.

Just because Phil Spencer says "oh Sony can compete just fine" doesn't make that true.

 

[Banjo64]

I’m reading the full Phase 1 now.

I have to say, for a body that allegedly doesn’t know anything about gaming, they seem to have a more thorough understanding about gaming than anyone I’ve ever seen.

I wish the CMA would join GAF to be honest. They know their shit

 

[vj27]

If that doesn't include Sony then why are saying they tried to include Sony? I think that is exactly the contradiction the TheGodfather07 is talking about.

? Seems like you answered your own question. They tried and failed, were they supposed just say welp Sony said nah so cancel the android gamepass app and those cloud servers to.

Wasn’t there talks about having MCC on PlayStation? Think it was a rumor, either way MS are the only console makers that go out their way to put their games on other companies platforms. Bringing up past exclusivity is kinda moot when you’re doing the same thing everyone else is doing, WHILE being the only one actively publishing games multi platform. It ain’t contradictory.

 

[Hero of Spielberg]

Who said anything about just them buying Activision Blizzard? Uncle Phil himself said they will be buying more developers. The job of the regulators is to stop a Monopoly not wait till the companies gain Monopoly status. Not only that they are supposed to make sure buyouts and mergers doesn't create an environment where it's difficult to compete for other businesses.

Just because Phil Spencer says "oh Sony can compete just fine" doesn't make that true.

As I responded to the other poster, are they planning on buying Sony and Nintendo? Do both of those companies and all other publishers agree to be bought by MS? If not then your doomsday fantasy is nothing to worry about and has no bearing on anything.

 

[Topher]

? Seems like you answered your own question. They tried and failed, were they supposed just say welp Sony said nah so cancel the android gamepass app and those cloud servers to.

Didn't include Sony to tried and failed to include Sony. Got it.

 

[Gavon West]

Them looking and it possibly being difficult are two different things.
Literally everyone is looking......

Jesus Christ.

But I wasn't talking about everyone, was I? And do you know of Microsoft going after an acquisition and it not being a lock? Holy shit, they've only bought nearly 100 billion dollars in studios and devs in a few short years!

And, no. Not every one is looking.

 

[FalsettoVibe]

Jesus Christ.

But I wasn't talking about everyone, was I? And do you know of Microsoft going after an acquisition and it not being a lock? Holy shit, they've only bought nearly 100 billion dollars in studios and devs in a few short years!

And, no. Not every one is looking.

No need to get all flustered bro.

First part of my comment was about MS. Also, I'm not exactly sure what this comment has to do with your original post but I'll bite I guess.....
Are you saying that going forward, if MS goes "after an acquisition" it a lock simply because they've spent $100B in the last few years without fail? lol

That is literally one of THE major reasons going forward why they would fail. Just because MS wants to buy doesn't mean it's a lock.
Also, if you don't think all the major players in this industry are looking and keeping their options open, I don't know what to tell you.

 

[ManaByte]

 

[Aguero9320]

Fascinating that the CMA's entire thrust seems to be based around cloud gaming - very different to those who are adamant it will fail and no one wants it...

I can understand their concerns about Microsoft potentially being able to control that market, and as a Brit (albeit exiled) I understand that point of view, but the U.S. simply does not give a shit, and ultimately, the CMA will have to fall in line as this is a business transaction between two U.S. companies. This is the country that allows a truly terrible company like Comcast to have an actual monopoly on accessing the internet in vast swathes of the country after all. If that's the argument it's doomed to fail in the U.S.

I can see Microsoft offering some competitive pricing guarantees for competitors wanting to build rival services on Azure (in Europe) to get this waved through pretty quickly. There's really no legit reason to actually get in the way, and this is all just routine posturing IMO.

I will say though, attributing comments in legal briefs to either Spencer or Ryan is a poor indicator of their personal feelings - that's just lawyers going at it. I've been involved in some of those myself, and I occasionally read something that could easily be assumed to be my point of view that I personally consider to be way too strong, and you just have to roll with it They are professional arguers after all.

 

[ParaSeoul]

Microsoft emphasizes its own weakness compared to Sony in lengthy response to UK agency's report.​

Xbox has developed a novel tactic for defending its Activision Blizzard acquisition, which continues to wind its way through various regulatory bodies around the world: self-deprecation.

In response to claims by concerns raised by the UK's Competition and Markets Authority [CMA], Microsoft released a lengthy statement to GamesIndustry.biz calling the criticism is “unsupported” and pointing to PlayStation’s leading place in the market as a reason why.

"The suggestion that the incumbent market leader, with clear and enduring market power, could be foreclosed by the third largest provider as a result of losing access to one title is not credible,” Microsoft said in a statement.

While Microsoft didn't share figures, the company says that if every Call of Duty player on PlayStation's consoles switched to Xbox, "the PlayStation gamer base remaining would be significantly larger than Xbox."

"In short, Sony is not vulnerable to a hypothetical foreclosure strategy, and the Referral Decision incorrectly relies on self-serving statements by Sony which significantly exaggerate the importance of Call of Duty to it and neglect to account for Sony's clear ability to competitively respond," Microsoft’s statement said. "While Sony may not welcome increased competition, it has the ability to adapt and compete. Gamers will ultimately benefit from this increased competition and choice."

"Xbox, as a platform which is in last place in console, seventh place in PC and nowhere in mobile game distribution globally, has no incentive to do this – instead its incentive is to encourage the widespread adoption of cloud gaming technologies by as many providers as possible to encourage the major shift in consumer behaviour required for cloud gaming to succeed," the statement read.

Xbox Calls PlayStation Too Big to Fail Following UK Agency's Criticism of Activision Blizzard Deal - IGN

Xbox responded to the UK's Competition and Markets Authority report by touting Sony's strength, pointing to its willingness to increase PS5 prices as evidence of its "clear and enduring market power."

www.ign.com

 

[ParaSeoul]

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

Wonder if they said the same thing about the banks in 2009? ....

 

[GHound]

Microsoft emphasizes its own weakness compared to Sony

Company with a market cap less than 5% of our own is super stronk bro, y u mad?

 

[EDMIX]

Wonder if they said the same thing about the banks in 2009? ....

Beat me to it, came here to say the same thing lol

This back and forth is fucking hilarious. I get why both sides must say what they must say. MS needs to show that Sony is a giant and will remain even with the buy of Activision, Sony must illustrate that COD is massive part of Playstation if it means one of those markets not oking the deal.

Though very, very unlikely, it would be silly not to try. I don't now what would be a bigger story, MS buying them, or Sony winning some argument in the UK to stop em or something lol That would be so weird.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

Beat me to it, came here to say the same thing lol

This back and forth is fucking hilarious. I get why both sides must say what they must say. MS needs to show that Sony is a giant and will remain even with the buy of Activision, Sony must illustrate that COD is massive part of Playstation if it means one of those markets no oking the deal.

It's hilarious, but also tiring at this point TBH. It feels like one long, extended VH1 celebrity drama reality show or some crap like that, I don't know how much more I can take xD.

And if it's true Sony are holding off on certain announcements or moves simply due to the ongoings of the acquisition, then that's just even more frustrating. I know this may sound extreme but I feel this acquisition is holding the industry hostage.

But yeah, you're right both companies have reasons for saying what they're saying; MS ironically making themselves look bad, Sony trying to make themselves look weak, all over COD. It's wild.

 

[TheGodfather07]

Nothing is too big to fail. Playstation has failed before. Yeah it won't outright die but they can lose significant marketshare. Especially when you take away key ip. Which is clearly microsofts goal here.

 

[Snowdonhoffen]

Damn with those statements, at this point MS is going to end up releasing sales numbers just to show they're behind the competition.

 

[EDMIX]

And if it's true Sony are holding off on certain announcements or moves simply due to the ongoings of the acquisition, then that's just even more frustrating. I know this may sound extreme but I feel this acquisition is holding the industry hostage.

True, I never really thought of that. They probably have some deal in the works or already done and just waiting to announce it lol

MS ironically making themselves look bad, Sony trying to make themselves look weak, all over COD. It's wild.

lol thats what you do in the divorce. Be like "your honor can I have a public defender? Cause I can't even support myself with a lawyer, does anyone have any cab fare" (quickly calls brother to hide trusted Pokemon Cards, Monica is not getting dat holographic Dark Raichu that fucking bitch) lol

 

[Three]

I am not sidestepping anything as I totally remember the PS3/360 COD days and a certain platform getting map packs 30 days early and such.

I am only bringing those things up because of the demands of Sony saying the Xbox hardware can't have an advantage not can Xbox give Gamepass players any type of benefits when Sony is doing they very thing they are arguing against

Not just the xbox 360 days but they had it during the cross gen period on xbox one because they still had the crossgen playerbase.

yes they both do this I agree and I agreed earlier, my point is Sony complaining that if Microsoft acquire Activision they could make content exclusive to xbox with call of duty and at the same time they putting tweets out about exclusive content or free levelling up for preordering on PS. massively hypocritical of Sony there

I think people misunderstand the argument. It's not that they are arguing against content nor have they demanded anything. They have only pointed out to the CMA that post merger these things might happen, where even though MS is still selling it on PS, MS might intentionally sell an inferior product and there is absolutely nothing they can do about it. They can't compete for that content or hardware interoperability anymore no matter what offer or dev support they were willing to give. The argument isn't against the content.

 

[ZehDon]

... "In short, Sony is not vulnerable to a hypothetical foreclosure strategy, and the Referral Decision incorrectly relies on self-serving statements by Sony which significantly exaggerate the importance of Call of Duty to it and neglect to account for Sony's clear ability to competitively respond," Microsoft’s statement said. "While Sony may not welcome increased competition, it has the ability to adapt and compete. Gamers will ultimately benefit from this increased competition and choice." ...

Seems like Microsoft are done pussy footing around these regulators curtailing to Sony's bullshit.