Support NeoGAF

[Bumblebeetuna]

No, yours was warrior BS.



If you used any common sense then you would realize that Call of Duty was a multiplatform game so it wasn't the main factor as to why one gamer picked one console over the other.

So then the CMA is wrong and Sony can compete without CoD?

 

[Markio128]

So then the CMA is wrong and Sony can compete without CoD?

Put the shoe on the other foot. Do you think MS could compete if COD wasn't on Xbox?

 

[DForce]

So then the CMA is wrong and Sony can compete without CoD?

The quote from zedinen doesn't reflect what was stated in the report.

It says it COULD weaken Sony and the possibility that it will significantly impact a person's decision moving forward.

Where in the report does it say Sony CANNOT without Call of Duty?

 

[Hestar69]

It's well within their right as a competitor to speak up against anti-competitive behavior to a regulatory agency.

And I'm sure Sony is putting a ton of money into their own FPS/Action games right now. Though I doubt we'll see much from Killzone. That being said, it'll probably take 3-5 years before we see the results of these games. But that is why they're working with Firewalk, the rumored Guerrilla Games shooter e.t.c.

Sony can also work with regulators to get concessions out of this deal, which is also within their rights.

So should microsoft speak up/whine as to why FF 16 and forspoken and other games being put only on ps?

I loved Killzone and Resistance but never played Socom... would be GREAT if Sony brought em back

Socom was amazing..I even loved the first one on ps3 and played the hell outta it!!


To the mods.Why did I get a warning for my post about sony needs to stop crying? "Inappropriate Behavior " I own all systems not a fanboy AT ALL and if you want proof I can show you. I've been playing Rift apart all week and love all 3 systems and pc. I just hate arrogant/whiny sony.

 

[GhostOfTsu]

Put the shoe on the other foot. Do you think MS could compete if COD wasn't on Xbox?

I'm so tired of them saying Sony dropped the ball making money from a game they didn't own when MS did the exact same. They depend on COD a lot more than Sony.

 

[bluecowboys]

Well call of duty is sonys number one cash cow, which is why Sony is working overtime for not losing it.

Call of Duty sell more on playstation than all your favorite Japanese games combined.

You'll be able to find many gamers outside Gaf who can't mention a single Japanese game, but every single gamer know what call of duty is.

Also, Sony can't compete without call of duty, because Sony has specialised in cinematic single player experiences, because they didn't have to make a multiplayer shooter thanks to call of duty.

Losing call of duty is as crucial to losing fifa.

Sony knows it, and its why Sony are working overtime on this.

World of Warcraft won't come to gamepass.
ESO plus isn't on gamepass either. Neither is fallout 1st.

Never say never. Microsoft needs to keep WOW alive and I can imagine including game pass would help it. Granted it is the biggest MMO but not as big as it once was.

 

[bender]

Socom was amazing..I even loved the first one on ps3 and played the hell outta it!!

R3 or L3 were used for reload. I died so many times online in firefights by accidentally reloading.

 

[adamsapple]

The quote from zedinen doesn't reflect what was stated in the report.

It says it COULD weaken Sony and the possibility that it will significantly impact a person's decision moving forward.

Where in the report does it say Sony CANNOT without Call of Duty?

Not sure if it's in the CMA report but it was directly said in the CADE reports earlier this year, Sony reps said that they cannot compete without CoD.

Never say never. Microsoft needs to keep WOW alive and I can imagine including game pass would help it. Granted it is the biggest MMO but not as big as it once was.

WoW coming to game pass will probably have a much more persistent and lasting impact than CoD.

 

[DForce]

Not sure if it's in the CMA report but it was directly said in the CADE reports earlier this year, Sony reps said that they cannot compete without CoD.

That's not what he's saying.

HE said the CMA said Sony cannot compete WITHOUT CoD, meaning Sony will not be competitive going forward without CoD on their platform.

 

[Hestar69]

R3 or L3 were used for reload. I died so many times online in firefights by accidentally reloading.

couldnt you customize your contorls? I forgot it's been so long.Still have my copy,sucks the servers are down tho.

 

[bender]

couldnt you customize your contorls? I forgot it's been so long.Still have my copy,sucks the servers are down tho.

I don't really remember tbh. I think it had control sets but I'm not sure it was fully remappable.

 

[bluecowboys]

That's not what he's saying.

HE said the CMA said Sony cannot compete WITHOUT CoD, meaning Sony will not be competitive going forward without CoD on their platform.

That is a bull face lie. First off, call of duty vanguard sold around 30 million copies across ALL platforms. PS4 sold over a 100 million consoles. So even if all the call of duty players switch to Xbox ( not probable) PlayStation will still be ahead.

Second, look at Nintendo. Switch is the most successful console out right now and never had call of duty. And don't even try to say they are not competition.

If the switch didn't exist both Xbox and PlayStation sales would go up since there would be less options. Not to mention switch is getting a lot of third party support and games that doesn't even come to PlayStation or Xbox.

Lastly, call of duty is going to remain on PlayStation and it is coming to the Switch. Sony is just scared of game pass changing the industry and Sony doesn't want change. They don't want to compete and offer consumers a better choice. They want to charge gamers 80 dollars for video games.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

So should microsoft speak up/whine as to why FF 16 and forspoken and other games being put only on ps?

Socom was amazing..I even loved the first one on ps3 and played the hell outta it!!


To the mods.Why did I get a warning for my post about sony needs to stop crying? "Inappropriate Behavior " I own all systems not a fanboy AT ALL and if you want proof I can show you. I've been playing Rift apart all week and love all 3 systems and pc. I just hate arrogant/whiny sony.

Speak up/whine about something they do themselves?

Not getting your point here.

 

[DForce]

That is a bull face lie. First off, call of duty vanguard sold around 30 million copies across ALL platforms. PS4 sold over a 100 million consoles. So even if all the call of duty players switch to Xbox ( not probable) PlayStation will still be ahead.

Second, look at Nintendo. Switch is the most successful console out right now and never had call of duty. And don't even try to say they are not competition.

If the switch didn't exist both Xbox and PlayStation sales would go up since there would be less options. Not to mention switch is getting a lot of third party support and games that doesn't even come to PlayStation or Xbox.

Lastly, call of duty is going to remain on PlayStation and it is coming to the Switch. Sony is just scared of game pass changing the industry and Sony doesn't want change. They don't want to compete and offer consumers a better choice. They want to charge gamers 80 dollars for video games.

READ the comments.

This is just embarrassing at this point.

 

[Hestar69]

Speak up/whine about something they do themselves?

Not getting your point here.

I'm saying Xbox should complain about how sony's keeping final fantasy and other games off xbox

 

[IFireflyl]

Not sure if it's in the CMA report but it was directly said in the CADE reports earlier this year, Sony reps said that they cannot compete without CoD.

That's not exactly what was said:

Sony told the CADE that while AAA games on Call of Duty's production scale can come from a few other companies such as itself, EA, Take-Two, or Epic Games, none of them could replicate Call of Duty. The PlayStation maker thinks Call of Duty's fanbase is so entrenched that even if another publisher made a similar game, it couldn't reproduce the Call of Duty brand.

Sony also thinks an exclusive Call of Duty would affect customers' console choice. The company admits the series is one of the largest sources of revenue from third-party publishers on PlayStation but redacts the exact numbers, so it isn't clear how much money Sony could lose if it lost Call of Duty.

They could still compete with Microsoft in gaming, but they wouldn't be able to compete in the FPS arena and (according to Sony) they would likely lose customers who are loyal to the Call of Duty brand to Microsoft/Xbox.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

I'm saying Xbox should complain about how sony's keeping final fantasy and other games off xbox

And what about the inverse?

 

[Menzies]

And what about the inverse?

The inverse doesn't ascribe the context of the market realities though. This is the whole point. Sony can secure favourable terms, on the cheap, to get Final Fantasy exclusivity on PlayStation. The reality is such that they probably don't have to pay for much of anything at all for many JRPG's, which are ultimately gifted as exclusives. For Xbox to get the same deal, they would have to pay considerable overs, if at all. Why would Microsoft complain about timed exclusivity otherwise?

 

[Mibu no ookami]

The inverse doesn't ascribe the context of the market realities though. This is the whole point. Sony can secure favourable terms, on the cheap, to get Final Fantasy exclusivity on PlayStation. The reality is such that they probably don't have to pay for much of anything at all for many JRPG's, which are ultimately gifted as exclusives. For Xbox to get the same deal, they would have to pay considerable overs, if at all. Why would Microsoft complain about timed exclusivity otherwise?

What about when Tomb Raider was exclusive on Xbox?

 

[Menzies]

I know it's been brought up previously, but I just need to pause and re-assert how laughable the regulators are in this industry by reading their own issues statement.

We are worried about "detrimental impacts to rivals", "substantial lessening of competition" specifically CoD and the "network effects" with CoD offered on "unequal terms".

Like say, sitting back and letting the outright market leader do exactly just that, with exclusive marketing, content and early access, and then deny any attempt to course correct competition the other way. They have actively played a role for the unfair competition that Sony enjoys by their own admissions, whilst they've sat on their hands and idly watched go by for half a decade.

 

[DForce]

I know it's been brought up previously, but I just need to pause and re-assert how laughable the regulators are in this industry by reading their own issues statement.

We are worried about "detrimental impacts to rivals", "substantial lessening of competition" specifically CoD and the "network effects" with CoD offered on "unequal terms".

Like say, sitting back and letting the outright market leader do exactly just that, with exclusive marketing, content and early access, and then deny any attempt to course correct competition the other way. They have actively played a role for the unfair competition that Sony enjoys by their own admissions, whilst they've sat on their hands and idly watched go by for half a decade.

What's laughable is comparing time-exclusive deals to buying an entire publisher and taking games away from a platform completely.

 

[Menzies]

What about when Tomb Raider was exclusive on Xbox?

Exactly. Microsoft had to pay $100 million dollars for a single year worth of exclusivity. More than that, the gaming mob insisted that they know the details of the exclusivity deal against the normal opaqueness of such deals, that we are currently seeing with say, FF VII.

If you were basically paying the cost of the studio for 1 year exclusivity, it would register that the strategy shift to acquisitions instead.

 

[Menzies]

What's laughable is comparing time-exclusive deals to buying an entire publisher and taking games away from a platform completely.

Can I pay tickets to see this smoking gun that you've seen?

They've said repeatedly that they want to keep Call of Duty on PlayStation.

 

[Hero of Spielberg]

What's laughable is comparing time-exclusive deals to buying an entire publisher and taking games away from a platform completely.

Jim Ryan should just allow Gamepass on PS then. Games stay on the platform, problem solved

 

[Topher]

Jim Ryan should just allow Gamepass on PS then. Games stay on the platform, problem solved

Game Pass on PS was always a red herring. That was never something offered in earnest. It doesn't even make any sense.

Can I pay tickets to see this smoking gun that you've seen?

They've said repeatedly that they want to keep Call of Duty on PlayStation.

Well, Starfield was definitely going to be on PlayStation. They never got around to announcing platforms but there was talk of it being a timed exclusive.

 

[DForce]

Can I pay tickets to see this smoking gun that you've seen?

They've said repeatedly that they want to keep Call of Duty on PlayStation.

It was a bad comparison.

Sony had marketing deals for years and that didn't stop Call of Duty from appearing on Xbox.

 

[bender]

The inverse doesn't ascribe the context of the market realities though. This is the whole point. Sony can secure favourable terms, on the cheap, to get Final Fantasy exclusivity on PlayStation. The reality is such that they probably don't have to pay for much of anything at all for many JRPG's, which are ultimately gifted as exclusives. For Xbox to get the same deal, they would have to pay considerable overs, if at all. Why would Microsoft complain about timed exclusivity otherwise?

Do you have any sort of data points to back these claims?

I do agree that if the offers are equal, the 3rd party is going with the platform holder that has the largest market share in the pertinent territories but thinking they are going to gift exclusivity seems naïve as there is an opportunity cost equal to user base of minority platform holder. More true today than ever as both platforms are so similar to one another which requires a lower development effort for cross platform support.

 

[Menzies]

It was a bad comparison.

Sony had marketing deals for years and that didn't stop Call of Duty from appearing on Xbox.

Re-read my post. I've boldened and enlarged my point here.

 

[Hero of Spielberg]

Game Pass on PS was always a red herring. That was never something offered in earnest. It doesn't even make any sense.



Well, Starfield was definitely going to be on PlayStation. They never got around to announcing platforms but there was talk of it being a timed exclusive.

? If it was offered it was offered. If their complaint is that these games going to Gamepass means they won't be on their platform then you've got to bite the bullet or cop the fact they won't be on your platform Sony keep the games, MS get their clip as the owners of the IP, makes sense to me.

 

[Topher]

? If it was offered it was offered. If their complaint is that these games going to Gamepass means they won't be on their platform then you've got to bite the bullet or cop the fact they won't be on your platform Sony keep the games, MS get their clip as the owners of the IP, makes sense to me.

That might hold some water if these games were only ever allowed on store fronts that had Game Pass, but factually every Xbox game is on Steam so that theory is simply false.

 

[Menzies]

Well, Starfield was definitely going to be on PlayStation. They never got around to announcing platforms but there was talk of it being a timed exclusive.

I don't know how I can comment on something that was never announced.

I do believe that there was never any clear messaging after the Zenimax acquisition regarding exclusivity. There was definitely mixed messaging. Doesn't appear to be the case surrounding Call of Duty to me, anyway.

Do you have any sort of data points to back these claims?

I do agree that if the offers are equal, the 3rd party is going with the platform holder that has the largest market share in the pertinent territories but thinking they are going to gift exclusivity seems naïve as there is an opportunity cost equal to user base of minority platform holder. More true today than ever as both platforms are so similar to one another which requires a lower development effort for cross platform support.

No, I'm not an insider or speaking from any authority on the matter. However, reasonable minds would think, as you have that the sheer gulf in market dominance in certain regions dictates the terms of such deals. I fly loose with definitions here "gifted" = not anywhere near $100 million dollars, far, far from it. Where the inverse would be prohibitively expensive.

 

[DForce]

Re-read my post. I've boldened and enlarged my point here.

I read it perfectly the first time.

No one in their right mind would compare time exclusive/marketing deals to owning a publisher and removing it from another platform.

The fact that Xbox gamers keep bringing this up only proves they're struggling to find anything compariable.

 

[Hero of Spielberg]

That might hold some water if these games were only ever allowed on store fronts that had Game Pass, but factually every Xbox game is on Steam so that theory is simply false.

What difference does it make if they're on Steam as well? Jimbo needs them on PS otherwise they'll fold apparently. So then, accept the offer or cop it … or beg and plead to the CMA by the sounds of things.

 

[Menzies]

I read it perfectly the first time.

No one in their right mind would compare time exclusive/marketing deals to owning a publisher and removing it from another platform.

The fact that Xbox gamers keep bringing this up only proves they're struggling to find anything compariable.

Then you would have completely missed the point I'm stressing, which is not the hypothetical that you keep throwing out.

I'm using their issue statement phrases about how they are seemingly agreeing with Sony, about the importance of 'genre-defining' Call of Duty, not losing access, but losing equal terms access. Equal terms being things such as exclusive content and early access perhaps?

 

[Topher]

I don't know how I can comment on something that was never announced.

I do believe that there was never any clear messaging after the Zenimax acquisition regarding exclusivity. There was definitely mixed messaging. Doesn't appear to be the case surrounding Call of Duty to me, anyway.

Use common sense. Starfield would have been on PlayStation had MS not acquired Bethesda. Come on. That's not a hard leap to make.

I agree that the messaging sucked with Bethesda and has been much clearer with COD. And I, for one, think Microsoft is going to do what they said. The PR backlash of yanking COD would be massive.

What difference does it make if they're on Steam as well?

Because Steam doesn't have Game Pass but the games are there. If it isn't a requirement for Steam then it shouldn't have to be a requirement for Playstation. Works both ways.

 

[Hero of Spielberg]

Use common sense. Starfield would have been on PlayStation had MS not acquired Bethesda. Come on. That's not a hard leap to make.

I agree that the messaging sucked with Bethesda and has been much clearer with COD. And I, for one, think Microsoft is going to do what they said. The PR backlash of yanking COD would be massive.



Because Steam doesn't have Game Pass but the games are there. If it isn't a requirement for Steam then it shouldn't have to be a requirement for Playstation. Works both ways.

And? MS are allowed to make different deals with different companies, they shouldn't have to be beholden to a deal they make with one competitor to another. Again, if having these games on PS is so crucial to their survival then don't block the deal on offer.

This argument might work for 5 year old siblings arguing over toys, but you have to accept in the world of business you can't just expect to get the same deal as someone else.

 

[Topher]

And? MS are allowed to make different deals with different companies, they shouldn't have to be beholden to a deal they make with one competitor to another. Again, if having these games on PS is so crucial to their survival then don't block the deal on offer.

This argument might work for 5 year old siblings arguing over toys, but you have to accept in the world of business you can't just expect to get the same deal as someone else.

That's all fine. Then just call it like it is. Microsoft offered a bullshit deal that they knew full well Sony would never accept simply so they can say they made an offer. I'm good with that.

 

[Menzies]

Use common sense. Starfield would have been on PlayStation had MS not acquired Bethesda. Come on. That's not a hard leap to make.

I agree that the messaging sucked with Bethesda and has been much clearer with COD. And I, for one, think Microsoft is going to do what they said. The PR backlash of yanking COD would be massive.

Of course Starfield was going to be on PlayStation. What point are we arguing here? That Microsoft once inferred Starfield was not exclusive and then back-tracked? Again, show this smoking gun if you have it.

 

[Three]

I have several thoughts on what the CMA has put forward here, purely as an armchair analysis and a person ignorant of their review process. I just don't follow some of their position and framing, such as; -

• What is the reasonable prognostication term for reviewing these deals i.e., are they looking 10 years, 20 years or longer into the future here?
• Is it reasonable for the CMA to default take the position that Microsoft will succeed in cloud streaming, where so many others have failed? And review this deal on those terms?
• Is it reasonable to review this deal on markets that haven't even established themselves and, in all likelihood, take the wind from their sails and lose all momentum?
• Is it reasonable to overlook consumer pricing benefits?

Would love to see the ledger balance sheet that they have to weigh up their prediction likelihood and net pros and cons here.

I think for me, (and hopefully the CMA), this review has highlighted the need for more of an invasive regulatory review within the industry, outside of only acquisitions.

Basically, what I'm seeing is the whole world is fine for Micrsoft to take that $70 billion dollars and use it to secure every single AAA third-party game as an exclusive for the next 10 years with zero interference. And this is fine, because it's one-off deals(?).

The reason one off deals are not scrutinised by regulators is because it's 2 independent parties acting with separate best interests who regulators cannot tell what to do. Want to spend $75M to secure GTA4 dlc? You are pumping money into the industry and the third party can use it to fund GTA5 for all competitors. Want to go fund SF5? fine you are pumping money into an independent company for the development of SF6. It's third parties acting in their own best interest. Start to buy all the publishers and IP though and you are pumping money into yourself, it's the self interest of one entity to the detriment of competition. Cartels operate in the same fashion even though independent. Consumers may not like either buyouts or third party moneyhats but at least the latter is an independent vertical company with self serving interests at the end of the day. One which doesn't stop competition making whatever offers between other parties.

The CMA have used internal documents from MS, ABK, and third parties for cloud gaming and multigame subscriptions. It's the companies themselves saying they are going to succeed with cloud and multigame subs overtaking consoles.

As for pricing benefits. The CMA are absolutely for pricing benefits but pricing benefit can have bad intentions which is what they look at. Predatory pricing is another 'pricing benefit' but it benefits nobody. The CMA saw internal MS documents that there is a possible foreclosure strategy, most of them redacted unfortunately. It could be as simple as increasing prices once the competition is not competitive anymore.

For the time period this looks at, that's a little more murky. I suspect "long term" is for whatever period the projections would still hold statistically outside of unpredicted market disruptors.

I commend the regulators for looking at every aspect of the industry cloud, subs, console and the fact that they have even brought up OS is amazing. I still maintain that a console future with Steam Machines failed mostly due to SteamOS not being competitive back then. The consoles were capable of running games like COD and FIFA but couldn't officially. A console that couldn't play most games even though it was technically capable. They had less then 10% game compatibility with their own walled garden store. the alternative was to go buy a windows license. It completely killed its chances as a price competitive easy to use console.

 

[Hero of Spielberg]

That's all fine. Then just call it like it is. Microsoft offered a bullshit deal that they knew full well Sony would never accept simply so they can say they made an offer. I'm good with that.

Well, that's business. The only reason PlayStation were never going to take it is on them. You can't just piss and moan that you don't like the 'bullshit' deal you're offered and expect another one just because it works better for your business.

PlayStation aren't the first business to have to accept an offer they'd rather not and they sure as well won't be the last.

Some people seem to think that it's MS responsibility to offer the market leader a leg up in this deal because it's 'unfair' to do otherwise.

 

[DForce]

Then you would have completely missed the point I'm stressing, which is not the hypothetical that you keep throwing out.

I'm using their issue statement phrases about how they are seemingly agreeing with Sony, about the importance of 'genre-defining' Call of Duty, not losing access, but losing equal terms access. Equal terms being things such as exclusive content and early access perhaps?

I didn't miss anything.

We are worried about "detrimental impacts to rivals", "substantial lessening of competition" specifically CoD and the "network effects" with CoD offered on "unequal terms".

You don't quote these parts and back away from them.

They all have to do with removing COD from the platform completely which will result in the things above.

 

[Topher]

Of course Starfield was going to be on PlayStation. What point are we arguing here? That Microsoft once inferred Starfield was not exclusive and then back-tracked? Again, show this smoking gun if you have it.

Doesn't need to be a smoking gun. This isn't a trial. I think CMA can see through what happened with Bethesda just like we can. It is a factor.

Well, that's business. The only reason PlayStation were never going to take it is on them. You can't just piss and moan that you don't like the 'bullshit' deal you're offered and expect another one just because it works better for your business.

PlayStation aren't the first business to have to accept an offer they'd rather not and they sure as well won't be the last.

Some people seem to think that it's MS responsibility to offer the market leader a leg up in this deal because it's 'unfair' to do otherwise.

I'm with you there. Just like Microsoft whining about Sony "blocking" games from Game Pass. It is just business.

 

[Hero of Spielberg]

Doesn't need to be a smoking gun. This isn't a trial. I think CMA can see through what happened with Bethesda just like we can. It is a factor.



I'm with you there. Just like Microsoft whining about Sony "blocking" games from Game Pass. It is just business.

Agreed. It sure is.

 

[Menzies]

I didn't miss anything.



You don't quote these parts and back away from them.

They all have to do with removing COD from the platform completely which will result in the things above.

Mate, I'm really not interested in talking around each other and you re-framing the whole point of my post to mean something you want it to mean.

This is not about removing CoD from the platform completely. The regulator goes beyond that with their concerns with the phrasing "on equal terms".

 

[DForce]

Mate, I'm really not interested in talking around each other and you re-framing the whole point of my post to mean something you want it to mean.

This is not about removing CoD from the platform completely. The regulator goes beyond that with their concerns with the phrasing "on equal terms".

Mate, I'm literally pointing out what the regulators are saying and telling you how you misinterpreted. Still, you don't use those quotes and then misrepresent them.

 

[Menzies]

Mate, I'm literally pointing out what the regulators are saying and telling you how you misinterpreted. Still, you don't use those quotes and then misrepresent them.

 

[Three]

The inverse doesn't ascribe the context of the market realities though. This is the whole point. Sony can secure favourable terms, on the cheap, to get Final Fantasy exclusivity on PlayStation. The reality is such that they probably don't have to pay for much of anything at all for many JRPG's, which are ultimately gifted as exclusives. For Xbox to get the same deal, they would have to pay considerable overs, if at all.

Sony can only secure favourable terms based mainly on their game sales on the platform. Xbox would need to do a better job at selling JRPGs but it's a self fulfilling cycle. They were given that opportunity with FF13 onwards on 360 which was competitive but failed to establish the userbase.

Why would Microsoft complain about timed exclusivity otherwise?

Have MS even complained about any timed deals? I feel this is just xbox fans and their whataboutisms doing it. MS themselves do timed exclusivity and wouldn't openly complain about them. The only thing they have brought up is weirdly Spiderman which they have no hand in.

 

[//DEVIL//]

Lol. this to me sounds like CMA are a bunch of Sony fanboys from these points alone. Why the fuck you care if gamers could switch to Xbox? why you do not want them to? 75% to 25% dominance is towards the Playstation. Why do you want to keep it like that? whoever wrote that needs a dildo shoved up his @$$ .

Worried about some gamers switching when xbox is dead last out of this console race. everyone is beating them. the only console they outsold is a fucking stadia. and you are worried some gamers will switch to Xbox? GTFO you need to be fired ASAP.

 

[Topher]

whoever wrote that needs a dildo shoved up his @$$ .

 

[Menzies]

The reason one off deals are not scrutinised by regulators is because it's 2 independent parties acting with separate best interests who regulators cannot tell what to do. Want to spend $75M to secure GTA4 dlc? You are pumping money into the industry and the third party can use it to fund GTA5 for all competitors. Want to go fund SF5? fine you are pumping money into an independent company for the development of SF6. It's third parties acting in their own best interest. Start buy all the publishers and IP though and you are pumping money into yourself, it's the self interest of one entity to the detriment of competition. Cartels operate in the same fashion even though independent. Consumers may not like either buyouts or third party moneyhats but at least the latter is an independent vertical company with self serving interests at the end of the day. One which doesn't stop competition making whatever offers between other parties.

The CMA have used internal documents from MS, ABK, and third parties for cloud gaming and multigame subscriptions. It's the companies themselves saying they are going to succeed with cloud and multigame subs overtaking consoles.

As for pricing benefits. The CMA are absolutely for pricing benefits but pricing benefit can have bad intentions which is what they look at. Predatory pricing is another 'pricing benefit' but it benefits nobody. The CMA saw internal MS documents that there is a possible foreclosure strategy, most of them redacted unfortunately. It could be as simple as increasing prices once the competition is not competitive anymore.

For the time period this looks at, that's a little more murky. I suspect "long term" is for whatever period the projections would still hold statistically outside of unpredicted market disruptors.

I commend the regulators for looking at every aspect of the industry cloud, subs, console and the fact that they have even brought up OS is amazing. I still maintain that a console future with Steam Machines failed mostly due to SteamOS not being competitive back then. The consoles were capable of running games like COD and FIFA but couldn't officially. A console that couldn't play most games even though it was technically capable. They had less then 10% game compatibility with their own walled garden store. the alternative was to go buy a windows license. It completely killed its chances as a price competitive easy to use console.

Thanks for taking the time to reply here.

Yep, it's just all a bit like the wild west, or better yet (Cartels), while making complimentary deals for mutual benefit, but any time acquisitions come up its latex gloves and leg spread examinations.

A hypothetical scenario, where this deal is blocked and a determined Microsoft hell-bent on market share, could see deals of such, where even the staunchest Xbox fans would be bewildered as to how they can get away with it. Is there seriously no case for regulation outside of acquisitions?

Well, I don't think Microsoft have internal documents showing how cloud gaming and multigame subscriptions are shit plans not worth pursuing lol - the regulator should(?) still make their own determination about why Microsoft is going to succeed where so many others have failed here.