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.
And what about the inverse?
I think it's trash when xbox does it aswell. like you said with tomb raider and I thnk they paid for GTA 4 DLC for a year was it? But atleast those came to ps eventually ff7r and ff16 will never come to xbox and I have friends who are die hard ff fans but don't/can't spend 500 on a new console for one game.
 
OCHXdIa.png

In the Phase 1 Decision, the CMA found that there was a realistic prospect of an SLC in gaming consoles (together with their digital storefronts) as a result of the Merged Entity engaging in foreclosure strategies such as (i) making Activision content unavailable on rival consoles (ie exclusive to Xbox), (ii) making Activision content available for release on rival console gaming platforms at a later date compared to Xbox (ie timed exclusivity), (iii) degrading the quality of Activision gaming content available to rival console gaming platforms, (iv) making features or upgrades of Activision games unavailable to other console gaming platforms (ie content exclusivity), and/or (v) raising the wholesale price of Activision content on rival consoles' gaming platforms

They know about content exclusivity and the "equal terms" is not what you think it is.

Sony's existing contractual protections (from existing arrangements with Activision) would not undermine Microsoft's ability to engage in partial or total foreclosure because (i) they may not account for all the possible foreclosure mechanisms that could be available to the Merged Entity, (ii) they could be renegotiated or terminated early, and (iii) they may not be enforced depending on the respective parties' respective bargaining positions

They're fully aware of Sony's current contract agreement.
 
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.
I agree (to an extent lol). It does seem bizarre that the CMA think that losing COD is going to swing the tide that far and even if it did, how that would be a bad thing for competition and consumers.

That's why ultimately I think this deal goes through relatively unscathed. Obviously it's a big deal and do the CMA have to 'do their job' so far as listening to potential concerns. But when their expected downsides of the deal are do detatched from reality, I can't imagine them holding firm on preventing the deal progressing.
 
They know about content exclusivity and the "equal terms" is not what you think it is.



They're fully aware of Sony's current contract agreement.
Yep, thanks for re-enforcing my point?

The haven't acknowledged in the slightest about Sony's existing contract in the context of PlayStation as market leader, and their own admissions as CoD being bigger than Ben Hur.
 
I think it's trash when xbox does it aswell. like you said with tomb raider and I thnk they paid for GTA 4 DLC for a year was it? But atleast those came to ps eventually ff7r and ff16 will never come to xbox and I have friends who are die hard ff fans but don't/can't spend 500 on a new console for one game.

The Xbox brand launched with Munch so these types of deals are as old as that platform. And that's not me saying Sony isn't just as guilty.

I agree (to an extent lol). It does seem bizarre that the CMA think that losing COD is going to swing the tide that far and even if it did, how that would be a bad thing for competition and consumers.

For a multi-player game, a smaller overall userbase would be a negative for consumers. /$0.02
 
The Xbox brand launched with Munch so these types of deals are as old as that platform. And that's not me saying Sony isn't just as guilty.



For a multi-player game, a smaller overall userbase would be a negative for consumers. /$0.02

All the more reason for PS to put Gamepass on their platform then. For the players!

But it would also result in Sony needing to be more price competitive, potentially invest in new multiplayer IP to replace COD. I personally think it would be a net benefit for consumers.
 
Last edited:
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.
What did this have to do with my post? Is world of Warcraft on playstation?

No, then how can it affect Sony's income on call of duty? I'm talking about call of duty is the game Sony earns most on, and that's why they work overtime blocking the deal.

World of Warcraft is still the biggest mmorpg, but we all know its not the reason why they buy Activision so it's irellevant from my post.


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

I just don't believe they put wow on gamepass. Neither eso plus and fallout first is on gamepass.
 
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.
Tl: dr: Sony is dominant owning almost the entire console market.

The acquisition of Activision Blizzard could make Microsoft competitive, making Sony invulnerable.

Sony is dominating every competition, which is our number one priority, giving the acquisition big concerns for us.
 
Do PlayStation gamers really want a pissed off MS with almost $69B in investments already earmarked for the gaming division suddenly freed up, and essentially given the greenlight by regulators to follow Sony's exact business practices? $69B buys a lot of timed exclusives, and smaller devs. I could also see a very pissed off ABK who's investors just got screwed out of an inflatable rescue slide as the stock price tanks.

Don't threaten me as somebody who never played a single COD game with a good time, EA would be a nice main course with another $20B in smaller investments for an appetizer.
 
Do PlayStation gamers really want a pissed off MS with almost $69B in investments already earmarked for the gaming division suddenly freed up, and essentially given the greenlight by regulators to follow Sony's exact business practices? $69B buys a lot of timed exclusives, and smaller devs. I could also see a very pissed off ABK who's investors just got screwed out of an inflatable rescue slide as the stock price tanks.

Don't threaten me as somebody who never played a single COD game with a good time, EA would be a nice main course with another $20B in smaller investments for an appetizer.

Xbox was founded on those exact business practices.
 
Xbox was founded on those exact business practices.
I remember, every player in the game still active bought their way into the industry. Sony did everything in it's power to drive both Sega and Nintendo out of the industry 20 odd years ago though strategic exclusively agreements, and Nintendo only survived by not competing anymore. MS spent an absurd amount of money buying their way into the industry back before it didn't eclipse the rest of the entertainment industry combined.

I'm talking about Sony's old business practices, being the big massive corp swinging their dick around willing to burn truckloads of cash to secure exclusively deals for individual games. $68B is a lot of cash to buy up goddamn near everything of note for a few years even if you have to pay a premium for the lesser install base.

Now we have the rest of the gen where Xbox gets most big games for a year through moneyhatting, pissed off ABK investors who know Sony cost them their golden parachute, and more smaller purchases of devs for GamePass.
 
Last edited:
"256. Microsoft submitted that having Azure does not give it a material advantage that it
can leverage to improve its gaming offering"

Also Phil Spencer 2 years ago:

"When you talk about Nintendo and Sony, we have a ton of respect for them, but we see Amazon and Google as the main competitors going forward," Spencer said. "That's not to disrespect Nintendo and Sony, but the traditional gaming companies are somewhat out of position. I guess they could try to re-create Azure, but we've invested tens of billions of dollars in cloud over the years."
 
Last edited:
I have friends who are die hard ff fans but don't/can't spend 500 on a new console for one game.
Die hard FF fans on Xbox when the first mainline FF on Xbox was the 13th game and there was dozens of spin-offs before that 🤣

Square always launched the mainline games on only 1 console at a time. They did that throughout their whole history until Xbox did a massive moneyhat and the game still flopped so Square is going back to launching on 1 console only. You'll get the ports eventually 😉
 
It was a bad comparison.

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

No but Xbox didn't sell as well as PS consoles and that could be part of the reason because Sony had exclusive content and marketing deals where it says plays best on PlayStation. Yes they both do marketing deals but we know Sony goes bigger on that side of things
 
"256. Microsoft submitted that having Azure does not give it a material advantage that it
can leverage to improve its gaming offering"

Also Phil Spencer 2 years ago:

"When you talk about Nintendo and Sony, we have a ton of respect for them, but we see Amazon and Google as the main competitors going forward," Spencer said. "That's not to disrespect Nintendo and Sony, but the traditional gaming companies are somewhat out of position. I guess they could try to re-create Azure, but we've invested tens of billions of dollars in cloud over the years."

Well Sony should maybe invest in cloud, that's what competition is good for. Sure they will be later than MS but they can still compete if they see the future going this way. Just like car manufacturers being behind tesla in electric cars but now they all offer them and some are awesome electric vehicles too. I'd probably prefer a polestar 2 over a tesla, thing looks mean!
 
Do PlayStation gamers really want a pissed off MS with almost $69B in investments already earmarked for the gaming division suddenly freed up, and essentially given the greenlight by regulators to follow Sony's exact business practices? $69B buys a lot of timed exclusives, and smaller devs. I could also see a very pissed off ABK who's investors just got screwed out of an inflatable rescue slide as the stock price tanks.

Don't threaten me as somebody who never played a single COD game with a good time, EA would be a nice main course with another $20B in smaller investments for an appetizer.
They would have done that anyway if it made more economical sense and we would have the xbox fans saying how those timed deals are fantastic instead of pretending they are evil now when they weren't during the 360. They are doing them today even with this $70B deal and they will do them post this deal.
Well Sony should maybe invest in cloud, that's what competition is good for. Sure they will be later than MS but they can still compete if they see the future going this way. Just like car manufacturers being behind tesla in electric cars but now they all offer them and some are awesome electric vehicles too. I'd probably prefer a polestar 2 over a tesla, thing looks mean!
Well yes if they could somehow get 10s of Billions and the years to build it I'm sure they would. It's more the fact that MS are being disingenuous to the CMA about how azure gives them no advantage when they themselves have made comments that they have a significant advantage due to it. To the point where they consider those who don't have it not real competitors anymore.
 
Last edited:
They would have done that anyway if it made more economical sense and we would have the xbox fans saying how those timed deals are fantastic instead of pretending they are evil now when they weren't during the 360. They are doing them today even with this $70B deal and they will do them post this deal.

Well yes if they could somehow get 10s of Billions and the years to build it I'm sure they would. It's more the fact that MS are being disingenuous to the CMA about how azure gives them no advantage when they themselves have made comments that they have a significant advantage due to it. To the point where they consider those who don't have it not real competitors anymore.
Let's recall history with both eyes open to be fair. Plenty of PS Stans across the aisle were complaining about all the 360 timed exclusives and are also now calling for their return over acquisitions.
 
They would have done that anyway if it made more economical sense and we would have the xbox fans saying how those timed deals are fantastic instead of pretending they are evil now when they weren't during the 360. They are doing them today even with this $70B deal and they will do them post this deal.

Well yes if they could somehow get 10s of Billions and the years to build it I'm sure they would. It's more the fact that MS are being disingenuous to the CMA about how azure gives them no advantage when they themselves have made comments that they have a significant advantage due to it. To the point where they consider those who don't have it not real competitors anymore.
Yeah, they deffo have an advantage.

The thing is with tech is it does cost billions to be a trail blazer or market leader, and one of your benefits for that investment is that you see an ROI for that hard work, then others come along and copy and bring their benefits to it, while costing them much less as the first party has invested the money to do the hardest work of hashing it out.

Say iphone, then android comes along. Tesla and then other electric cars based roughly on their breakthroughs. Android phones will offer tech that iphones don't have then apple will introduce it later down the line to benefit their customers and visa versa. It's why competition is important.

Sony can invest now for much cheaper than what MS will have invested and can scale up as required on their offerings...hence exactly what they are doing with ps plus.

To say its not fair that MS have a stronger position because they invested earlier is like the CMA saying its not fair that Sony are the market leader becuase they invested in console gaming before Microsoft did.
 
Last edited:
They would have done that anyway if it made more economical sense and we would have the xbox fans saying how those timed deals are fantastic instead of pretending they are evil now when they weren't during the 360. They are doing them today even with this $70B deal and they will do them post this deal.
People fail to see that ms model is different than Sonys, ms priority is to get games to gamepass and for these games to stay there in perpetuity and the easiest way to achieve this is to buy big publishers with big library of games and IP's.
 
To say its not fair that MS have a stronger position because they invested earlier is like the CMA saying its not fair that Sony are the market leader becuase they invested in console gaming before Microsoft did.
Vertical mergers look at leverage of vertical market positions. It's not about whether they invested or not. If Sony had tried to buy Zenimax and Activision it would have faced the same scrutiny.
 
Last edited:
Vertical mergers look at leverage of vertical market positions. It's not about whether they invested or not. If Sony had tried to buy Zenimax and Activision it would have faced the same scrutiny.

Which is totally fine, and I agree with it being scrutinised.
 
Let's recall history with both eyes open to be fair. Plenty of PS Stans across the aisle were complaining about all the 360 timed exclusives and are also now calling for their return over acquisitions.

Timed exclusives are not comparable at all. That's been part of the industry forever. Its nothing new. Acquisitions on this scale have never happened in the industry before. This is a whole new level and its bad for everybody no matter which brand is your choice. You will lose games in the future because more publisher acquisitions will happen. No multiplatform ips are safe anymore.
 
Last edited:
Timed exclusives are not comparable at all. That's been part of the industry forever. Its nothing new. Acquisitions on this scale have never happened in the industry before. This is a whole new level and its bad for everybody no matter which brand is your choice. You will lose games in the future because more publisher acquisitions will happen. No multiplatform ips are safe anymore.
Call of Duty will remain multiplat though.
 
People fail to see that ms model is different than Sonys, ms priority is to get games to gamepass and for these games to stay there in perpetuity and the easiest way to achieve this is to buy big publishers with big library of games and IP's.
Exactly this is microsofts direction for years and they've looked at the books and for them it makes more sense buying a publisher like Activision to ensure there is an enournous pool of ip that they can keep in gamepass without having to renegotiate deals.

Saying that this is a huge buy and needs to be scrutinised like no other. Just some of CMAs points are questionable imo.
 
Well Sony should maybe invest in cloud, that's what competition is good for. Sure they will be later than MS but they can still compete if they see the future going this way. Just like car manufacturers being behind tesla in electric cars but now they all offer them and some are awesome electric vehicles too. I'd probably prefer a polestar 2 over a tesla, thing looks mean!

You're missing the point. They are brazenly being disingenuous and lying to the CMA on a number of their points in their submission. There are whole sections of them being called out on it in the CMA's phase one analysis.

If you need a starting point read page 44 onwards.

Of course it is.

It is competition. Microsoft just took it to the next level to compete against sony

In their own words they lost the "console war" so they have now decided to change the rules of engagement.

They have chosen a route that requires regulatory scrutiny so this is what they now need to deal with.
 
Last edited:
You're missing the point. They are brazenly being disingenuous and lying to the CMA on a number of their points in their submission. There are whole sections of them being called out on it in the CMA's phase one analysis.

If you need a starting point read page 44 onwards.



In their own words they lost the "console war" so they have now decided to change the rules of engagement.

They have chosen a route that requires regulatory scrutiny so this is what they now need to deal with.

Someone lied in business? I'm sickened.
 
In their own words they lost the "console war" so they have now decided to change the rules of engagement.

They have chosen a route that requires regulatory scrutiny so this is what they now need to deal with.
I mean, I agree with everything you said.

But it's still competition, where the guy I quoted said it wasn't the same.
 
You're missing the point. They are brazenly being disingenuous and lying to the CMA on a number of their points in their submission. There are whole sections of them being called out on it in the CMA's phase one analysis.

If you need a starting point read page 44 onwards.



In their own words they lost the "console war" so they have now decided to change the rules of engagement.

They have chosen a route that requires regulatory scrutiny so this is what they now need to deal with.
Cheers, I'll have to take a look.
 
Yep, thanks for re-enforcing my point?

The haven't acknowledged in the slightest about Sony's existing contract in the context of PlayStation as market leader, and their own admissions as CoD being bigger than Ben Hur.
You had no point. You thought "equal terms" meant something completely different and I pointed that out. You also quoted other parts of the report and totally backed away from it.

There's a strange theme in this thread where Xbox gamers are taking things completely out of context.
 
No but Xbox didn't sell as well as PS consoles and that could be part of the reason because Sony had exclusive content and marketing deals where it says plays best on PlayStation. Yes they both do marketing deals but we know Sony goes bigger on that side of things
We know nothing is preventing them from getting marketing deals. You guys are complaining about these types of marketing deals when it has been happening with MS and PS for years. The report is simply pointing this out, but you guys don't like it being used against MS.
 
"256. Microsoft submitted that having Azure does not give it a material advantage that it
can leverage to improve its gaming offering"

Also Phil Spencer 2 years ago:

"When you talk about Nintendo and Sony, we have a ton of respect for them, but we see Amazon and Google as the main competitors going forward," Spencer said. "That's not to disrespect Nintendo and Sony, but the traditional gaming companies are somewhat out of position. I guess they could try to re-create Azure, but we've invested tens of billions of dollars in cloud over the years."
maury GIF
 
No but Xbox didn't sell as well as PS consoles and that could be part of the reason because Sony had exclusive content and marketing deals where it says plays best on PlayStation. Yes they both do marketing deals but we know Sony goes bigger on that side of things
Well, Xbox didn't capitalize in sony's mistakes, instead; they choose to lazily rely on Third Party support (and even take them for granted).

360 era basically slashed in half PlayStation install base.

Xbox had an amazing opportunity to actually compete head to head against PlayStation. They fucked up.
 
Well, Xbox didn't capitalize in sony's mistakes, instead; they choose to lazily rely on Third Party support (and even take them for granted).

360 era basically slashed in half PlayStation install base.

Xbox had an amazing opportunity to actually compete head to head against PlayStation. They fucked up.
Microsoft didn't see xbox as an important investment. Almost a side investment if you will. Sony ps3 is the one that screwed up so badly and made 360 more popular. Especially considering PS3 lost all the profits Sony made off of PS2 and PS1. PS vita didn't help Sony case either. It was Xbox one botched launch that helped the PS4 mostly. Xbox one would've done a lot better than 60 million in sales if they didn't over price their console and screw up the messaging.

Moral of the story is not to do anything stupid and play it safe first and foremost.
 
Last edited:
Well, Xbox didn't capitalize in sony's mistakes, instead; they choose to lazily rely on Third Party support (and even take them for granted).

360 era basically slashed in half PlayStation install base.

Xbox had an amazing opportunity to actually compete head to head against PlayStation. They fucked up.

Yeah agreed but with all the marketing deals and excluisivty deals that Sony made during the ps4 era helped shift a lot of consoles. Microsoft now levelling the firld
 
We know nothing is preventing them from getting marketing deals. You guys are complaining about these types of marketing deals when it has been happening with MS and PS for years. The report is simply pointing this out, but you guys don't like it being used against MS.

Why get marketing deals when they can buy the company? Seriously why would you spend the money on a marketing deal?
 
Why get marketing deals when they can buy the company? Seriously why would you spend the money on a marketing deal?
They're spending money on marketing deals for a reason. Both companies are doing marketing deals and time exclusive deals.
 
"When you talk about Nintendo and Sony, we have a ton of respect for them, but we see Amazon and Google as the main competitors going forward," Spencer said. "That's not to disrespect Nintendo and Sony, but the traditional gaming companies are somewhat out of position. I guess they could try to re-create Azure, but we've invested tens of billions of dollars in cloud over the years."

And yet Sony can and does compete with them in every aspect of the business that can utilize a cloud platform. Sony already has PSNow.

If anything, the contradiction there is just MS being bullish in the old PR statement to the press, where they can freely say literally anything.
 
And yet Sony can and does compete with them in every aspect of the business that can utilize a cloud platform. Sony already has PSNow.

If anything, the contradiction there is just MS being bullish in the old PR statement to the press, where they can freely say literally anything.
PS Now is dead. PS+ Premium exists but it relys mainly on Amazon AWS outside of PS3 games.
 
PS Now is dead. PS+ Premium exists but it relys mainly on Amazon AWS outside of PS3 games.

It doesn't matter what they call it or how they go about providing it. Sony has the capability to release a competing offering. Thus, MS's cloud business is not creating an unfair advantage for MS in the gaming space.
 
Last edited:
It doesn't matter what they call it or how they go about providing it. Sony has the capability to release a competing offering. Thus, MS's cloud business is not creating an unfair advantage for MS in the gaming space.
I just said it doesn't have it. Sony are not providing any PS4 streaming and rely on Amazon.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom