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.

ZehDon

Gold Member
I don't agree at all that Microsoft would just move on and change directions. The cool thing is one of us will be proven right in time.
That's good, because in the post you responded to, I never that. In fact, I literally said that Microsoft wouldn't change their goals: the goal is 100 million Game Pass subscribers. If ABK acquisition is blocked, the goal doesn't change - they only change the strategy to achieve it. This was in response to your claim that Microsoft would perform some kind of retaliation on Sony - which they wouldn't, because it doesn't serve the goal.
 

quest

Not Banned from OT
yeah, its fairly democratic. Nintendo gets their 3rd part exclusives, sony gets theres, and microsoft gets theres…its ultimately up to the dev/pub whether its beneficial for their game or not.

Nintendo for example is probably doing a lot to keep Squares AA games alive, as Sony is spending a lot to mitigate their AAA development cost.
It's not remotely fair. Its like us going to an auction and the people holding it say i need to out bid you and everyone else by 3 times the money or more. The cost of a measly timed exclusive for the last place company is outrageous. Fair is both bidding on the same studios. No one has to pay 3x more just win the bid fair and squre. Sony could of bought studios instead of timed exclusives.

 
FfY8tILXoAEDnla




Whelp, looks like even if the deal closes, MS won't be able to put new CoD games on game pass day 1 as part of honoring the Sony x Activision agreements which include keeping the games off of game pass.
The unknown factor is "How long is COD restricted from Gamepass?". 2 years or 10?

I'd imagine Xbox will look for loopholes like bundling free season passes or purchase discounts for existing Gamepass subs etc. There may also be other clauses or expirations in that contract e.g. amendments can be introduced after 12 months or explicit exclusions from discount offers etc.
 

bitbydeath

Gold Member
Not sure if posted, Jez is starting to think it won’t go through.

Whatever the reason, it seems increasingly likely that Xbox's big Activision Blizzard deal could be in peril. It begs the question: What would be Microsoft's next move should the deal fall through?

It will be interesting how Xbox reacts if it doesn’t.

Edit: I see this was posted two pages back, so nevermind.
 
Last edited:

Drewpee

Banned
That's good, because in the post you responded to, I never that. In fact, I literally said that Microsoft wouldn't change their goals: the goal is 100 million Game Pass subscribers. If ABK acquisition is blocked, the goal doesn't change - they only change the strategy to achieve it. This was in response to your claim that Microsoft would perform some kind of retaliation on Sony - which they wouldn't, because it doesn't serve the goal.
Sorry, I meant to say change directions without retaliating against Sony. Wrote the sentence a couple times and forgot to add that part back in.

It's fine to disagree, I could be wrong just as easily as I'm right. Ultimately it means nothing to most people in real life, just a fun debate to have on a forum.
 
It's not remotely fair. Its like us going to an auction and the people holding it say i need to out bid you and everyone else by 3 times the money or more. The cost of a measly timed exclusive for the last place company is outrageous. Fair is both bidding on the same studios. No one has to pay 3x more just win the bid fair and squre. Sony could of bought studios instead of timed exclusives.

[/URL][/URL][/URL]

If that were true xbox wouldn’t be signing so many timed exclusivity deals, like Warhammer, High on Life, Stalker 2, Sommerville, etc

The games that cost more for xbox to sign exclusivity deals for are games that don’t do well on their platforms. Which yeah, it makes sense and its completely fair.

I would imagine it would be hard for Sony to sign an exclusivity deal for genres that dont do well on their platforms, like RTS, or FPS games.
 
Last edited:

bender

What time is it?
It's not remotely fair. Its like us going to an auction and the people holding it say i need to out bid you and everyone else by 3 times the money or more. The cost of a measly timed exclusive for the last place company is outrageous. Fair is both bidding on the same studios. No one has to pay 3x more just win the bid fair and squre. Sony could of bought studios instead of timed exclusives.


Largely Microsoft's own fault for squandering the momentum they had from the 360 era, which itself was propped up by exclusivity deals of things like GTA and COD. And yes, you are either going to need to be more creative with your offering to a 3rd party when your audience is smaller than a rival platform that is also bidding for exclusivity.
 

quest

Not Banned from OT
If that were true xbox wouldn’t be signing so many timed exclusivity deals, like Warhammer, High on Life, Stalker 2, Sommerville, etc

The games that cost more for xbox to sign exclusivity deals for are games that don’t do well on their platforms.
Those are all indy or AA games hardly a AAA game and lots of Microsoft timed exclusives are 3-6 months to save money. We are not talking 2 years of AAA games like forsaken.


 
People are saying Sony blocked Resident Evil 8 from appearing on Game Pass.

The deal was for a 1 year duration, right? Why haven't we seen Resident Evil 8 appear on Game Pass?

Same with FF7 Remake, the deal was for one year, lets say they gave them an extra 6 months for the DLC….why hasn’t square enix ported it to xbox yet?🤔
 

DForce

NaughtyDog Defense Force
Same with FF7 Remake, the deal was for one year, lets say they gave them an extra 6 months for the DLC….why hasn’t square enix ported it to xbox yet?🤔
I'm curious about the terms of the deal. I wonder if it's going to appear after the trilogy is complete.
 
FfY8tILXoAEDnla




Whelp, looks like even if the deal closes, MS won't be able to put new CoD games on game pass day 1 as part of honoring the Sony x Activision agreements which include keeping the games off of game pass.

Would depend on what the restrictions are and how it's written. If it's like the RE one there will be wiggle room for them to Deathloop it.
 
Last edited:

adamsapple

Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
People are saying Sony blocked Resident Evil 8 from appearing on Game Pass.

The deal was for a 1 year duration, right? Why haven't we seen Resident Evil 8 appear on Game Pass?

Same with FF7 Remake, the deal was for one year, lets say they gave them an extra 6 months for the DLC….why hasn’t square enix ported it to xbox yet?🤔


The village contract states Sony will have the first rights of negotiations for putting games on any service.

And to spinal's comment, we already saw how the 1 year was extended from the FFVII R release to FFVII R Integrade onward.

They are probably paying Square a very pretty penny to keep the game off of Xbox/Game Pass. Same likely for Capcom but we won't know without any more leaks.
 

DForce

NaughtyDog Defense Force
The village contract states Sony will have the first rights of negotiations for putting games on any service.
It states they have the first right to negotiate or a chance to match the offer. This didn't stop Capcom from trying to make a deal with Microsoft.

With the DLC arriving later this month, this could mean that Capcom has no intention of putting the game on Game Pass or PS+ any time soon.
 

adamsapple

Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
It states they have the first right to negotiate or a chance to match the offer. This didn't stop Capcom from trying to make a deal with Microsoft.

With the DLC arriving later this month, this could mean that Capcom has no intention of putting the game on Game Pass or PS+ any time soon.

I mean first right to negotiate pretty much means they can dictate if anyone elses offer is even catered or not .. also it says if SIE wants to add the game, they will notify Capcom and both parties will enter negotiations. So, since it's been a year either they are still in some kind of negotiation phase or Capcom did not agree with Sony's offer.

Hell, for all we know Village might be on PS+ next month after the DLC comes out.
 

Topher

Identifies as young
I mean first right to negotiate pretty much means they can dictate if anyone elses offer is even catered or not .. also it says if SIE wants to add the game, they will notify Capcom and both parties will enter negotiations. So, since it's been a year either they are still in some kind of negotiation phase or Capcom did not agree with Sony's offer.

Hell, for all we know Village might be on PS+ next month after the DLC comes out.

So what happened with Deathloop? That game showed up on PS+ and Game Pass on the same exact day.
 

DForce

NaughtyDog Defense Force
I mean first right to negotiate pretty much means they can dictate if anyone elses offer is even catered or not .. also it says if SIE wants to add the game, they will notify Capcom and both parties will enter negotiations. So, since it's been a year either they are still in some kind of negotiation phase or Capcom did not agree with Sony's offer.

Hell, for all we know Village might be on PS+ next month after the DLC comes out.
EzdQQD1XEAE6g6O


This negotiation period is only during the exclusive window.
 

adamsapple

Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
There is another paragraph which states Sony has six months after the exclusive window to match a competing offer.

Yes, I can't for the life of me find the full contract but I recall posting it in another topic months ago. It stated something on top that if another service offers Capcom a deal, SIE will have a window of an additional 6 months to match it.

So what happened with Deathloop? That game showed up on PS+ and Game Pass on the same exact day.

I guess not every game has the same contract, and/or as a leaker actually leaked way early in the year that Deathloop will launch on GP and PS+ at the same time as part of an agreement between Sony and MS. Looked like he may have been right.
 
Last edited:
They already had one, before MS/Xbox drove it into the ground.
FTFY. Quite a strange phenomenon that I have noticed about diehard Xbox fans. They always find a scapegoat so they don't have to blame MS or the current Xbox heads for the state of Xbox, i.e. lack of output and quite a bit of that output being mediocre . It's always the studio, or the last guy in charge, that caused the problems of Xbox, not current management, no matter how long they have been in charge. Yet, those problems continue to exist for about a decade, now. Wonder why. It can't be because their fans don't demand better?
 

Topher

Identifies as young
Yes, I can't for the life of me find the full contract but I recall posting it in another topic months ago. It stated something on top that if another service offers Capcom a deal, SIE will have a window of an additional 6 months to match it.

Right. That ends next month, I believe. So we shall see.

I guess not every game has the same contract, and/or as a leaker actually leaked way early in the year that Deathloop will launch on GP and PS+ at the same time as part of an agreement between Sony and MS. Looked like he may have been right.

Ah.....hadn't heard that one. But yeah, in any case we are all guessing what is in the contracts.
 
A few weeks ago, people were saying Sony was embarrassing themselves, shooting themselves in the foot, falling for Microsoft's trap, etc.

This deal could go either way, but it's clear that the "Microsoft is confident" crap people were spreading the past few weeks was all bs.

I'm sure Microsoft would like to go back in time and announce that Starfield and Redfall are going to be released on PlayStation consoles.
Lol what?
Microsoft has to reply to all the questions asked and rebut all the pathetic stuff Sony put forward.
MS are a company that has to be seen as responsible and answerable.
The horseshit that Sony has been feeding to the different regulators around the world is embarrassing and hypocritical.
For Sony to be acting like bitches, you can tell they are the ones shitting themselves and not MS.
This deal will go through, either directly or via the courts.
Sony and Ryan are like the bully in the playground who picks on people smaller than them and then when a bigger kid stands up they run to tell a teacher.
 
MS should invest in all their IPs as well, instead of buying 3rd party publishers to play keep off the competition.
Sony bought the biggest European publisher to get into the gaming market.
Just stop with the silliness.
Sony and MS both buy content either through exclusives via money hatting or via purchasing studios.
The only difference is that Sony don't have the ability to match MSs wallet. Stiff shit.
That's MSs advantage.
I didn't hear you complaining when Sony was using its market position to buy exclusive third party games.
That's called hypocrisy.
 
FTFY. Quite a strange phenomenon that I have noticed about diehard Xbox fans. They always find a scapegoat so they don't have to blame MS or the current Xbox heads for the state of Xbox, i.e. lack of output and quite a bit of that output being mediocre . It's always the studio, or the last guy in charge, that caused the problems of Xbox, not current management, no matter how long they have been in charge. Yet, those problems continue to exist for about a decade, now. Wonder why. It can't be because their fans don't demand better?

Right.

Phil has been head of xbox since 2014, its 2022….
 

ZehDon

Gold Member
FTFY. Quite a strange phenomenon that I have noticed about diehard Xbox fans. They always find a scapegoat so they don't have to blame MS or the current Xbox heads for the state of Xbox, i.e. lack of output and quite a bit of that output being mediocre . It's always the studio, or the last guy in charge, that caused the problems of Xbox, not current management, no matter how long they have been in charge. Yet, those problems continue to exist for about a decade, now. Wonder why. It can't be because their fans don't demand better?
No, you didn't fix my post - you inserted fan boy non-sense I didn't write so you had an excuse to write your console ware post, which reads like a meme. You just needed to add a "Curious :pie_thinking:" at the end for the proper effect.

As for 343i, if you want to die on that hill, I'll gladly dig the grave. Microsoft actually wanted to stop Halo after Bungie left, but it was Bonnie Ross - former CEO of 343i - who talked them into continuing it. Her stipulation was that she - and she alone - was in charge. She wanted to be "George Lucas" of Halo. So, Microsoft built her a studio for that purpose and left her alone. Under Bonnie Ross, 343i decided to re-launch Halo with Halo 4, which included changing the tone, the art style, the music, the sound design, and the multiplayer design. None of these were well received. Halo 4's multiplayer died a few months after launch, though its single player campaign was positively received. After Halo 4, 343i created the Master Chief Collection. This is generally regarded as the worst video game launch in history, with a product that was effectively non-functional. 343i did some damage control patches, got it kind of working, and then abandoned the project for literally years. 343i then moved on to Halo 5, generally regarded as the worst game in the franchise. Its multiplayer was well received, but its single player game is almost universally considered to be garbage. Halo 5's damage to the franchise was so substantial, that 343i basically went radio silence for years. They then launched MCC on PC, which created its own issues and required extensive support. They eventually handed it off to other studios, who did the lions share of building MCC as we know it today. Finally, 343i launch Halo Infinite. This was supposed to be a launch title for the Xbox Series X, but it was delayed after what was probably the worst received AAA gameplay reveal in history. After the longest development cycle in the franchise, and a total budget (marketing and development) rumoured to be in the hundreds of millions, Halo Infinite launched to strong reviews and good initial feedback. However, the tide turned pretty quickly. Its open world approach was pointless, and its multiplayer was a technical mess devoid of content. After failure after failure, Bonnie Ross left 343i as CEO. At no point during any of 343i's tenure with Halo has "Xbox" ever seemed to be the problem, because Bonnie Ross was left alone to run 343i as she wanted. And under her guidance, 343i simply never delivered. Hence, "343i ran Halo into the ground". Many other Xbox studios have delivered terrific games over the last two console generations. You didn't seem to accommodate for those in your console war non-sense. Curious :pie_thinking:
 
And there were people in here that actually believed they could not imagine Sony been paying developers not to have their games come to the platform.

Resident Evil, and Call of Duty are now known to be struck by that, and I wouldn't be surprised if they'd block several other games.

I know it's an old tweet, but it still shows Sony are paying heavy money to prevent game pass to get some of the bigger games.

Should invest in their own similar service instead of ruining it for the players, even though they are green rats.

We were the ones fucking telling you this would be the case with marketing deals. LMAO

Common fucking sense. Like I said. MS will no doubt be doing the same
 
Last edited:

onesvenus

Member
This text from page 9 of MSFT's phase 2 submission is really fun, if it is accurate, as they are tying themselves in knots from what they've already said, and it finally puts to rest that the PS3 had more working units sold and more Monthly Active User counts.

Anyway, the important point in this statement, is that the Wii outsold the PS3 in those 20years, so either Nintendo isn't a direct competitor to PlayStation and Xbox, as the CMA concluded - something that MSFT disagrees with in phase 1. Or Playstation has only been the market leader - continuously - since they released PS4 and sold more than the WiiU did. Or Nintendo aren't in competition with Xbox and PlayStation, and PlayStation 3 won that generation too.

What I'm finding reading the phase 2 submission is that it is a tough read because it is just so wrong. Even this one:



How do you get a plural of commentator in there when only one newspaper article is referenced for the quote? Are they stretching it to be a double authored article with synchronised group think? This is a trillion-dollar company's proofing of an official document to a major nation competition regulator and even simple stuff like that is incorrect.
I suppose you have to nitpick those things because it absolutely destroys most of the arguments done by the CMA on their previous report.

And there will be people who still says that it's a one-off deal instead of something common. Even if we have now seen two marketing contracts with that clause
 

Three

Member
The big question is, if Microsoft are good enough to call Sony out for it to the CMA, or if the CMA is biased.

It's clear as day that Microsoft doesn't keep cod multiplatform because they want to, but because of previous contracts, but the more Sony talks about being anti competitive, the skeleton just keeps popping out of the closet showing they are world wide champion in doing what they have a current crusade against.

It will be interesting to see if CMA cares about it, or simply ignores it.
They don't call them out for it because they don't want people to find the skeletons in their closet. MS have marketing agreements with identical clauses.
 

Three

Member
Sony bought the biggest European publisher to get into the gaming market.
Just stop with the silliness.
Sony and MS both buy content either through exclusives via money hatting or via purchasing studios.
The only difference is that Sony don't have the ability to match MSs wallet. Stiff shit.
That's MSs advantage.
I didn't hear you complaining when Sony was using its market position to buy exclusive third party games.
That's called hypocrisy.
No, sony bought a small publisher before it even had a PlayStation console and made them the biggest European publisher with PS games. Why do people keep reaching for this nonsense?
 
Last edited:

Menzies

Banned
Is MS even talking about Amazon or Google anymore? The masks are off and the real target was Sony all along (of course it was obvious to us all).

Bill Gates threw a tantrum at Sony over 20 years ago and they've been trying to take them down since then.
Well it must be hard to not mention Sony in your response when the CMA references them 57 times in their report.
 

ToTTenTranz

Banned
The CMA cannot stop the deal from going through.

This is some next level denial.
I can't wait to see the meltdown when the stricter E.U. regulators weigh in on the subject.


It's as if the regulators' whole job was not to prevent monopolies through acquisitions and supply interference.
Microsoft is trying to buy a software supplier almost as big the whole Sony, probably bigger than SIE itself, to cut their supply of software titles in the long run.
Yet people here thought the regulators (from countries not-overriden by corruption unlike Brazil) wouldn't notice and they'd just let the deal go through without any concession whatsoever. As if all people working for these regulators were the Twitter warriors from Windows Central.



Either Microsoft starts bending the knee to some very long-term software supply contracts or this could turn into Phil's demise.
Please GAF, don't descend into (more) madness if the deal doesn't go through. There are more important things in life than winning the console war.
 
Last edited:

Pelta88

Member
It's as if the regulators' whole job was not to prevent monopolies through acquisitions and supply interference.
Microsoft is trying to buy a software supplier almost as big the whole Sony, probably bigger than SIE itself, to cut their supply of software titles in the long run.
Yet people here thought the regulators (from countries not-overriden by corruption unlike Brazil) wouldn't notice and they'd just let the deal go through without any concession whatsoever. As if all people working for these regulators were the Twitter warriors from Windows Central.

c8d.gif
 

Neofire

Member
This is some next level denial.
I can't wait to see the meltdown when the stricter E.U. regulators weigh in on the subject.


It's as if the regulators' whole job was not to prevent monopolies through acquisitions and supply interference.
Microsoft is trying to buy a software supplier almost as big the whole Sony, probably bigger than SIE itself, to cut their supply of software titles in the long run.
Yet people here thought the regulators (from countries not-overriden by corruption unlike Brazil) wouldn't notice and they'd just let the deal go through without any concession whatsoever. As if all people working for these regulators were the Twitter warriors from Windows Central.



Either Microsoft starts bending the knee to some very long-term software supply contracts or this could turn into Phil's demise.
Please GAF, don't descend into (more) madness if this happens. There are more important things in life than winning the console war.
To put it into another perspective, Activision's net worth is around 60 billion while Sony's is around 80 and Microsoft is buying up said developer with the comparative Worth of it's biggest competitor which is Sony lol.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom