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

Do you believe the deal will be approved?

  • Yes, will be approved without changes.

    Votes: 221 24.9%

  • Yes, will be approved but with structural changes to ABK.

    Votes: 102 11.5%

  • Yes, will be approved but only with behavioral concessions.

    Votes: 262 29.6%

  • No, will not be approved.

    Votes: 301 34.0%
  • Total voters
    886
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
DeepEnigma said:
Stare Staring GIF
Click to expand...
So that's a no? :pie_roffles:
 
CatLady said:
So that's a no? :pie_roffles:
Click to expand...
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Just as nobody would have known the wiser if the Sony contract wasn't released. Especially when all these deals mirror each other for generations now.

Marketing deals have all sorts of clauses. I do have some dry swamp land for sale tho. Most driest, interested?

But I get it, the subcritionvidians are laser focused on that caveat as an excuse to buy up the largest publisher to play keep off 100%, rather than a sub service, which we all know Activision had no issues signing since they offered their marketing deal up for sale.

Activision wasn't going to put this on GP day 1, regardless if that was there or not, which is why it never stopped them from signing. They like the sales charts more so.
 
Last edited:
ToTTenTranz said:
So if Sony had paid for full console exclusivity of CoD that would be fine.
But paying for not appearing on Gamepass, while letting xbox owners buy and play the game on day one is not fine?
Click to expand...
Sony can't afford to make COD console exclusive, so they pay to keep games off streaming services because they can afford that. Microsoft is using their superior cash reserves to stop Sony from doing that. It's just business.
 
Jinzo Prime said:
Sony can't afford to make COD console exclusive, so they pay to keep games off streaming services because they can afford that. Microsoft is using their superior cash reserves to stop Sony from doing that. It's just business.
Click to expand...
You all must drink some heavy Kool Aide if you think this is what prevented Activision from keeping it off Game Pass. Activision themselves prevented them from doing so. They probably read that line as were like "we had no plans to begin with, you see how much we sell every year?"

If they had issue with it, they would not have signed the marketing deal they offer both these platforms.
 
Last edited:
Jinzo Prime said:
Sorry bro, these are just the facts! I don't want more consolidation in the market, but Acti was and still will be looking to sell if MS doesn't pick it up. Would you rather ActiBlizz games be Netflix, Tencent, or Amazon exclusive? At least MS releases games on PC.
Click to expand...
When did the tencent console release? I must have missed it.
 
Jinzo Prime said:
Sony can't afford to make COD console exclusive, so they pay to keep games off streaming services because they can afford that. Microsoft is using their superior cash reserves to stop Sony from doing that. It's just business.
Click to expand...
This is Sony's "marketing strategy" when it comes to exclusivity deals. Use or rather abuse their market leading position to secure favorable 3rd party exclusivity deals and terms to the detriment of their competition. How the CMA thinks that is ok is beyond me.
 
Jinzo Prime said:
The only people drinking Kool-Aid on this forum are Sony-ponies. "We believe in Generations" as we release another PS4 cross-gen game 3 years after launch! 🤣
Click to expand...

You're worrying about PR slogans? I'm only concerned with the games and whether or not PlayStation is prepared to feed the masses with said games.

I've been feasting. How about you?
 
Jinzo Prime said:
Sony can't afford to make COD console exclusive, so they pay to keep games off streaming services because they can afford that. Microsoft is using their superior cash reserves to stop Sony from doing that. It's just business.
Click to expand...

That's just fiction. If it were true then every AAA third party game that doesn't have a marketing deal with Sony would be on Game Pass day one and that simply is not the case. AAA games thrive on sales. If the sales suck then yeah, it might show up on Game Pass soon after launch, but factually any game that gets a marketing deal, even a marketing deal from Microsoft, isn't going to be on Game Pass any time soon after release.
 
quite sure bobby wants the deal to fail before august 2023 so he can pocket 3b and cash again with the sale towards prime gaming
 
Hendrick's said:
If this goes to court, we are going to get a ton of juicy behind the scenes info. Sony should be dreading having their anticompetitive tactics brought to light.
Click to expand...

Well....it is going in front of a tribunal so not the same thing unless the FTC decides to sue. But if I'm Microsoft then I don't want my skeletons yanked out of the closet either. That works both ways.
 
Last edited:
SSfox said:
IDK if this guy is ignorant in purpuse, or he's legit ignorant. MS were already doing that. The only reason they don't do it as much is because they can't and most 3rd party won't accept the deals cause MS consoles share hasn't been significant since Xbox 360 (they still do it today when the dev accept like Stalkers 2 case.)

[/URL]

[/URL]

And now people that were cheering this are crying now because Sony are doing it? lmao...

Rise of TR Xbox exclusivity almost causes the death of the franchise, as most fans were on PlayStation (60 to 70% sales were on PlayStation in the first game, so...)
Click to expand...
Microsoft lawyers should hire you.

Not only is it wildly more expensive for our timed-exclusives, when we do it, it "almost causes the death of the franchise".
 
IFireflyl said:
I don't know why the people complaining about things like exclusivity agreements are trying to relate this to the Microsoft/Activision Blizzard deal.
Click to expand...

There is a complaint when these exclusivity agreements
-are numerous (Silent Hill they Next),

-they affect AAA licenses or IPs with great weight and that by themselves have an effect on the sale of consoles,

-they are agreed for a period of up to 3+ years

-and are made thanks to a position of market leader only to harm the users of the competition platform and not to favor those of its own.

IFireflyl said:
Sony offers X amount of money for an exclusivity deal. That's not anti-competitive as Microsoft can offer more money or do the same with another IP that Sony doesn't have a history with (like Final Fantasy) to prevent a bidding war from the two companies. Competition can still occur even with exclusivity agreements. I don't even like exclusivity agreements and I can see that.
Click to expand...

That is the uncertain. MS cannot enter into the same exclusivity agreements that Sony does. They cost much more or the publishers themselves deny the possibility.
Sony is taking advantage of that position and power to maintain its status quo. which is understandable for a company to use its strengths, just as understandable for other companies to use theirs as well.

Now imagine the difficulty for a new agent who decided to enter the console market.... Do you think it would have the same ease and equality to compete? What would be your advice to compete against Playstation in the console market other than buying studios and securing exclusive content ??

The reality today is that if there are 3 agents in the console market today, it is because Nintendo managed to reinvent itself and be successful and Xbox has the support of MS (which I remember was about to stop having it). In the end, what MS is doing is using its strengths in the face of the impossibility of competing and gaining market share under the same conditions that Sony Playstation does. Otherwise, today there would only be Playstation and in fact not long ago it was something that not a few bet here ....... and celebrated.

IFireflyl said:
By contrast, with acquisitions you're effectively terminating competition. The only real way to compete at that point is for all parties to just buy up every studio/publisher. Microsoft has proven time and time again that they don't know how to manage the studios they already have.
Click to expand...

IFireflyl said:
I'm not saying that they don't have great games or content, mind you. Some of their stuff is top-notch. But Halo is a great example of a studio (343i) that has consistently missed the mark, and Microsoft can't seem to get them to get their act together. Halo: Infinite had promise, but it was so badly managed that its become a joke. They released the game without key features, promised they would add the additional content, and a year later we keep getting the same pushback.

Sony, by contrast, actually works closely with its studios to increase the quality. That's a benefit to consumers. Failing to follow suit, Microsoft's end goal appears to be to buy up established content. That doesn't have any consumer benefit (except for a short-term gain for the Game Pass lovers), and, assuming they keep mismanaging their studios, it can actually be harmful to consumers.
Click to expand...

ActV-Blz will operate independently just like Bethesada-Zenimax does. Each Study is different and 343 should not be used as a reference LOL.

XBGS studios also work together and support each other. Since buying Zenimax they have also started exchanging knowledge and technology. Coincidentally, it is still early to know the benefits, since the acquisition and creation of studios is relatively recent. I don't know the reason to jump to conclusions except to invent some new reason against the acquisition of ACTV.
IFireflyl said:
TL;DR - the acquisition and exclusivity agreements are not comparable. One still allows competition (though it is up to the other party to actually try and compete) while the other shuts down competition entirely.
Click to expand...

Again, that is a lie.

It would be real if all companies could access this type of agreement at the same cost and conditions and that does not happen today. In fact, the acquisition train is based on this situation, the need to ensure exclusive content when otherwise it is not possible or it is very expensive for the rest except Sony.
 
Topher said:
Well....it is going in front of a tribunal so not the same thing unless the FTC decides to sue. But if I'm Microsoft then I don't want my skeletons yanked out of the closet either. That works both ways.
Click to expand...
Its what I said early on in this whole process, this divorce will get ugly
 
KingT731 said:
Would you pay for a marketing deal and advertise something just for it to go on to a competing service for "free" ? I know people aren't that dense....come on now.
Click to expand...
That's not the argument being made though. Of course if you pay for marketing you don't expect it going on the opposition console for "free".

The argument being made is that Sony shouldn't be doing that in the first place if they are arguing that the purchase would allow MS to do things they themselves are doing.... Right now.
 
Darsxx82 said:
There is a complaint when these exclusivity agreements
-are numerous (Silent Hill they Next),

-they affect AAA licenses or IPs with great weight and that by themselves have an effect on the sale of consoles,

-they are agreed for a period of up to 3+ years

-and are made thanks to a position of market leader only to harm the users of the competition platform and not to favor those of its own.



That is the uncertain. MS cannot enter into the same exclusivity agreements that Sony does. They cost much more or the publishers themselves deny the possibility.
Sony is taking advantage of that position and power to maintain its status quo. which is understandable for a company to use its strengths, just as understandable for other companies to use theirs as well.

Now imagine the difficulty for a new agent who decided to enter the console market.... Do you think it would have the same ease and equality to compete? What would be your advice to compete against Playstation in the console market other than buying studios and securing exclusive content ??

The reality today is that if there are 3 agents in the console market today, it is because Nintendo managed to reinvent itself and be successful and Xbox has the support of MS (which I remember was about to stop having it). In the end, what MS is doing is using its strengths in the face of the impossibility of competing and gaining market share under the same conditions that Sony Playstation does. Otherwise, today there would only be Playstation and in fact not long ago it was something that not a few bet here ....... and celebrated.





ActV-Blz will operate independently just like Bethesada-Zenimax does. Each Study is different and 343 should not be used as a reference LOL.

XBGS studios also work together and support each other. Since buying Zenimax they have also started exchanging knowledge and technology. Coincidentally, it is still early to know the benefits, since the acquisition and creation of studios is relatively recent. I don't know the reason to jump to conclusions except to invent some new reason against the acquisition of ACTV.


Again, that is a lie.

It would be real if all companies could access this type of agreement at the same cost and conditions and that does not happen today. In fact, the acquisition train is based on this situation, the need to ensure exclusive content when otherwise it is not possible or it is very expensive for the rest except Sony.
Click to expand...
good post.
 
Hitchyhero said:
That's not the argument being made though. Of course if you pay for marketing you don't expect it going on the opposition console for "free".

The argument being made is that Sony shouldn't be doing that in the first place if they are arguing that the purchase would allow MS to do things they themselves are doing.... Right now.
Click to expand...

Both arguments are being made. Yes, MS is complaining about Sony's marketing deals that prohibit the games under agreement to be on Game Pass. That's a bullshit argument, imo. Marketing is promoting game sales and suddenly you are promoting someone's else's subscription as well? lol

The other argument is that Sony is complaining that Microsoft will do exactly what Sony is doing. Yeah....that's also bullshit for obvious reasons.

In the end, as I've said before, these are arguments from corporate lawyers. They are going to make biased, bullshit arguments and it is up to the lawyers on the other site to call them biased, bullshit arguments and say why.

HeisenbergFX4 said:
Its what I said early on in this whole process, this divorce will get ugly
Click to expand...

Man....I kind of hope it does. Just expose all the shit that happens behind the scenes. Let the leaks flow...

Public Works Water GIF by US National Archives
 
Last edited:
Hendrick's said:
If this goes to court, we are going to get a ton of juicy behind the scenes info. Sony should be dreading having their anticompetitive tactics brought to light.
Click to expand...
More than likely to find out that MS isn't as innocent as Xbox fans want to believe.
 
Darsxx82 said:
That is the uncertain. MS cannot enter into the same exclusivity agreements that Sony does. They cost much more or the publishers themselves deny the possibility.
Sony is taking advantage of that position and power to maintain its status quo. which is understandable for a company to use its strengths, just as understandable for other companies to use theirs as well.

...

It would be real if all companies could access this type of agreement at the same cost and conditions and that does not happen today. In fact, the acquisition train is based on this situation, the need to ensure exclusive content when otherwise it is not possible or it is very expensive for the rest except Sony.
Click to expand...

Please provide a source for this bold claim that Microsoft cannot enter into exclusivity agreements in the same manner that Sony can. How do you know that Microsoft can't make exclusivity agreements with, for example, Square Enix? And is the reason that Microsoft can't make exclusivity agreements due to developers/publishers not wanting to go into business with Microsoft, or do you have some evidence that Sony is breaking the law by forcing developers/publishers to decline exclusivity agreements from Microsoft? If it's the former then that's got nothing to do with Sony or being competitive as it is a developer's/publisher's prerogative regarding who they want to go into business with. If it's the latter than show me evidence, and send it to the authorities while you're at it since that's anti-competitive behavior and should be fined.
 
DForce said:
More than likely to find out that MS isn't as innocent as Xbox fans want to believe.
Click to expand...

Yep, Sony has already been "exposed" for doing what everyone else is doing in the industry.

the real news will be that Microsoft is doing the same thing and they might even have to expose their actual real numbers with game pass, payouts to publishers, and profits.
 
Last edited:
Darsxx82 said:
There is a complaint when these exclusivity agreements
-are numerous (Silent Hill they Next),

-they affect AAA licenses or IPs with great weight and that by themselves have an effect on the sale of consoles,

-they are agreed for a period of up to 3+ years

-and are made thanks to a position of market leader only to harm the users of the competition platform and not to favor those of its own.



That is the uncertain. MS cannot enter into the same exclusivity agreements that Sony does. They cost much more or the publishers themselves deny the possibility.
Sony is taking advantage of that position and power to maintain its status quo. which is understandable for a company to use its strengths, just as understandable for other companies to use theirs as well.

Now imagine the difficulty for a new agent who decided to enter the console market.... Do you think it would have the same ease and equality to compete? What would be your advice to compete against Playstation in the console market other than buying studios and securing exclusive content ??

The reality today is that if there are 3 agents in the console market today, it is because Nintendo managed to reinvent itself and be successful and Xbox has the support of MS (which I remember was about to stop having it). In the end, what MS is doing is using its strengths in the face of the impossibility of competing and gaining market share under the same conditions that Sony Playstation does. Otherwise, today there would only be Playstation and in fact not long ago it was something that not a few bet here ....... and celebrated.





ActV-Blz will operate independently just like Bethesada-Zenimax does. Each Study is different and 343 should not be used as a reference LOL.

XBGS studios also work together and support each other. Since buying Zenimax they have also started exchanging knowledge and technology. Coincidentally, it is still early to know the benefits, since the acquisition and creation of studios is relatively recent. I don't know the reason to jump to conclusions except to invent some new reason against the acquisition of ACTV.


Again, that is a lie.

It would be real if all companies could access this type of agreement at the same cost and conditions and that does not happen today. In fact, the acquisition train is based on this situation, the need to ensure exclusive content when otherwise it is not possible or it is very expensive for the rest except Sony.
Click to expand...
Microsoft currently has exclusive agreements, yet this is being completely ignored every time it's brought up in a conversation in this thread.

What Xbox fanboys fail to realize is that there are third-party publishers who do NOT want their games on Game Pass. People say they're using their stance in the marketing position to make deals, but ignore the fact that games typically sell less on the Xbox platform and that means Microsoft would likely not have to pay as much to put the game on Game Pass compared to Sony putting games on PS Now.

Xbox fans are whining about Sony using their marketing power to make deals when Microsoft has been doing that for years on the Windows platform and are trying to use it now by throwing money at big publishers to move others out of the competition.

People need to stop pretending Xbox is trying to be as competitive as Sony and Nintendo, everyone is trying to remove everyone from the gaming space and that's their ultimate goal. They're not in the business to co-exist, they're in it to win the market.
 
Sony's being too "anti-consumer"
nowadays securing third-party deals left & right while good guy Phil is unable to outbid them every single time because reasons, so he decides to acquire some of the biggest multiplat publishers to permanently lock content off because he's all abt that pro-consumerism. And bad guy Sony's trying to get in the way now, I stand with Phil.

#4TheConsoomers
 
3liteDragon said:
Sony's being too "anti-consumer"
nowadays securing third-party deals left & right while good guy Phil is unable to outbid them every single time because reasons, so he decides to acquire some of the biggest multiplat publishers to permanently lock content off because he's all abt that pro-consumerism. And bad guy Sony's trying to get in the way now, I stand with Phil.

#4TheConsoomers
Click to expand...
781107.jpg
 
wolverine-Game-2022.jpg


Marvel's Wolverine was announced with a spectacular reveal trailer, but not much information was revealed. A rough release period was not confirmed either, but a new document from Microsoft seems to hint at a 2023 release date for the much anticipated Marvel's Wolverine.

Microsot-CMA-Wolverine.jpg


Source: Microsoft Document

All of the games mentioned in the document, except Marvel's Wolverine, are currently confirmed for a 2023 release date. Marvel's Wolverine has not yet been given a release date, so this seems like an odd statement from Microsoft.

Additionally, Insomniac Games is currently busy with Marvel's Spider-Man 2. The game is already confirmed for a 2023 release date, and a gameplay reveal is expected in the coming months. However, it would be difficult for Insomniac Games to simultaneously lead development on two projects and release two big AAA titles within 12 months.





It is not unlikely that Microsoft knows more about Sony's release schedule than the general public. However, it would be wise to take this information with a grain of salt until further confirmation.

tech4gamers.com

Marvel's Wolverine Slated For 2023 Launch In Microsoft's CMA Document

According to Microsoft's document submitted to the CMA, Marvel's Wolverine could be releasing much sooner than expected.
tech4gamers.com tech4gamers.com
 
IFireflyl said:
Please provide a source for this bold claim that Microsoft cannot enter into exclusivity agreements in the same manner that Sony can. How do you know that Microsoft can't make exclusivity agreements with, for example, Square Enix? And is the reason that Microsoft can't make exclusivity agreements due to developers/publishers not wanting to go into business with Microsoft, or do you have some evidence that Sony is breaking the law by forcing developers/publishers to decline exclusivity agreements from Microsoft? If it's the former then that's got nothing to do with Sony or being competitive as it is a developer's/publisher's prerogative regarding who they want to go into business with. If it's the latter than show me evidence, and send it to the authorities while you're at it since that's anti-competitive behavior and should be fined.
Click to expand...
You have your own report from CADE and CMA where MS already leaves evidence that this is so... But no official report is necessary because it is purely logical and it is already accepted.

Playstation's market share is more than 2:1 vs Xbox globally and much higher in key markets like Europe and Japan the gap is much bigger.

When MS goes to studio publishers it has a much harder time convincing them that their AAA game from famous IP is interesting to release exclusively on Xbox and leave out a 2x larger user base. That is, either they are denied or they are convinced that it costs much more to compensate for the loss of sales in PS. It is common knowledge.
For MS, or any other agent that wants to "compete" in the console market, it must face that situation of power and strength of Sony in the market...

The logical thing is that each company uses its strengths, and that of MS is economic as Sony is its market leading position and brand power and takes advantage of it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

MS/ABK is advertising games that don't exist for data collection
46
2K
POKEYCLYDE replied
My apologies to Ubisoft, Sony, Activision, EA, MS etc. for making a big deal out of $70 games
2 3 4
156
6K
MDSLKTR replied
Microsoft, Activision Deny Report Regarding Financial Performance
Business Hardware  2 3
131
11K
Jaybe replied
What happened to all the people that were cheering over that MS Activision acquisition?
Drama  5 6 7 8 9
414
18K
GateofD replied
Microsoft has Closed the Activision Blizzard King Deal
22 23 24 25 26
1K
99K
MasterCornholio replied
Top Bottom