kirby007
Member
Sorry but are you actually assuming if xbox had access to all 3rd party games on the market, they still would have made this move? lol
Microsoft / Activision Deal Approval Watch |OT| (MS/ABK close)
- Status
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Yes. It's about cornering the market with their "Netflix of gaming".
They have the same opportunities and have done so themselves with 3rd party. They lacked in their own first party prowess compared to the other console competition as that pillar. So buy up all the 3rd party IPs one by one and change the way the game is played.
Xbox division could not afford both Zeni and Activision (any more than Sony could), thus they are leaning on daddy to assert their sub/cloud goals in the end game.
Last edited:
Fuz
Banned
What could go wrong
This is REALLY fucking dumb and very naïve and unprofessional from them.
I guess they never heard the expression "console warring".
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
TheGodfather07
Member
Did sony have access to all 3rd party games? Xbox had plenty of 3rd party exclusives games from every gen. Why is this continually ignored? Why didn't sony buy square enix and capcom during the 360 gen when xbox had big 3rd party exclusives? According to some people here, that would have been a reasonable response.
Last edited:
DenchDeckard
Moderated wildly
OMG they are going to ask the same public that nearly publicly castrated Square and Crystal Dynamics when tomb raider was announced as a timed exclusive for Xbox to see if that same vocal group who there are definitely more of on the Sony side to see if they agree to MS buying Activision.....
This is going to be glorious to witness.
The CMA truly are clueless hahaha, I dont think they are ready for what they have done!
This is going to be glorious to witness.
The CMA truly are clueless hahaha, I dont think they are ready for what they have done!
kirby007
Member
oh sorry you were joking, my bad continue
SSfox
Member
What could go wrong
Summary?
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
What was wrong about the bolded? Xbox division does not have $100 billion cash on hand to buy those publishers, the money came from the top. Their parent company, off of productivity and sub sales there.
MS said they want to be the "go to" for sub services "the Netflix of gaming" biggest rivals at one point being Google and Amazon with "cloud cloud cloud infrastructure."
Look at the big picture. This is about changing the industry "that they lost the 'console war' in," their words in the CMA, not mine.
Last edited:
Pelta88
Member
Cloud gaming is a "new and immature technology which the CMA has recognized faces significant challenges," writes Microsoft, adding that consumer adoption of the technology "is not expected to be rapid as it requires a significant change in consumer behaviour"
www.pcgamer.com
The contrast between XBOX's PR and their submissions to the CMA is going to reverberate around gaming for some time to come. This basically contradicts Phil Spencer's PR about cloud reaching 2 Billion gamers. Behind the scenes they know gamers aren't willing to compromise, especially with input lag.
Publicly, XBOX pushes a totally different PR narrative.
Microsoft has a bleak outlook on cloud gaming's future
'This is a new and immature technology which the CMA has recognized faces significant challenges.'
www.pcgamer.com
The contrast between XBOX's PR and their submissions to the CMA is going to reverberate around gaming for some time to come. This basically contradicts Phil Spencer's PR about cloud reaching 2 Billion gamers. Behind the scenes they know gamers aren't willing to compromise, especially with input lag.
Publicly, XBOX pushes a totally different PR narrative.
Last edited:
CatLady
Selfishly plays on Xbox Purr-ies X
What could go wrong
Yeah, I don't think that's going to go well for CMA.
Saying that the complaints and criticism was against Square and not against MS is a funny way of rewriting real history....
Because one of the reasons, if not the first, why MS decided to secure exclusive content by buying Studios was that they could not access them under the same conditions as Sony???
Because Sony has shown a high degree of hypocrisy complaining that, after the acquisition of ACTv, MS could do things that Sony itself already does? That is, deprive users of competing platforms of multiplatform content... including COD content.
My question is, would it be more acceptable to you and you wouldn't criticize MS to spend 100B to buy a massive number of AAA thirds up to 3+ years temporary exclusives?? Let me doubt that, in that case, you would be here complaining about MS's attitude depriving you of content on PS5 and declaring that as anti-competitive.
Because at the end of it all, the complaint is that MS is using its economic strength. Funny that very recently the discussion was when XBOX was going to disappear because MS had turned off the tap unable to compete with Sony Playstation.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Thus they want to "change consumer behavior" which they have gone on record saying.Cloud gaming is a "new and immature technology which the CMA has recognized faces significant challenges," writes Microsoft, adding that consumer adoption of the technology "is not expected to be rapid as it requires a significant change in consumer behaviour"
Microsoft has a bleak outlook on cloud gaming's future
'This is a new and immature technology which the CMA has recognized faces significant challenges.'
The contrast between XBOX's PR and their submissions to the CMA is going to reverberate around gaming for some time to come. This basically contradicts Phil Spencer's PR about cloud reaching 2 Billion gamers. Behind the scenes they know gamers aren't willing to compromise, especially with input lag.
Publicly, XBOX pushes a totally different PR narrative.
It's a brave new world, fellow gamers. Build them backlogs, I feel some of us may need them in 10-15 years time.
Last edited:
WoodyStare
Member
What could go wrong
I can see it already:
CMA: “FartKnocker69 wrote “This is outrayj and can be allowed to happen.”
HoofHearted
Member
Last edited:
Gone
Banned
And it's also Activision decision to sell to Microsoft, why should anyone have a say in this in such a massive industry?
DJ12
Member
They should ask gaf for Lognor and his alts registered email addresses, add them to an auto delete rule, that would improve the quality of submissions no end.
Last edited:
NickFire
Member
What could go wrong
If I owned a travel agency I'd go balls to the wall setting up chartered trips to their office, with free green shirts, mountain dew, and doritos for everyone who booked through my company. Then I would take those profits, and buy EA.
Iced Arcade
Member
What could go wrong
can already see gaf users replying to that tweet lol
PhaseJump
Banned
I'm just going to sit over here and imagine the UK losing all those Microsoft jobs for fucking around too much and becoming a hostile place to do business.
I mean, it's not like Ireland isn't figuratively right there to handle a huge asset move, without a langage barrier to hurdle them.
I mean, it's not like Ireland isn't figuratively right there to handle a huge asset move, without a langage barrier to hurdle them.
Warablo
Member
Do you also critique Sony for not only being in the gaming business?
bluecowboys
Banned
That is what I'm saying. UK politics is too fucked up for MS to do business in anyways. Their country is already losing money out their ass and becoming a third world country.
Last edited:
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
I am not critiquing MS's other business at all. I use their other products and enjoy them.
Are their parent company not spending $100b from their productivity profits that the Xbox division is unable to? Yes. Where is the lie?
Now that's a take.
Last edited:
IFireflyl
Gold Member
Let's try responding to this in a different way...
STOP MAKING THIS SAME BULLSHIT CLAIM WITHOUT PROVIDING ANY EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT IT!
I don't know how many times I have to hit this talking point before you quit vomiting shit out of your mouth. You keep making this argument. Thus far the only "evidence" you have supplied is that it says so somewhere in the CADE and/or CMA documents (although you won't state or show where this is found), and that it is "pure logic" and that everyone just inherently knows it to be true.
Be better.
Last edited:
FalsettoVibe
Member
When/if this deal is approved, how long after does it take to close?
ChuckeRearmed
Member
That's hilarious that each time when people point on Sony's moneyhat, people immediately defend it saying "it is Square Enix's decision". And guess? Acquisition is a decision of the publisher too indeed
Or multiple countries
When the deal is approved - overnight.
Last edited:
IFireflyl
Gold Member
That's hilarious that each time when people point on Sony's moneyhat, people immediately defend it saying "it is Square Enix's decision". And guess? Acquisition is a decision of the publisher too indeed
Mergers and acquisitions have a fairly large amount of regulatory hurdles to clear. This isn't new or news. If you find this "hilarious" that just shows how little you know about the corporate world.
intheinbetween
Member
Actually it is not a hostile take over, but an acquisition agreement from both sides.
Also iirc there were other potential buyers interested but Activision preferred MS
Menzies
Banned
Let's try enhancing your calm and thinking logically.
You're asking for receipts for...not accepted tabled offers at the negotiating table(?)
Do we really in all seriousness need to provide you with evidence to say that publishers want to be compensated for reputational harm, lower sales and opportunity costs for signing exclusivity deals with the minority platform?
So Square arrives at the negotiating table with Microsoft....
"Hey Microsoft, we like you, however our games have mass Japanese market appeal, which you are currently competing in an unfavourable 5:1 marketshare position against Sony. We estimate 80% of our game sales to be on their platform. Our fans already exist on PlayStation and it would also cause us reputational harm by signing exclusivity with you. But hey, we like you, so we'll offer you the exact same terms as Sony for FFXVI exclusivity"
This is what you want evidence for?
DarkMage619
$MSFT
There is no evidence MS is leveraging their cloud infrastructure in an anti-competitive way now. So we have to decide how we view MS: as a weak loser or some sort of monopolistic titan. This shifts day to day based on which ever makes MS look worse for some people. This also continues to ignore that Sony too can invest more in cloud if they wanted to. Currently they aren't doing more and that's on them.
It should be based in the realm of reality. Currently streaming is one feature of console gaming. It is around 5% at the moment. There is not a realistic possibility that that 5% will transform to some sort of insurmountable advantage for Xbox. This also assumes that Sony would just sit back and watch this happen, helpless to do anything about it. Sony also does game streaming and did it BEFORE Xbox did. You should give Sony more credit. They will be fine.
The CMA mentioned Sony 50+ times. If it was really about Nintendo or regular consumers they don't seem to be aware. Perhaps THEY should look at this through a wider lens.
That should also give some credence to the strength of PlayStation brand and Sony as well. Xbox survived with all the money hats and blocking of content from their platform. The idea that PlayStation would leave the market or be wholly unable to compete over this acquisition and a single game does not pass the smell test. Again Sony is a major corporation capable of competing. Nintendo was able to outsell Xbox and they did not have one Call of Duty game. One franchise does not a platform make.
Any entrant into this space should be well aware of what type of investment that would take. There is also no guarantee that they would be successful. It is not on regulators to protect market leaders and prevent novel ways of doing business like both Nintendo and MS have done in this space. Sony is more than capable of competing here they aren't some sort of underdog.
We will need serious evidence that MS is doing nefarious things with data. We will also need evidence that MS has cross pollinated their cloud infrastructure with Xbox in an anti-competitive way. We already know that Xbox isn't using Azure we also know that MS isn't using their Windows OS to prevent companies from using their tech to run businesses. MS does business with many different vendors and there has never been any claim they are doing anything anti-trust related with Xbox and their other business clients.
Banjo my man PS+ and Now were MERGED by Sony. There is no PS Now any longer so you can't backtrack and claim it is some different thing than Game pass today. PS+ and Game pass are Sony and MS respective gaming subscription services. That means that PS+ has MORE subscribers than Game pass as of last count. Sony cannot be market leader and a weak victim at the same time. They have the mind share and market share to easily survive anything MS is doing as long as MS follows the law. There is no evidence MS has broken any laws with this acquisition.You’re not talking to me in good faith Mage. You know that I game on Xbox (it’s actually still my main system with my PS5 on the way out). I have never shifted narrative. PS Plus (Essential) has been mandatory for online play since the PS4 era. No form of Game Pass is mandatory. People pay for PS Plus because they want to play online. People pay for Game Pass because it has a huge catalogue of games, they don’t need it for online play. The devices aren’t compatible.
These are single player games that have had no platform even announced. MS is entitled to place their IP on whatever platforms they wish. Minecraft is a best analogy to CoD. Guess what? It is STILL on PlayStation and new games are also coming to PlayStation. Why? Because it is made a stronger IP by being multiplatform. Perhaps MS should come out and say if they will remove CoD or not. OH! They did. Looks like we can rest easy because CoD will remain on PlayStation. It might even hit Switch as well. Minecraft was expanded to more platforms after MS bought them FYI.
To be honest I'm not. No game is guaranteed on any platform. Sometimes you have to buy a platform to play a specific game. That has been true as long as there have been video games. It sucks for people who refuse to look elsewhere but that is business after all.
Why those titles and not Minecraft? None of those games have multi-player communities like CoD but Minecraft does. You'll note other multi-player titles MS has acquired still receive support as well. There just isn't much evidence of MS doing the things Sony does currently with regards to blocking content.
So is this about protecting some sort of imaginary new entrant into video games or protecting Sony's position? Currently the CMA is focused almost entirely on Sony. Any new entrant will need to read the market and present a compelling product. It will still require a substantial investment and again success is not guaranteed. Activision being with MS is not something that is impossible to complete against. Bigger gaming companies still exist. Like Sony.
Pulling implies that the game was announced for a platform then removed. Could you please point me to the announcement that Starfield was coming to PlayStation then removed? If you want an example of a game announced then removed check out Project Eve. It was coming to Xbox and now not so much. I'm totally fine with it though because like I said earlier not every game is promised to every platform. Xbox fans will get over it like they had to Final Fantasy, Street fighter and Octopath Traveler 2 too. MS will have to compete just like Sony and Nintendo. This acquisition is one such way.
No doubt I just happen to like it when a corporation is giving me more bang for my buck and not charging me unnecessary fees and raising prices on their hardware but they all certainly want more of our money. I want them to work for it and provide me with a good value.
Last edited:
IFireflyl
Gold Member
I am calm, and thinking logically. I prefaced that post with the comment that I was trying a different way of responding because the user I responded to is making claims with no evidence, and he keeps making this same claim repeatedly. You can't tell someone their wrong while using speculation as evidence to support your argument. That's what the person you're defending is doing.
Again, the user in question is saying that Microsoft is forced to acquire studios because they can't get their own exclusivity deals. They further stated that the reason Microsoft can't get their own exclusivity deals is because Sony is strong-arming the industry and essentially forcing developers/studios/publishers to give them better deals than they give to Microsoft. They gave no evidence to support this claim. They aren't saying that they speculate that Sony is being underhanded, but are instead saying that this is fact, and that it is "pure logic" and that everyone inherently knows it to be true.
Don't talk to me about logic when the person that you're defending (which, by the way, why??) is countering arguments with unsubstantiated claims.
The argument from that user wasn't that developers/studios/publishers are giving Sony a better deal. It was that Sony was strong-arming them into giving them that deal. That's the claim that requires evidence.
Last edited:
nikolino840
Member
️
Menzies
Banned
Well that's exactly what I've been arguing. Not some 'strong-arming' point that you've interpreted.
The market realities with a player in a dominant position means that the economics make deals a lot more affordable for the market leader.
That is my point.
freefornow
Gold Member
Last edited:
SlimySnake
Flashless at the Golden Globes
What could go wrong
Gamers Rise Up!
The only explanation for this is that someone at the very top of CMA is a big Knack fanboy.
So what was forcing MS hand with the GTA and COD moneyhats when Sony had little to no marketing deals during the PS3? You can't be this gullible surely.
kirby007
Member
you mean 15 years ago when their OG machine sold just north of 20 million? gee i wonder why they had to do something drastic
bluecowboys
Banned
DLC isn't the same as third party games being exclusive. Anyways, Microsoft was forced to make sure everyone knew former playstation exclusives like GTA are now on Xbox. What better way by having marketing and timed DLC? Sony also had marketing deals too during that generation.
bender
What time is it?
Rules for Three but not for MS.
Hero of Spielberg
Member
Does the CMA have any oversight of these deals or is it just acquisitions? Because if so, you would think these types of arrangements certainly favour the ‘market leader’ between Sony and MS and would arguably sway decision making on console purchases come new generations as the CMA seem to be concerned with in this instance.
maybe 150 vs 24 million users?
Maybe dealing with a large number of licenses and third party IPs that only came out on Playstation? Spending huge amounts of money to have what Sony got for free thanks to its dominant position and brand power?
Are you seriously trying to make believe that the moneyhat thing was invented by MS and that Sony didn't do it before? Really??
I mean when they sold 89M and were ahead during the 360 days.
Let me jog your memory a little bit then.
Splinter Cell Conviction
Ace Combat 6
Dead or Alive 4
Mass Effect 2
Fez
..
Want me to go on?
Last edited:
Numbers from your ass.
Menzies
Banned
It beggars belief. The regulators are either completely powerless, willfully ignorant, incompetent, or just don't care on matters outside of acquisitions.
DenchDeckard
Moderated wildly
So basically, Sony can force devs to have to wait 5 months to sign a deal for gamepass.....like they don't have too much power....I would put money Microsoft does not have THOSE kind of contract agreements with third party publishers.
I hope something comes out of this deal no matter which way it goes.
The industry needs to be fairer
I hope something comes out of this deal no matter which way it goes.
The industry needs to be fairer
Last edited:
ReBurn
Gold Member
It's really going to be Twitter levels of garbage. Should be fun.
Hero of Spielberg
Member
I think it just doesn't register on their radar until something like this deal comes along which makes them look so clueless about the actual state of the industry and so their concerns appear equally out of touch with the reality of the competitive landscape of the industry.
The fact they're asking players for their views expecting that to provide anything of value just emphasises how little they know about the world of videogames lol
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked