Support NeoGAF

[Menzies]

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

I can't imagine all the sophisticated, highbrow articulated arguments that an actual team of associates have to sift through.

At the same time, I really want to see that inbox lol

 

[Hero of Spielberg]

I can't imagine all the sophisticated, highbrow articulated arguments that an actual team of associates have to sift through.

At the same time, I really want to see that inbox lol

I imagine their inboxes overflowing with this sort of insightful commentary ...

 

[Hitchyhero]

This one snuck past:


Activision Blizzard can't have Call of Duty games on Game Pass, and Capcom has to give Sony first and last say in its games on Game Pass. I wonder who else Sony has these kinds of blocking rights with.

This kind of sh1t is much worse than buyouts. why doesnt the CMA regulate this crap.

 

[Three]

PS2 VS Xbox

Rather your ass is the one that does not want to understand

Who is talking about OG xbox? What a stupid thing to bring up. The GTA and CoD deals were on the xbox 360.

 

[The_Mike]

What could go wrong

At least we're gonna get a break from Ezekiel_ 's laughing smileys as he's busy making 2000 fake mail adresses to spam the CMA.

 

[Three]

I can see it already:

CMA: “FartKnocker69 wrote “This is outrayj and can be allowed to happen.”

If it's anything like the net neutrality public opinion call 96% would be bots from big corporations. Hell MS might even use deceased people again.

FartKnocker69s comment will be drowed out

https://www.wired.com/story/bots-broke-fcc-public-comment-system/

 

[PaintTinJr]

This kind of sh1t is much worse than buyouts. why doesnt the CMA regulate this crap.

Because Capcom entered into that deal willingly, and if they start to find their IPs failing to maximise returns on PlayStation, then they won't make the deals anymore - it is self-regulating by the publisher. Once an acquisition goes through then very little regulation - self or otherwise - will be forth coming, so even if Microsoft bought Activision and decided to kill CoD off completely - and with it over 1b in revenue for PlayStation per year - there's no push pack by anyone. It just happens and the game and money are gone.

 

[IFireflyl]

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.

You do realize that you interjected in a discussion I had with someone else, right? You responded to me when I was responding to D Darsxx82 . He's the one who keeps telling people that Sony is using their market dominance to strong-arm the industry. It wasn't my interpretation. That's actually what he said. This was the previous discussion I had with this poster:

Complaints are for:

...

-Because they are made by Sony using and abusing its market leading position and brand power in key markets. Agreements that other agents in the console market, such as MS, cannot access.

I have asked you guys to back up this claim a half-dozen times, and every time you ignore me. Where is the evidence that supports your claim that Sony is strong-arming the industry to bend to its will? How do you know that developers, studios, and publishers that are going with PlayStation aren't doing so because they simply prefer or like Sony/PlayStation more than Microsoft/Xbox?

LOL, that I ignored you? I answered you and you simply did not want to understand or do not want to accept

If you want something official, you have the letter from the CADE and the CMA where MS shows that this situation takes place and that they cannot reach the same agreements under equal conditions.

But it is not necessary, IT IS PURE LOGIC. If you are MS you have to compensate that 2x the number of users are left without a game to favor a user base 2x smaller or, depending on the specific market (Japan, Europe) 4x or 10x larger. Logically a Studio is going to ask for more or simply deny MS the possibility.

If you can't understand such a simple thing, it's your problem.

You quoted a post from me that was directed to someone else. Because you didn't read the discussions between me and this other person you had no clue what was going on, and you then acted like I'm doing weird interpretations of stuff that isn't being said. I'm happy to engage in a different discussion with you about this separate, thought similar, issue. But I didn't interpret the strong-arming argument that D Darsxx82 keeps making. He flat-out stated that Sony is abusing their dominant position to get favorable deals. That's the strong-arming argument. He brought it up, not me.

 

[phil_t98]

Absolutely.




Have yet to see that, also i don't have to sub to gamepass, even if they will make some great games (and i'm sure/hope they will at some point), but not all their games are gonna be that good or will interest me, stuffs like Redfall or Halo i won't play that kind of stuffs even if i got paid to. I rather support stuffs that i like rather than support every random lame stuff that i idgaf about that releases.

how do you know you won't like it unless you play it? or do you only play Sony games

 

[PaintTinJr]

If it's anything like the net neutrality public opinion call 96% would be bots from big corporations. Hell MS might even use deceased people again.

FartKnocker69s comment will be drowed out

https://www.wired.com/story/bots-broke-fcc-public-comment-system/

I actually think the CMA have entered into getting the public's views by designing a questionnaire to be ran on all the major gaming platforms with UK customers with all the platform holders buy-in. With it then being the responsibility of each platform to make sure the user accounts doing the questionnaires are suitably old enough to be bonafide UK accounts and in good standing, and to vet the dick pics/crazy free text answers.

IIRC from the phase 1 document the UK split of Xbox to PlayStation is reasonably even enough that it wouldn't be totally lopsided - like the worldwide stat Microsoft used, saying PlayStation has 60m more monthly active users than Xbox (in their phase 2 submission).

By consulting the public, the CMA can directly combat Microsoft saying they have no data to support foreclosure worries and can probably use any YouGov polls about the acquisition as evidence in any legal challenge, now with credibility.

Personally, I think sensible heads at Microsoft will consider the publicity this is now bringing - in a year where their shares have apparently dropped 30% - and step away from the deal by the end of next week, just through fear of returning to Judge Jackson times of notoriety and the impact that can have on the whole company brand.

 

[ReBurn]

Because Capcom entered into that deal willingly, and if they start to find their IPs failing to maximise returns on PlayStation, then they won't make the deals anymore - it is self-regulating by the publisher. Once an acquisition goes through then very little regulation - self or otherwise - will be forth coming, so even if Microsoft bought Activision and decided to kill CoD off completely - and with it over 1b in revenue for PlayStation per year - there's no push pack by anyone. It just happens and the game and money are gone.

And you base this on what? There's always scrutiny over competition. It doesn't end when mergers and acquisitions are completed. Nobody says "Well, the companies are merged. There's nothing anyone can do any more."

If this were to be approved by a regulator and Microsoft blatantly reneged on the testimony they provided the regulators absolutely could do something about it, including forced divestiture.

"Call of Duty can never go away" isn't something they could mandate anyway.

 

[Darsxx82]

Who is talking about OG xbox? What a stupid thing to bring up. The GTA and CoD deals were on the xbox 360.

Lol. The deals were at the very beginning of the X360/PS3 generation when they came from a market share of 150m vs 24m.
That is to say, MS carried out those agreements to fight with a huge disadvantage.

 

[PaintTinJr]

And you base this on what? There's always scrutiny over competition. It doesn't end when mergers and acquisitions are completed. Nobody says "Well, the companies are merged. There's nothing anyone can do any more."

If this were to be approved by a regulator and Microsoft blatantly reneged on the testimony they provided the regulators absolutely could do something about it, including forced divestiture.

"Call of Duty can never go away" isn't something they could mandate anyway.

Look at how the Bethesda Xbox exclusives only became a thing after the deal was complete. Had that been know in advance more regulator scrutiny might have came on that deal. And I am clearly talking in relative terms. Of course you still get the IE4 integrated desktop misuse of market position regulation when enough focus is added - probably why the semantically similar IE4-integration-styled Xbox game bar on Windows hasn't been regulated against yet.

 

[Menzies]

You do realize that you interjected in a discussion I had with someone else, right? You responded to me when I was responding to D Darsxx82 . He's the one who keeps telling people that Sony is using their market dominance to strong-arm the industry. It wasn't my interpretation. That's actually what he said. This was the previous discussion I had with this poster:








You quoted a post from me that was directed to someone else. Because you didn't read the discussions between me and this other person you had no clue what was going on, and you then acted like I'm doing weird interpretations of stuff that isn't being said. I'm happy to engage in a different discussion with you about this separate, thought similar, issue. But I didn't interpret the strong-arming argument that D Darsxx82 keeps making. He flat-out stated that Sony is abusing their dominant position to get favorable deals. That's the strong-arming argument. He brought it up, not me.

Again, it's the same point I had previously brought up and you replied to earlier, and its' probably just the language being used that you're objecting to here.

Sony "using and abusing its' position" is to say they are in an enviable position in the market, with respect to Xbox, where they can enter negotiations with publishers for exclusivity for a substantially lower monetary exchange of hands, than what is otherwise available to Microsoft.

Are we talking past each other and in circles enough?

I don't believe anyone is making the case that Sony is bullying publishers to not make deals of 10x the monetary amount with Microsoft, it's just that there's a lot more investment required.

 

[elliot5]

Look at how the Bethesda Xbox exclusives only became a thing after the deal was complete. Had that been know in advance more regulator scrutiny might have came on that deal. And I am clearly talking in relative terms. Of course you still get the IE4 integrated desktop misuse of market position regulation when enough focus is added - probably why the semantically similar IE4-integration-styled Xbox game bar on Windows hasn't been regulated against yet.

If you look at the European Commission's documents on the ZeniMax deal, Microsoft shared (redacted) business plans regarding the future of Zenimax titles and all that. It's not like they pulled a fast one.

 

[ReBurn]

Look at how the Bethesda Xbox exclusives only became a thing after the deal was complete. Had that been know in advance more regulator scrutiny might have came on that deal. And I am clearly talking in relative terms. Of course you still get the IE4 integrated desktop misuse of market position regulation when enough focus is added - probably why the semantically similar IE4-integration-styled Xbox game bar on Windows hasn't been regulated against yet.

How many gaming company mergers prior to this one have had the expectation that content would not remain exclusive? Are you also saying that the Bungie acquisition should have been prevented because Sony might make Destiny exclusive?

And dude, if you're still on IE4 then you're a lost cause. That was 25 years ago.

 

[Three]

Lol. The deals were at the very beginning of the X360/PS3 generation when they came from a market share of 150m vs 24m.
That is to say, MS carried out those agreements to fight with a huge disadvantage.

What a crock of shit. And the Fallout 3 timed DLC exclusive agreements in 2009? 4 yrs after 360 released. What's the excuse for that one? You make up things as you go along.

 

[PaintTinJr]

If you look at the European Commission's documents on the ZeniMax deal, Microsoft shared (redacted) business plans regarding the future of Zenimax titles and all that. It's not like they pulled a fast one.

In the CMA phase 1 document (page 6) they specifically mention the issue of making Bethesda games exclusive - as though they weren't part of being in the know on it pre-acquisition

"27. The CMA examined internal documents and economic analyses to assess whether Microsoft would have an incentive to use ABK’s content to foreclose rivals. The CMA did not limit its analysis to an assessment of the short-term or ‘static’ costs and benefits to Microsoft of engaging in these strategies. Rather, the CMA considered Microsoft’s broader strategies, as evidenced by its internal documents and historical course of dealing following similar transactions in the past. The CMA found that the potential strategic benefits to Microsoft of using ABK’s content to foreclose rivals— such as expanding the Game Pass user base and strengthening network effects in its gaming ecosystem—could outweigh any immediate losses in terms of licensing revenues. The CMA notes that Microsoft has followed this approach in several past acquisitions of gaming studios, where it made future game releases from those studios exclusive in consoles to Xbox (such as the upcoming Starfield and, based on Microsoft's public statements, Elder Scrolls VI from Bethesda, a studio Microsoft acquired as part of its USD 7.5 billion acquisition of ZeniMax in 2021)."

 

[ZehDon]

If it's anything like the net neutrality public opinion call 96% would be bots from big corporations. Hell MS might even use deceased people again.

FartKnocker69s comment will be drowed out

https://www.wired.com/story/bots-broke-fcc-public-comment-system/

I think that's a good comparison, and easily highlights why this is a dumb decision.

 

[PaintTinJr]

How many gaming company mergers prior to this one have had the expectation that content would not remain exclusive? Are you also saying that the Bungie acquisition should have been prevented because Sony might make Destiny exclusive?

And dude, if you're still on IE4 then you're a lost cause. That was 25 years ago.

The bolded part shows you aren't arguing in good faith and deflecting, clearly, I'm drawing a parallel of past actions and similarity between current Opengl/Vulkan (as Netscape) on Windows and Xbox game bar/DirectX(as IE4 desktop integration). you'll downplay it, but this and other associated APIs/tools all support the CMA's fears of Microsoft angling to be a gatekeeper of all avenues to gaming.

 

[Bo_Hazem]

 

[adamsapple]

how do you know you won't like it unless you play it? or do you only play Sony games

Loyalty or zealotry, either fits.

 

[bluecowboys]

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?

Most of those skipped PlayStation or timed on Xbox because of Sonys convoluted hardware and releasing late. Same reason why left 4 dead skipped ps3.

 

[The_Mike]

how do you know you won't like it unless you play it? or do you only play Sony games

A wise man should not ask questions where he already knows the answer

 

[Three]

Most of those skipped PlayStation or timed on Xbox because of Sonys convoluted hardware and releasing late. Same reason why left 4 dead skipped ps3.

More incorrect excuses I see. That's not why at all even if that's what you want to believe. Mass effect and Fez had 1 year+ exclusivity agreements. Splinter Cell conviction was a full on exclusive agreement with MS retaining full rights to the game. Ace Combat 6 had an agreement for exclusivity, and I don't understand how you can talk about Dead or Alive 4 not coming to PS3 due to convoluted hardware with a straight face but I suspect because you don't know that MS had a deal for Dead or Alive 3 exclusivity for OG xbox and skipped PS2 even. That deal ran on to the sequel Dead or Alive 4 on xbox 360. Nothing to do with convoluted hardware or releasing later.

 

[IFireflyl]

Again, it's the same point I had previously brought up and you replied to earlier, and its' probably just the language being used that you're objecting to here.

Sony "using and abusing its' position" is to say they are in an enviable position in the market, with respect to Xbox, where they can enter negotiations with publishers for exclusivity for a substantially lower monetary exchange of hands, than what is otherwise available to Microsoft.

Are we talking past each other and in circles enough?

I don't believe anyone is making the case that Sony is bullying publishers to not make deals of 10x the monetary amount with Microsoft, it's just that there's a lot more investment required.

The user in question stated that Sony is both using AND abusing their market dominance. "Abusing" doesn't mean that they are in an enviable position, and you know it. If that's the hill you want to die on then I'll just ignore you from here on out, because only a console warrior is going to make that argument. If someone is abusing their position it means they are doing something they shouldn't be doing.

Also, I have responded to you before. If I missed something then my bad, but I didn't think I did. If a developer/studio/publisher gives a better deal to Company A than Company B because that developer/studio/publisher wanted to (whether due to having a good relationship with past deals, or maybe they agree with their business practices, or whatever it is) then that's not Sony using or abusing their market dominance. It is the company's prerogative and right to choose who they do business with.

The only way that exclusivity agreements are going to be an abuse by Sony is if Sony is strong-arming the developers/studios/publishers into agreements. That would be Sony abusing their market dominance, and I already stated that if there is evidence of that occurring then Sony needs to be reported, fined, and slapped back into their place. But there has been no evidence of Sony coercing, intimidating, or resorting to any other shady behavior in order to get more favorable deals.

In fact, we have yet to see evidence that Microsoft has even attempted to make agreements with the studios that Sony has agreements with. This entire argument is predicated around the premise that Microsoft has attempted to make agreements with these studios, that the deal Microsoft made with the studios in question was valued at equal to or greater than the deal that Sony got, and that Microsoft didn't have further clauses in their deals that made the deal seem worse to the studios in question (such as a clause forcing a game to be on Game Pass). We don't have proof that any of this has even occurred, and yet you're still going to state that the reason why Final Fantasy VII: Remake (just as an example) isn't on Xbox is because Sony convinced Square Enix to take their lesser deal? Utter poppycock.

 

[bluecowboys]

More incorrect excuses I see. That's not why at all even if that's what you want to believe. Mass effect and Fez had 1 year marketing agreements. Splinter Cell conviction was a full on exclusive agreement with MS retaining full rights to the game. Ace Combat 6 had an agreement for exclusivity, and I don't understand how you can talk about Dead or Alive 4 not coming to PS3 due to convoluted hardware with a straight face but I suspect because you don't know that MS had a deal for Dead or Alive 3 exclusivity for OG xbox and skipped PS2 even. That deal ran on to the sequel Dead or Alive 4 on xbox 360. Nothing to do with convoluted hardware or releasing later.

Mass effect 2 was year exclusive because EA had to come up with a special edition for ps3 users to explain the first game and re program some of the first game decisions.

Fez was an indie game and a lot of Indie games skipped ps3 or delayed it. Why? because ps3 software sales wasn’t as good and ps3 cell architecture was convoluted. Also, Not same as AAA game.

The DoA4 game had no exclusive rights with Xbox. The ps3 came out late and had convoluted hardware that they didn’t bother releasing the game on ps3.

 

[SmurfMustard]

At least we're gonna get a break from Ezekiel_ 's laughing smileys as he's busy making 2000 fake mail adresses to spam the CMA.

Ezekiel_ right now.

 

[ReBurn]

The bolded part shows you aren't arguing in good faith and deflecting, clearly, I'm drawing a parallel of past actions and similarity between current Opengl/Vulkan (as Netscape) on Windows and Xbox game bar/DirectX(as IE4 desktop integration). you'll downplay it, but this and other associated APIs/tools all support the CMA's fears of Microsoft angling to be a gatekeeper of all avenues to gaming.

Windows 95 did not ship with IE at launch. The case was initially over Microsoft using their position as the publisher of Windows to coerce PC manufacturers to bundle IE with PC's over competing browsers, then trying to claim that IE could not be removed from Windows 95 without significantly impacting the operation of Windows. Obviously this was bullshit and Microsoft fought it and lost.

The US government tried to block IE from shipping with later versions of Windows but the US judge ruled that the issue wasn't about what software that could be included with Windows. Since nothing prevented end users from installing a competing browser the thing just died. In Europe they tried to make Microsoft release a version of Windows 7 without IE but it was ultimately canceled because pretty much everyone hated the idea. Since that time Microsoft has made no move to block competing browsers. Other OS's have shipped with browsers that can't be removed. Literally nobody but you seems to care about IE. IE doesn't even exist any more for Christ's sake.

There's no relation to DirectX, either. Anyone developing software on Windows can use the DirectX API without having to license it, and there is no requirement to use DirectX when building software for Windows. So the idiotic notion that Microsoft must open source DirectX or somehow they're a monopoly is truly dumb. OpenGL and Vulkan are competing API's that Microsoft does not restrict on Windows. They're not trying to enforce a monopoly.

I have to admit your specious arguments are entertaining. But they are kind of silly.

 

[Three]

Mass effect 2 was year exclusive because EA had to come up with a special edition for ps3 users to explain the first game and re program some of the first game decisions.

What an absolutely comical take. So let me get this straight, EA wanted to release Mass Effect 2 on PS3 at the same time as xbox 360 but it took them 1 year exactly to create this 14min comic strip as DLC and that's why it was 1 year late on the dot?

Fez was an indie game and a lot of Indie games skipped ps3 or delayed it. Why? because ps3 software sales wasn’t as good and ps3 cell architecture was convoluted. Also, Not same as AAA game.

The DoA4 game had no exclusive rights with Xbox. The ps3 came out late and had convoluted hardware that they didn’t bother releasing the game on ps3.

what don't you get about DOA3 not releasing on PS2 even though DOA2 was on PS2? Had nothing to do with the PS3 convoluted hardware or being a year late. They had an agreement with xbox that ran from DOA3 to DOA4.

 

[elliot5]

In the CMA phase 1 document (page 6) they specifically mention the issue of making Bethesda games exclusive - as though they weren't part of being in the know on it pre-acquisition

"27. The CMA examined internal documents and economic analyses to assess whether Microsoft would have an incentive to use ABK’s content to foreclose rivals. The CMA did not limit its analysis to an assessment of the short-term or ‘static’ costs and benefits to Microsoft of engaging in these strategies. Rather, the CMA considered Microsoft’s broader strategies, as evidenced by its internal documents and historical course of dealing following similar transactions in the past. The CMA found that the potential strategic benefits to Microsoft of using ABK’s content to foreclose rivals— such as expanding the Game Pass user base and strengthening network effects in its gaming ecosystem—could outweigh any immediate losses in terms of licensing revenues. The CMA notes that Microsoft has followed this approach in several past acquisitions of gaming studios, where it made future game releases from those studios exclusive in consoles to Xbox (such as the upcoming Starfield and, based on Microsoft's public statements, Elder Scrolls VI from Bethesda, a studio Microsoft acquired as part of its USD 7.5 billion acquisition of ZeniMax in 2021)."

Thats not an “issue”. Its a point of investigating whether such similar behavior would lead to a significant lessening of competition. Microsoft is allowed to make stuff they own exclusive.

 

[Hero of Spielberg]

In the CMA phase 1 document (page 6) they specifically mention the issue of making Bethesda games exclusive - as though they weren't part of being in the know on it pre-acquisition

"27. The CMA examined internal documents and economic analyses to assess whether Microsoft would have an incentive to use ABK’s content to foreclose rivals. The CMA did not limit its analysis to an assessment of the short-term or ‘static’ costs and benefits to Microsoft of engaging in these strategies. Rather, the CMA considered Microsoft’s broader strategies, as evidenced by its internal documents and historical course of dealing following similar transactions in the past. The CMA found that the potential strategic benefits to Microsoft of using ABK’s content to foreclose rivals— such as expanding the Game Pass user base and strengthening network effects in its gaming ecosystem—could outweigh any immediate losses in terms of licensing revenues. The CMA notes that Microsoft has followed this approach in several past acquisitions of gaming studios, where it made future game releases from those studios exclusive in consoles to Xbox (such as the upcoming Starfield and, based on Microsoft's public statements, Elder Scrolls VI from Bethesda, a studio Microsoft acquired as part of its USD 7.5 billion acquisition of ZeniMax in 2021)."

Bit of a stretch to say that acquiring ActiBlizz and using that to strengthen Gamepass user base would lead to foreclosure of rivals I would have thought. Does all Sony's IP and market power all just magically disappear?

 

[gothmog]

Bit of a stretch to say that acquiring ActiBlizz and using that to strengthen Gamepass user base would lead to foreclosure of rivals I would have thought. Does all Sony's IP and market power all just magically disappear?

No but it is a significant yearly driver of hardware and software sales for them. The risk is not zero to them. If you were leading the company and did not try to defend it's interests you would be looking for a new job.

The CMAs job is to determine if that risk applies to the larger industry.

 

[Hero of Spielberg]

No but it is a significant yearly driver of hardware and software sales for them. The risk is not zero to them. If you were leading the company and did not try to defend it's interests you would be looking for a new job.

The CMAs job is to determine if that risk applies to the larger industry.

I agree, it's definitely worth scrutiny and of course Sony will fight tooth and nail. I'm just questioning the wording they're using in their concerns. It seems to be quite the prediction to suggest that with ABK content exclusive to MS there is a significant concern that they will 'foreclose rivals'. Furthermore, I would suggest any business that has a strategic advantage would have the incentive to use it to foreclose competitors, whether that is realistic or even possible is a completely different question.

 

[CatLady]

Look at how the Bethesda Xbox exclusives only became a thing after the deal was complete. Had that been know in advance more regulator scrutiny might have came on that deal.

The only Xbox owned Bethesda exclusives so far were both on PlayStation with Deathloop and Ghostwire the latter we still don't have on Xbox.

 

[Barakov]

Well, I just look at the current state of Halo and go

 

[bluecowboys]

What an absolutely comical take. So let me get this straight, EA wanted to release Mass Effect 2 on PS3 at the same time as xbox 360 but it took them 1 year exactly to create this 14min comic strip as DLC and that's why it was 1 year late on the dot?





what don't you get about DOA3 not releasing on PS2 even though DOA2 was on PS2? Had nothing to do with the PS3 convoluted hardware or being a year late. They had an agreement with xbox that ran from DOA3 to DOA4.

You do realize there is more to it than just a comic strip right? The ps3 architecture was over convoluted like I said before and bioware was mainly a PC developer. The PC and Xbox hardware was similar in many ways. That is why the PS3 never got left 4 dead. Hell, some of Bethesda games were a joke on the PS3 and a broken mess. Know why? Because they were primarily a PC game developer just like bioware.

DOA3 is not equal to DOA4. One of the main reasons why DOA3 was exclusive to the OG xbox like many other games is because of its hardware. Team Ninja often said that DOA3 couldn't be done on any other console from that generation. Xbox 360 DOA4 could've been on playstation if PS3 didn't delay their console and have over convoluted hardware to develop for. There was no exclusivity deal just like there was no marketing deal for Left 4 dead. Gabe Newell was very vocal about the PS3 Cell hardware and how much of a mess it was.

 

[Three]

You do realize there is more to it than just a comic strip right? The ps3 architecture was over convoluted like I said before and bioware was mainly a PC developer. The PC and Xbox hardware was similar in many ways. That is why the PS3 never got left 4 dead. Hell, some of Bethesda games were a joke on the PS3 and a broken mess. Know why? Because they were primarily a PC game developer just like bioware.

DOA3 is not equal to DOA4. One of the main reasons why DOA3 was exclusive to the OG xbox like many other games is because of its hardware. Team Ninja often said that DOA3 couldn't be done on any other console from that generation. Xbox 360 DOA4 could've been on playstation if PS3 didn't delay their console and have over convoluted hardware to develop for. There was no exclusivity deal just like there was no marketing deal for Left 4 dead. Gabe Newell was very vocal about the PS3 Cell hardware and how much of a mess it was.

"I believe we'll be Xbox 360 exclusive for at least a short period of time," BioWare senior manager Matt Atwood told CVG. "We're still working out the details on that, but we've had a great relationship with Microsoft and done very well."

"Great relationship with Microsoft" must be Swahili for "We made Dragon Age PS3 but PS3 too convoluted now for ME2" .

 

[onesvenus]

I actually think the CMA have entered into getting the public's views by designing a questionnaire to be ran on all the major gaming platforms with UK customers with all the platform holders buy-in. With it then being the responsibility of each platform to make sure the user accounts doing the questionnaires are suitably old enough to be bonafide UK accounts and in good standing, and to vet the dick pics/crazy free text answers.

Do you have any evidence of that? They have enabled an email on their website and that seems to be the only way they are doing that.

By consulting the public, the CMA can directly combat Microsoft saying they have no data to support foreclosure worries and can probably use any YouGov polls about the acquisition as evidence in any legal challenge, now with credibility.

Why are you assuming the market is worried? What data do you have to support that? I suppose none because if you have, it would also be available to the CMA and then they wouldn't need to ask people.

Personally, I think sensible heads at Microsoft will consider the publicity this is now bringing - in a year where their shares have apparently dropped 30% - and step away from the deal by the end of next week

You wish. This shows how biased and out of touch with the reality you are. Do you want to do a ban bet on Microsoft stepping away from the deal next week?

 

[DForce]

You do realize there is more to it than just a comic strip right? The ps3 architecture was over convoluted like I said before and bioware was mainly a PC developer. The PC and Xbox hardware was similar in many ways. That is why the PS3 never got left 4 dead. Hell, some of Bethesda games were a joke on the PS3 and a broken mess. Know why? Because they were primarily a PC game developer just like bioware.

Microsoft had a time-exclusive deal for Mass Effect 2.

DOA3 is not equal to DOA4. One of the main reasons why DOA3 was exclusive to the OG xbox like many other games is because of its hardware. Team Ninja often said that DOA3 couldn't be done on any other console from that generation. Xbox 360 DOA4 could've been on playstation if PS3 didn't delay their console and have over convoluted hardware to develop for. There was no exclusivity deal just like there was no marketing deal for Left 4 dead. Gabe Newell was very vocal about the PS3 Cell hardware and how much of a mess it was.

Microsoft approached Tecmo to make Dead or Alive 3 exclusive to Xbox. This led to other Tecmo games such as Ninja Gaiden being exclusive to Xbox (either full or timed exclusive).

You're making up bs because you want to defend Microsoft by making exclusive deals with developers and it's not working.

 

[Menzies]

The user in question stated that Sony is both using AND abusing their market dominance. "Abusing" doesn't mean that they are in an enviable position, and you know it. If that's the hill you want to die on then I'll just ignore you from here on out, because only a console warrior is going to make that argument. If someone is abusing their position it means they are doing something they shouldn't be doing.

Also, I have responded to you before. If I missed something then my bad, but I didn't think I did. If a developer/studio/publisher gives a better deal to Company A than Company B because that developer/studio/publisher wanted to (whether due to having a good relationship with past deals, or maybe they agree with their business practices, or whatever it is) then that's not Sony using or abusing their market dominance. It is the company's prerogative and right to choose who they do business with.

The only way that exclusivity agreements are going to be an abuse by Sony is if Sony is strong-arming the developers/studios/publishers into agreements. That would be Sony abusing their market dominance, and I already stated that if there is evidence of that occurring then Sony needs to be reported, fined, and slapped back into their place. But there has been no evidence of Sony coercing, intimidating, or resorting to any other shady behavior in order to get more favorable deals.

In fact, we have yet to see evidence that Microsoft has even attempted to make agreements with the studios that Sony has agreements with. This entire argument is predicated around the premise that Microsoft has attempted to make agreements with these studios, that the deal Microsoft made with the studios in question was valued at equal to or greater than the deal that Sony got, and that Microsoft didn't have further clauses in their deals that made the deal seem worse to the studios in question (such as a clause forcing a game to be on Game Pass). We don't have proof that any of this has even occurred, and yet you're still going to state that the reason why Final Fantasy VII: Remake (just as an example) isn't on Xbox is because Sony convinced Square Enix to take their lesser deal? Utter poppycock.

It's just a common expression. In this case the 'abuse' just means that they're over-using this perk too often (in the eyes of some) and to good effect for their advantage.

The problem here is that Microsoft may have even floated Square Enix an offer 10 times the amount as Sony, but the sales projections and reputational harm may mean that it's still the lesser deal for them. So yes, whilst it is two businesses willfully entering into mutually beneficial deals, I am still surprised that a competition regulator doesn't view this as a foreclosure concern is all.

 

[PaintTinJr]

Do you have any evidence of that? They have enabled an email on their website and that seems to be the only way they are doing that.

No, I'm just going by the impractical nature of vetting millions of emails, when everyone involved has a vested interest in the public - that all regulatory bodies represent - being okay with the outcome and their stats being collected qualitatively. The CMA are a very capable regulator having questioned the UK games industry, already and would be expected to have a workable method for get wider feedback too.

Why are you assuming the market is worried? What data do you have to support that? I suppose none because if you have, it would also be available to the CMA and then they wouldn't need to ask people.

Read the CMA phase 1 document, lots of questionnaire responses were used to form their view on foreclosure strategies. Just because they didn't say Nintendo, Valve, Epic, etc doesn't mean that if this is legally challenged, they aren't going to bring other names into the conversation and completely blindside Microsoft.

You wish. This shows how biased and out of touch with the reality you are. Do you want to do a ban bet on Microsoft stepping away from the deal next week?

Why would I bet on something? Do I strike you as someone who would want to silence others "opinions" by getting them banned?

I'd be more likely to consider a multiplier bet at a bookies on Brazil to win in Qatar and Anthony dos santos to get the golden boot.

 

[reksveks]

No, I'm just going by the impractical nature of vetting millions of emails, when everyone involved has a vested interest in the public - that all regulatory bodies represent - being okay with the outcome and their stats being collected qualitatively. The CMA are a very capable regulator having questioned the UK games industry, already and would be expected to have a workable method for get wider feedback too.

This idea of having a survey on gaming platform isn't going to happen and is without any precedent.

Also the timelines wouldn't really work imo. How quickly are you expecting the platforms to all integrate this 'survey'? Imagine getting Switch to do this and also consoles arent the best ux to do this kind of thing.

If you want the platform holders help, you could ask them to verify via hashed email addresses.

 

[PaintTinJr]

This idea of having a survey on gaming platform isn't going to happen and is without any precedent.

Also the timelines wouldn't really work imo. How quickly are you expecting the platforms to all integrate this 'survey'? Imagine getting Switch to do this and also consoles arent the best ux to do this kind of thing.

If you want the platform holders help, you could ask them to verify via hashed email addresses.

You could be right, but Nintendo had a full opinion voting channel app on the Wii.

A questionnaire like this would be nothing to the platform holders to get working, because they all have web browser functionality in their SDKs AFAIK, so just a secure back-end - using cloud - would do all the heavy lifting. I'm talking about something like the recent eSports Football questionnaire setup - that let me tell them the game is garbage compared to all previous PES games from PES 2021 Update and earlier.

 

[Tams]

Mods, please delete this if you consider it brigading.

Now, I'm not saying you should send an email, but you could...

“Any party wishing to respond to this issues statement should do so in writing, no later than Friday 28 October 2022 by emailing microsoft.activision@cma.gov.uk”

 

[skit_data]

Mods, please delete this if you consider it brigading.

Now, I'm not saying you should send an email, but you could...

“Any party wishing to respond to this issues statement should do so in writing, no later than Friday 28 October 2022 by emailing microsoft.activision@cma.gov.uk”

Anybody know if it’s common to do things this way? Asking about opinions from the public that is

 

[MasterCornholio]

This kind of sh1t is much worse than buyouts. why doesnt the CMA regulate this crap.

Because its open to the competition as well to do. A buyout doesn't allow the competition to have a say on which platforms the games release on. Problematic when your dealing with a huge multiplatform publisher.

 

[Tams]

Anybody know if it’s common to do things this way? Asking about opinions from the public that is

Consult the public? Yeah, you just don't hear about most of them.

They don't have to act according to the responses they get, but it is important and democratic to at the very least ask for them. And therefore the officials in charge would also be in trouble if they skipped this step, even if they think it's a waste of time.

 

[TheGodfather07]

With silent hill 2 as an exclusive, sony better watch out. Microsoft might buy EA, take two, ubisoft and Nintendo in response. Sonys dominance must be stopped at all costs! Microsoft will give us gamers what we really want. Just like how they've always done.

 

[M1chl]

What could go wrong

Thread worthy, just for the replies