Support NeoGAF

[adamsapple]

I don’t interpret the CMA’s report based on my console preference, which is actually Xbox, no.

And no, you’re not alone, but all of the commentary I have seen that thinks the CMA have no valid points have been;

A. Xbox fanboys.
B. Xbox influencers like Tom Warren, and their associated websites.
C. American legal commentators, who have been indoctrinated to believe that corporations are gods.

You don’t help your case when you make absurd statements insinuating that the CMA are only looking out for Sony, you reduce yourself to looking like a fool.

So everyone who called out CMA's messaging is either a fanboy, fanboy adjacent or indoctrinated.

Tell me again how I'm the one interpreting things the way I want to

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

I've already answered the question that it's a moot thing to try and compare first party content with a third party, which at least one regulatory body has already deemed is not necessary to stay competitive.

Anything beyond that is subjective speculation and clearly we don't see eye to eye on all things.

No, all you've done is dodge a simple question. But carry on. I've got the real answer anyway

 

[DarkMage619]

So everyone who called out CMA's messaging is either a fanboy, fanboy adjacent or indoctrinated.

Tell me again how I'm the one interpreting things the way I want to

Don't forget the biggest Xbox fanboys on the planet the CADE regulators in Brazil. They clearly did not have a valid reason to conclude Sony would be able to compete even if CoD was removed. They did seen to be in disagreement with the CMA that consumers should be the focus not companies profits.

 

[Banjo64]

So everyone who called out CMA's messaging is either a fanboy, fanboy adjacent or indoctrinated.

Tell me again how I'm the one interpreting things the way I want to

Post a reputable, neutral website that slates the CMA’s report. I’ll wait.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

Are Mario,. Pokemon and Zelda third party games like CoD? Again Nintendo doesn't need a 3rd party title to be successful. They can rely on their 1st party and any other deals they make. So can MS and so can Sony.

Once again, why does the attribute third party/first party matter when the crux of your argument is x doesn't have y therefore z also doesn't need y

 

[adamsapple]

Don't forget the biggest Xbox fanboys on the planet the CADE regulators in Brazil. They clearly did not have a valid reason to conclude Sony would be able to compete even if CoD was removed. They did seen to be in disagreement with the CMA that consumers should be the focus not companies profits.

I remember the days of mid 2022 when Cade was held up as the beacon of impartiality around these parts as the body raising questions.

How quickly people forget when the verdict came out.

PS, MS tried to reaching out to CMA to set up a meeting and they didn't even want to do that.

Looks like CMA are fanboys and/or indoctrinated.

 

[IFireflyl]

That statement can just as easily apply to PS/PC/Mobile releases on day 1.


Like I said, it's not the same thing at all if you try to compare this with MS's messaging about Call of Duty where playstation is stated by name, no vague "we'll stay multiplatform" without any defined platforms is used.

When asked if something is going to go PlayStation exclusive they respond with, "No," and your response is that maybe they were talking about PC and mobile? Your fanboy boner is raging. I guess my response to you would be that they never stated how long they would remain on PlayStation. We only know that there is a three-year contract. If they went Xbox/PC exclusive after that contract expires then technically they told the truth. But you're saying we should trust that they won't do that. But you're also saying we shouldn't trust that Bungie will remain on Xbox even though it wouldn't make sense for them to remain independent and simultaneously be beholden to Sony. Sony and Bungie are con artists, but Microsoft is honest and forthcoming.

Your title makes perfect sense. You can shift goalposts and question the wording of messages when its Sony, but everything stated by Microsoft has to be taken at face value because they don't see gamers as faceless dollar signs - they see gamers as family. You make me sick.

 

[adamsapple]

When asked if something is going to go PlayStation exclusive they respond with, "No," and your response is that maybe they were talking about PC and mobile? Your fanboy boner is raging. I guess my response to you would be that they never stated how long they would remain on PlayStation. We only know that there is a three-year contract. If they went Xbox/PC exclusive after that contract expires then technically they told the truth. But you're saying we should trust that they won't do that. But you're also saying we shouldn't trust that Bungie will remain on Xbox even though it wouldn't make sense for them to remain independent and simultaneously be beholden to Sony. Sony and Bungie are con artists, but Microsoft is honest and forthcoming.

No, I'm saying one of those explicitly mentioned another console by name for future games. The other didn't.

You're the one who brought up the Bungie, I'm just pointing out the difference in how either case is communicated.

Don't get so angry over it.

Your title makes perfect sense. You can shift goalposts and question the wording of messages when its Sony, but everything stated by Microsoft has to be taken at face value because they don't see gamers as faceless dollar signs - they see gamers as family. You make me sick.

k ...

 

[Banjo64]

I remember the days of mid 2022 when Cade was held up as the beacon of impartiality around these parts as the body raising questions.

How quickly people forget when the verdict came out.

PS, MS tried to reaching out to CMA to set up a meeting and they didn't even want to do that.

Looks like CMA are fanboys and/or indoctrinated.

‘We couldn’t explain it in our submissions bro, had to be face to face’

Fanboys or indoctrinated - post an article from a neural source that takes issue with the CMA. There’s loads apparently, shouldn’t take a minute.

 

[adamsapple]

‘We couldn’t explain it in our submissions bro, had to be face to face’

Fanboys or indoctrinated - post an article from a neural source that takes issue with the CMA. There’s loads apparently, shouldn’t take a minute.

Sure.

What’s Past Is Prologue: Microsoft’s Acquisition of Activision Blizzard Does Not Raise Foreclosure Concerns

Competition authorities in the United Kingdom fear Microsoft will keep Call of Duty off Sony PlayStations if it acquires the game’s publisher. But that’s not what happened when it bought the developer of Minecraft, and there’s no reason to believe this time will be different.

itif.org

Microsoft’s past acquisition conduct demonstrates that the CMA’s concerns about vertical foreclosure are not well-founded.

While Microsoft also develops and publishes video games, the CMA has not raised any horizontal concerns about the merger—presumably because it recognized that video game publishing is highly competitive.

But the CMA either largely overlooks or draws incorrect conclusions about the evidence on Microsoft’s past acquisition conduct.

Now please proceed to tell us that this article is irrelevant because xyz.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

Sure.

What’s Past Is Prologue: Microsoft’s Acquisition of Activision Blizzard Does Not Raise Foreclosure Concerns

Competition authorities in the United Kingdom fear Microsoft will keep Call of Duty off Sony PlayStations if it acquires the game’s publisher. But that’s not what happened when it bought the developer of Minecraft, and there’s no reason to believe this time will be different.

itif.org

Now please proceed to tell us that this article is irrelevant because xyz.

Holy shit of all the sources

 

[adamsapple]

Holy shit of all the sources

Your turn Banjo.

 

[xHunter]

Sure.

What’s Past Is Prologue: Microsoft’s Acquisition of Activision Blizzard Does Not Raise Foreclosure Concerns

Competition authorities in the United Kingdom fear Microsoft will keep Call of Duty off Sony PlayStations if it acquires the game’s publisher. But that’s not what happened when it bought the developer of Minecraft, and there’s no reason to believe this time will be different.

itif.org

Now please proceed to tell us that this article is irrelevant because xyz.

Not really "neutral".

Also since you like to post Hoeg Laws videos:

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

Your turn Banjo.

Bro even Hoeg ripped into them

 

[DeepEnigma]

 

[adamsapple]

Bro even Hoeg ripped into them

Hoeg ?

The American legal commentators, who have been indoctrinated to believe that corporations are gods.

Y'all need to get your story straight, are we listening to Hoeg or not

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

Hoeg ?

The American legal commentators, who have been indoctrinated to believe that corporations are gods.

Y'all need to get your story straight, are we listening to Hoeg or not

When even the indoctrinated shits on an article you know you should be bowing out

 

[Banjo64]

Sure.

http://[URL]https://itif.org/public...blizzard-does-not-raise-foreclosure-concerns/

[/URL]









Now please proceed to tell us that this article is irrelevant because xyz.

That’s it sorry?

I can selectively quote as well, here you go;

Given the complexity of this analysis, there likely are valid criticisms to be made.

Now if you actually want to discuss the article you posted, I’m all for it.

A. This is a short article, which only looks at one single element of the CMA findings. There’s no mention at all of cloud gaming, existing infrastructure, brand recognition, subscription services or other potential entrants in to the market - which are all cornerstones of the CMA’s full report.

B. They don’t mention Zenimax at all, only ‘less valuable game titles’. The combined weight of Doom, TES, Fallout, Prey, Wolfenstein, Dishonoured and now Starfield FAR outweigh what Minecraft was AT THE TIME MS PURCHASED IT.

C. This appears to just be their own interpretation of that one element of the report, it’s hardly a scathing comprehensive assessment that reduces the CMA’s arguments to nothing. They literally just extrapolate that because Minecraft is multi platform, CoD will be too.

Do you have anything else?

 

[Banjo64]

And backed by MICROSOFT? As I said, The Land of Corporations. You should be embarrassed to post that as a neutral source.

 

[adamsapple]

When even the indoctrinated shits on an article you know you should be bowing out

I'm legitimately not surprised at this turn of events, I predicted it in the very post I quote the article


Anyway, more food for the fodder:

But Sony is doing this as we speak with the exact series in question. To list complaints like this for actions they themselves are taking presently is absurd, and should undercut their entire argument, though it doesn’t seem like it is, according to UK regulators. Though reading over that entire document, I am skeptical of how well the CMA really knows the industry, as they dismiss claims that Nintendo succeeds without Call of Duty because it’s mostly a “family based console” that is declared not direct competition to Sony and Microsoft.

Sony’s List Of ‘Demands’ For Microsoft Owning ‘Call Of Duty’ Is Ridiculous

No one is fighting back harder against Microsoft’s pending acquisition of Activision Blizzard than Sony, and this week, it seems they have possibly swayed UK regulators to their side.

www.forbes.com

--

and even if the CMA’s arguments don’t always add up and sometimes even their facts are wrong, it shows the very real possibility that yes, this is a regulatory body that could potentially kill this $70 billion deal.

What Happens If Microsoft Is Blocked From Buying Activision Blizzard?

This is what could happen if Microsoft cannot buy Activision Blizzard after all.

www.forbes.com

And backed by MICROSOFT? As I said, The Land of Corporations. You should be embarrassed to post that as a neutral source.

"Backed by" ? Microsoft is one of the hundred + mentioned on their website

You're calling a non-partisan, non-profit think tank Xbox fanboys as well.

At this point Christ himself could come down and say something about the CMA and you'll call him a fanboy

 

[DeepEnigma]

Now he posts a Paul Tassi.

Woosah! This thread is going places.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

I'm legitimately not surprised at this turn of events, I predicted it in the very post I quote the article


Anyway, more food for the fodder:

Sony’s List Of ‘Demands’ For Microsoft Owning ‘Call Of Duty’ Is Ridiculous

No one is fighting back harder against Microsoft’s pending acquisition of Activision Blizzard than Sony, and this week, it seems they have possibly swayed UK regulators to their side.

www.forbes.com

--

What Happens If Microsoft Is Blocked From Buying Activision Blizzard?

This is what could happen if Microsoft cannot buy Activision Blizzard after all.

www.forbes.com

He's referencing the Nintendo comparison

Do you really wanna do this tussle again bro?

 

[The_Mike]

Microsoft and the CMA

Gaf discussing about the same matter

 

[adamsapple]

Now he posts a Paul Tassi.

Woosah! This thread is going places.

 

[Banjo64]

I'm legitimately not surprised at this turn of events, I predicted it in the very post I quote the article


Anyway, more food for the fodder:

http://[URL]https://www.forbes.com/...g-call-of-duty-is-ridiculous/?sh=41ff1c9e5ad3

[/URL]

--

http://[URL]https://www.forbes.com/...m-buying-activision-blizzard/?sh=8ff202a380d4

[/URL]






"Backed by" ? Microsoft is one of the hundred + mentioned on their website

You're calling a non-partisan, non-profit think tank Xbox fanboys as well.

At this point Christ himself could come down and say something about the CMA and you'll call him a fanboy

Non-partisan whilst taking money from.

Again, since there’s so many, you should have no issue posting an actual neutral source that takes aim at the CMA.

 

[Banjo64]

You just look like an idiot mate

 

[adamsapple]

Non-partisan whilst taking money from.

Again, since there’s so many, you should have no issue posting an actual neutral source that takes aim at the CMA.

You asked for one, I posted multiple.

Anything I post you will continue to keep denying because to you it will be fanboyish, from a fanboyish influencer or from commentators who are indoctrinated.

It's a fools errand trying to continue this with you

 

[Banjo64]

You asked for one, I posted multiple.

Anything I post you will continue to keep denying because to you it will be fanboyish, from a fanboyish influencer or from commentators who are indoctrinated.

It's a fools errand trying to continue this with you

So you can’t.

Those Forbes articles are so weak that that one single line, that says sometimes their arguments don’t alway add up and sometimes they get some facts wrong (in their opinion) is your idea of a full on take down.

Laughable.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

Microsoft and the CMA

Gaf discussing about the same matter

What makes you believe those people in the CMA aren't just like "us"?.

 

[DeepEnigma]

You can make all the silly memes you want. He's a contributor, nothing more.

He also likes to get a rise out of people with certain articles. Just search his name on here alone, honk honk.

He's referencing the Nintendo comparison

Do you really wanna do this tussle again bro?

And this.

 

[feynoob]

That cloud revenue is insane. CMA is getting free information.

 

[DeepEnigma]

That cloud revenue is insane. CMA is getting free information.

See that, doing amazing. They don't need to buy up every 3rd party publisher to "compete."

 

[feynoob]

And backed by MICROSOFT? As I said, The Land of Corporations. You should be embarrassed to post that as a neutral source.

Paul Tassi
Senior Contributor

Forbes is good source. Writer wise, don't think so.

 

[feynoob]

See that, doing amazing. They don't need to buy up every 3rd party publisher to compete.

If they keep going at this trajectory, they might surpass x360. That is, if they keep steady pace and not fk up.

 

[DeepEnigma]

If they keep going at this trajectory, they might surpass x360. That is, if they keep steady pace and not fk up.

Doesn't sound like the wee struggles of peasantry their lawyers tried to sell.

 

[DarkMage619]

Once again, why does the attribute third party/first party matter when the crux of your argument is x doesn't have y therefore z also doesn't need y

You seem to be missing the point that 3rd party titles, which already aren't guarantied to be available, aren't the determining factor to a platforms viability. If Nintendo can have a successful platform without certain 3rd party titles and MS can find success without certain 3rd party titles why would Sony be exempt from this? CADE report broke this down perfectly.

You asked for one, I posted multiple.

Anything I post you will continue to keep denying because to you it will be fanboyish, from a fanboyish influencer or from commentators who are indoctrinated.

It's a fools errand trying to continue this with you

There was never going to be an acceptable answer. Again CADE gave fantastic analysis to the entire acquisition and they didn't take everything MS said at face value. The beauty is they didn't take everything Sony said at face value either. They also happened to believe that Nintendo is a viable competitor in this space and that Game pass isn't a separate market, reasonable conclusions. Hopefully the CMA is taking notes for phase 2.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

 

[feynoob]

Doesn't sound like the wee struggles of peasantry their lawyers tried to sell.

Just like arsenal. MS biggest enemy is themselves. They always find away to shoot themselves down. Even when they have success right in front of them.

Expect them to do some crazy shit.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

You seem to be missing the point that 3rd party titles, which already aren't guarantied to be available, aren't the determining factor to a platforms viability. If Nintendo can have a successful platform without certain 3rd party titles and MS can find success without certain 3rd party titles why would Sony be exempt from this? CADE report broke this down perfectly

And just like adams your inability to answer the question demonstrates you're aware of how illogical your argument is

 

[adamsapple]

You can make all the silly memes you want. He's a contributor, nothing more.

He also likes to get a rise out of people with certain articles. Just search his name on here alone, honk honk.

Like I said, I can post anything and anyone who wants to find a contradiction in it, will.

It's OK, I knew that before the exchange even began and the expected replies did not leave me disappointed.

Also, I linked 2 different articles, he's referencing Nintendo in one in relation to how CMA's statement sounds like they don't exactly know about the industry, which is a relevant point.

PS, the memes are dank, don't disrespect

There was never going to be an acceptable answer. Again CADE gave fantastic analysis to the entire acquisition and they didn't take everything MS said at face value. The beauty is they didn't take everything Sony said at face value either. They also happened to believe that Nintendo is a viable competitor in this space and that Game pass isn't a separate market, reasonable conclusions. Hopefully the CMA is taking notes for phase 2.

Exactly.

Interesting to note how so many have moved their focus to CMA and CADE isn't being brought up anymore. I expect if the CMA results are similar to CADE's after their phase 2 investigation, EU will become the next bastion of hope and so on.

 

[GHG]

Don't forget the biggest Xbox fanboys on the planet the CADE regulators in Brazil.

Who said this here? Point them out.

Or are you just making things up again to fit your narrative?

 

[Drewpee]

I'd like to know how Microsoft feels about being required to come out and say this and it might not even matter in the end lol I'd be terrible at business because 95% of my attention after this situation would be revenge against Sony.

If Sony is allowed to interfere with Microsoft's business like this and nothing happens they look ridiculously weak.

 

[DeepEnigma]

I'd like to know how Microsoft feels about being required to come out and say this and it might not even matter in the end lol I'd be terrible at business because 95% of my attention after this situation would be revenge against Sony.

If Sony is allowed to interfere with Microsoft's business like this and nothing happens they look ridiculously weak.

Microsoft buying the largest third party publishers is literally interfering with everyone who's partnered with business.

 

[DenchDeckard]

Niiiice!

Wouldn't be fair to not have parity, right Sony?

What happens if Xbox has more appealing stuff?

LMAO! at the hypocrisy.

 

[Banjo64]

he's referencing Nintendo in one in relation to how CMA's statement sounds like they don't exactly know about the industry, which is a relevant point.

I’ve read the full report. CMA think that Nintendo don’t strictly compete with Sony and Microsoft, how is that wrong? MS tried to present it as if they do. If anything it suggests a fantastic knowledge of the industry, because Nintendo do differentiate themselves from MS and Sony and don’t try to compete for the same mindshare.

Interesting to note how so many have moved their focus to CMA and CADE isn't being brought up anymore. I expect if the CMA results are similar to CADE's after their phase 2 investigation, EU will become the next bastion of hope and so on.

Who? Who was championing CADE? Stop with all the ‘shadowy figures’ bullshit and actually name names.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Niiiice!

Wouldn't be fair to not have parity, right Sony?

What happens if Xbox has more appealing stuff?

LMAO! at the hypocrisy.

Clearly this is over your head and has been explained ad nauseum every time a response like this comes up.

 

[Drewpee]

Microsoft buying the largest third party publishers is literally interfering with everyone who's partnered with business.

Buying studios and publishers is not a new phenomenon. Sony throwing everything against the wall to block the deal is (atleast this publicly). Regardless of which side you fall on its going to be interesting to see if there is any type of retaliation.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Buying studios and publishers is not a new phenomenon. Sony throwing everything against the wall to block the deal is (atleast this publicly). Regardless of which side you fall on its going to be interesting to see if there is any type of retaliation.

And neither is scrutiny and approval processes. Sony isn't "throwing everything at the wall," why sensationalize? The CMA asked them, and they responded. This is normal in these types of processes in big business.

 

[Menzies]

Niiiice!

Wouldn't be fair to not have parity, right Sony?

What happens if Xbox has more appealing stuff?

LMAO! at the hypocrisy.

We must protect Sony's right to CoD on Equal. Terms.

 

[DarkMage619]

And just like adams your inability to answer the question demonstrates you're aware of how illogical your argument is

Take it up with CADE. They seem to think Sony will be just fine if a 3rd party title is hypothetically removed from PlayStation (hint: it won't be). They provided over 80 pages of analysis. I'd love to see your work proving them wrong. Should be pretty easy since you are so logical after all.

Exactly.

Interesting to note how so many have moved their focus to CMA and CADE isn't being brought up anymore. I expect if the CMA results are similar to CADE's after their phase 2 investigation, EU will become the next bastion of hope and so on.

If this acquisition is looked at objectively it clear that the industry is more than robust enough for all actors to be competitive afterwards. Consumers should be the focus not companies potential lost profits. Never heard a good consumer harm or monopoly arguement agasint this deal.

I’ve read the full report. CMA think that Nintendo don’t strictly compete with Sony and Microsoft, how is that wrong? MS tried to present it as if they do. If anything it suggests a fantastic knowledge of the industry, because Nintendo do differentiate themselves from MS and Sony and don’t try to compete for the same mindshare.

The same argument could be made with MS and Game pass and cloud services. They too are differentiating themselves from the other competitors in this space (different power level consoles, day one first party titles in a sub service, access to games via cloud on mobile devices, not needing a console to access new games). To try and argue that Nintendo isn't actually competing for those same video game dollars doesn't make any sense at all. You can argue Sony and Nintendo have more in common business practice wise than MS yet they are all competitors in this market.