Support NeoGAF

[DarkMage619]

Why do people continue to not understand that this is different for acquisitions or mergers? In one the company has to pay another company to get extra content and companies can compete. in the other the merged entity is using its merged position to lower competition.

People bring up Minecraft dungeons as some bastion of good will yet fail to mention that MS never made a PS5 version of that game either, meaning it got higher res and higher fps for a specific console, guess which?
Companies are fighting in an acquisition for equal access on equal terms, not saying extra content is immoral. They are arguing why a company should remain independent for competition, nothing else.

How is this acquisition lowering competition? Sony is perfectly capable of purchasing companies and securing exclusive content just like Microsoft. In fact they are actively doing it right now. This is the spirit of competition.

With regard to Minecraft Dungeons and Legends, how many Sony owned IP are being put on Xbox AT ALL? The PS5 is perfectly capable of of playing PS4 games and the PS4 has more consoles out in the wild anyway. It makes more business sense to make a PS4 version of the game and cover most active PlayStations. Bottom line is MS is under no obligation to put any of their IP on PlayStation but they did it anyway and continue to support many other titles as well.

Activision was for sale. They are not the subject of a hostile takeover. Under MS employees of Activision can get into unions and the many, many sexual harassment complaints can be addressed. In addition Bobby Kotick will be removed from his current leadership position, something that is highly unlikely if this acquisition didn't take place. The culture of the company is in a horrible state currently.

Sony is unable to address any of these issues and them complaining about CoD looks incredibly small in the grand scheme of things. They should be greatful MS is willing to provide the title to them at all. It sounds very much like entitlement. We can all imagine what things would look like if Sony was buying Activision.

 

[IFireflyl]

Is this some kind of dense, which I don't understand?

Sony complained about partial content disparity, in which they are currently engaging in.

They can't complain about it, while also doing it. It doesn't matter if MS did it in the past or not. They are actively committing, what they are crying about.

I think what Sony meant was the Microsoft could release Xbox-exclusive playable content, not skins and stuff that doesn't actually matter. For example, what if Call of Duty was released on Xbox and PlayStation, but only Xbox got certain maps or game expansions? I believe that's the real crux.

 

[IFireflyl]

How is this acquisition lowering competition? Sony is perfectly capable of purchasing companies and securing exclusive content just like Microsoft.

Acquiring other companies isn't competition. What a stupid post.

 

[feynoob]

I think what Sony meant was the Microsoft could release Xbox-exclusive playable content, not skins and stuff that doesn't actually matter. For example, what if Call of Duty was released on Xbox and PlayStation, but only Xbox got certain maps or game expansions? I believe that's the real crux.

That is the issue here. Currently PS is getting very special treatment. While maps being exclusive is a good argument, the current deals that they are doing now undermines their points. They are giving MS extra ammo.

 

[Three]

Is this some kind of dense, which I don't understand?

Sony complained about partial content disparity, in which they are currently engaging in.

They can't complain about it, while also doing it. It doesn't matter if MS did it in the past or not. They are actively committing, what they are crying about.

Are you dense? The argument is that they would have an inferior offering regardless of what they do. ie they cannot compete to offer the same or better. They can't make a merged entity do anything to offer a similar or better offering when that merged entity has a competing product.

 

[feynoob]

Are you dense? The argument is that they would have an inferior offering regardless of what they do. ie they cannot compete to offer the same or better. They can't make a merged entity do anything to offer a similar or better offering when that merged entity has a competing product.

Says the company, who is currently getting the best product right now, while crying about it..
You are the dense one here.

Sony benifited massively from these deals. They have no rights to cry about it, when they are doing the same thing to the competition.

 

[Three]

Says the company, who is currently getting the best product right now, while crying about it..
You are the dense one here.

Sony benifited massively from these deals. They have no rights to cry about it, when they are doing the same thing to the competition.

Because you don't understand that they are not crying about being able to offer the best product but having access to being able to offer it.

I'll give you an example say a company sells bandwidth on a network. BT pays and buys more bandwidth than Virgin. BT can offer a better product. Then virgin decides that it wants to buy the network that offered that bandwidth and BT could no longer offer a better or similar service. Do you think BT has a right to complain? Yes or no question. BT isn't arguing that being able to pay for more bandwidth it's complaining about equal access and for it to remain independent. To have the ability to compete for that bandwidth.

 

[IFireflyl]

That is the issue here. Currently PS is getting very special treatment. While maps being exclusive is a good argument, the current deals that they are doing now undermines their points. They are giving MS extra ammo.

I think you're missing my point. Right now PlayStation is getting the better deal with Call of Duty, but none of their benefits are regarding playable content (e.g. extra maps, levels, campaign missions, et cetera). It's just boosts, skins, and other stuff that doesn't actually detract from actual gameplay for players who don't have that stuff. I believe that Sony's concern is that Microsoft will provide actual Xbox/Game Pass exclusive gameplay content that would detract from the player's gameplay experience if they weren't able to get that content.

 

[feynoob]

Because you don't understand that they are not crying about being able to offer the best product but having access to being able to offer it.

I'll give you an example say a company sells bandwidth on a network. BT pays and buys more bandwidth than Virgin. BT can offer a better product. Then virgin decides that it wants to buy the network that offered that bandwidth and BT could no longer offer a better or similar service. Do you think BT has a right to complain? Yes or no question. BT isn't arguing that being able to pay for more bandwidth it's complaining about equal access and for it to remain independent. To have the ability to compete for that bandwidth.

Your example makes no sense. Because the owner can dictate what their product does.

To put it simply, here is the breakdown of how much benifit Sony is getting.

• Battle pass bundle bonus: 5 tier skip battle pass, up to 25 tier skip.
• double xp bonus
• 2 extra Loadout.

These 3 bonuses gives alot of advantage to PS users.

So If I am a multiple system owner, I would go to the place, which offers me these benifits. And that means, Sony is getting 30% cut of every purchase I make on their console. That is a huge advantage for them.

As for your example, BT enjoyed alot of benifits. and now they are worried that they cant get those benifits. And the company, whom they undercut, is possible getting that benifit.

There is no right or wrong here. BT enjoyed their benifit as much as they can. They dont have any reason to complain about virgin benifits.

 

[feynoob]

I think you're missing my point. Right now PlayStation is getting the better deal with Call of Duty, but none of their benefits are regarding playable content (e.g. extra maps, levels, campaign missions, et cetera). It's just boosts, skins, and other stuff that doesn't actually detract from actual gameplay for players who don't have that stuff. I believe that Sony's concern is that Microsoft will provide actual Xbox/Game Pass exclusive gameplay content that would detract from the player's gameplay experience if they weren't able to get that content.

If MS is going to do a cross play for the game, wouldnt extra dlc, maps affects that cross play? Is that something MS want to do, considering how they view cross play?

If that is a problem, shouldnt that be a job for regulators, instead of Sony crying about it?

 

[thismeinteil]

They have very clearly said that they will treat call of duty like minecraft, and Minecraft has been on all platforms for three generations now.

Lol, that's what they're saying in public. But thanks to Jim Ryan turning down Phil's offer, we know what's going on behind closed doors. But go ahead and feign ignorance if you think it'll help the deal go through.

 

[IFireflyl]

If MS is going to do a cross play for the game, wouldnt extra dlc, maps affects that cross play? Is that something MS want to do, considering how they view cross play?

It wouldn't affect cross play. It's no different than if some people buy extra DLC maps and others choose not to. Basically when the player goes to find a game they will only find a game that contains content the player owns.

If that is a problem, shouldnt that be a job for regulators, instead of Sony crying about it?

Are... are you serious? This whole thing is revolving around a comment that Sony brought up with the regulators (the CMA). I am baffled by this question.

 

[feynoob]

I think you're missing my point. Right now PlayStation is getting the better deal with Call of Duty, but none of their benefits are regarding playable content (e.g. extra maps, levels, campaign missions, et cetera). It's just boosts, skins, and other stuff that doesn't actually detract from actual gameplay for players who don't have that stuff. I believe that Sony's concern is that Microsoft will provide actual Xbox/Game Pass exclusive gameplay content that would detract from the player's gameplay experience if they weren't able to get that content.

I also want to point out that this is where regulators needs to step in.

MS owning COD would give them advantages in the future. But it shouldnt be Sony pointing that out, and making demands around, since that is conflict of interest.
It should be up to the regulators, to assess the situation, and reach verdict about it.

 

[IFireflyl]

I also want to point out that this is where regulators needs to step in.

MS owning COD would give them advantages in the future. But it shouldnt be Sony pointing that out, and making demands around, since that is conflict of interest.
It should be up to the regulators, to assess the situation, and reach verdict about it.

That's what this is all about. Are you high or something?

 

[feynoob]

Are... are you serious? This whole thing is revolving around a comment that Sony brought up with the regulators (the CMA). I am baffled by this question.

It should be up to the regulators, to assess the situation, and reach verdict about it.

 

[feynoob]

That's what this is all about. Are you high or something?

nah, we just having a disagreement, about the way its being handled out.

Regulators have to do that job.

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

I think you're missing my point. Right now PlayStation is getting the better deal with Call of Duty, but none of their benefits are regarding playable content (e.g. extra maps, levels, campaign missions, et cetera). It's just boosts, skins, and other stuff that doesn't actually detract from actual gameplay for players who don't have that stuff. I believe that Sony's concern is that Microsoft will provide actual Xbox/Game Pass exclusive gameplay content that would detract from the player's gameplay experience if they weren't able to get that content.

More load outs, weapon blueprints, double XP, party XP, are all gameplay affecting content. Also they have had exclusive modes and stuff locked for a year. IIRC when Vanguard launched last year there was still exclusive zombie modes only on PlayStation

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

Is this some kind of dense, which I don't understand?

Sony complained about partial content disparity, in which they are currently engaging in.

They can't complain about it, while also doing it. It doesn't matter if MS did it in the past or not. They are actively committing, what they are crying about.

This thread has basically been nothing but "oh that was different".

 

[feynoob]

This thread has basically been nothing but "oh that was different".

The cma would need to see how much benefit Sony gained, and whether MS benefits outweights Sony's benifits.

That is what regulators need to do, instead of blindly listening to Sony complain.

No player wants to see the other device have benefits, as that impacts the decision of their purchase.

 

[IFireflyl]

nah, we just having a disagreement, about the way its being handled out.

Regulators have to do that job.

THEY ARE! Stop being dense, and focus up here:

The CMA is the regulating body in the UK. Sony brought up this point to the CMA regarding their concerns. It is now the CMA's responsibility to determine the validity of this concern.

What is so difficult to understand about that? Sony isn't crying about this and posting it everywhere while throwing a tantrum. They brought it up to the CMA so they handle it.

More load outs, weapon blueprints, double XP, party XP, are all gameplay affecting content. Also they have had exclusive modes and stuff locked for a year. IIRC when Vanguard launched last year there was still exclusive zombie modes only on PlayStation

Everything obtained by Sony's exclusivity agreement can be obtained through normal gameplay. Sony's exclusivity deals just give their players a boost, but that's only a temporary benefit until players on other consoles catch up. Also, nothing is stopping Microsoft from making the same type of deals.

That's not the same as not being able to access the same campaign levels, or expansion packs, or map packs as someone on another console. That is what I believe Sony is referring to. I can't say this with certainty, but both parties have engaged in irrelevant exclusivity agreements like this for decades, so it wouldn't make sense if Sony was saying that any and every exclusivity deal is bad.

 

[feynoob]

THEY ARE! Stop being dense, and focus up here:

The CMA is the regulating body in the UK. Sony brought up this point to the CMA regarding their concerns. It is now the CMA's responsibility to determine the validity of this concern.

What is so difficult to understand about that? Sony isn't crying about this and posting it everywhere while throwing a tantrum. They brought it up to the CMA so they handle it.

Sony is having a conflict of interest here. They have no reason to raise that flag, when they are the party that commited these actions.
CMA has no business in listening to their demand, when Sony was benefiting too much from their deals.

That is my main point.

 

[IFireflyl]

Sony is having a conflict of interest here. They have no reason to raise that flag, when they are the party that commited these actions.
CMA has no business in listening to their demand, when Sony was benefiting too much from their deals.

That is my main point.

You do understand that the CMA asked for input from others in the industry, including Sony, right?

https://www.gov.uk/cma-cases/micros...#invitation-to-comment-closes-on-20-july-2022

Invitation to comment: closes on 20 July 2022

6 July 2022: The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) is considering whether it is or may be the case that this transaction, if carried into effect, will result in the creation of a relevant merger situation under the merger provisions of the Enterprise Act 2002 and, if so, whether the creation of that situation may be expected to result in a substantial lessening of competition within any market or markets in the United Kingdom for goods or services.

To assist it with this assessment, the CMA invites comments on the transaction from any interested party.

These comments should be provided by the deadline set out above.

Sony isn't making demands. They stated their concerns. That is well within their right (just like it would be if the shoe was on the other foot and Microsoft wanted to bring up concerns against Sony). The CMA's job is to determine the validity of the concerns and make a decision on whether or not to allow the acquisition to proceed.

This is completely normal behavior for an acquisition. I am baffled by your continued resistance to this fact. I'm not saying that Sony's concern is valid. I'm just saying that they have a right to voice that concern. If in the future Sony tries to acquire someone that Microsoft takes issue with, Microsoft will have that same right to voice their concerns with the regulatory bodies at that time.

 

[feynoob]

You do understand that the CMA asked for input from others in the industry, including Sony, right?

https://www.gov.uk/cma-cases/micros...#invitation-to-comment-closes-on-20-july-2022

And I know for a fact, that Sony is the one that is raising that question.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

And I know for a fact, that Sony is the one that is raising that question.

Except the CMA is the one asking questions here

 

[feynoob]

Except the CMA is the one asking questions here

One thing that caught my eye was Sony's cautionary tale about the "dangers" of Microsoft controlling Call of Duty for consumers, which reads like a list of demands of things that Microsoft shouldn't be allowed to do if they take possession of the franchise. Among them:

• Microsoft would be able to give the Xbox version of Call of Duty extra content.
• Microsoft could give the Xbox version of Call of Duty better performance somehow on Xbox hardware.
• Microsoft could offer a range of attractive incentives about Call of Duty through Xbox Game Pass, whether that's bonus features or modes or presumably, the idea that they'd offer the game itself through Game Pass, which they obviously plan to.

That is Sony concern, which the CMA needs to compare it, to the current actions, which Sony is engaging it.

 

[MasterCornholio]

And I know for a fact, that Sony is the one that is raising that question.

The competition has the right to answer the CMAs question. If the CMA looks at something that Sony is buying then the competition will have the right to express their concerns.

 

[feynoob]

The competition has the right to answer the CMAs question. If the CMA looks at something that Sony is buying then the competition will have the right to express their concerns.

I have no problem with that.
But the problem lies at the demand Sony is displaying, while also engaging on those actions.

That is the problem.

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

THEY ARE! Stop being dense, and focus up here:

The CMA is the regulating body in the UK. Sony brought up this point to the CMA regarding their concerns. It is now the CMA's responsibility to determine the validity of this concern.

What is so difficult to understand about that? Sony isn't crying about this and posting it everywhere while throwing a tantrum. They brought it up to the CMA so they handle it.



Everything obtained by Sony's exclusivity agreement can be obtained through normal gameplay. Sony's exclusivity deals just give their players a boost, but that's only a temporary benefit until players on other consoles catch up. Also, nothing is stopping Microsoft from making the same type of deals.

That's not the same as not being able to access the same campaign levels, or expansion packs, or map packs as someone on another console. That is what I believe Sony is referring to. I can't say this with certainty, but both parties have engaged in irrelevant exclusivity agreements like this for decades, so it wouldn't make sense if Sony was saying that any and every exclusivity deal is bad.

Sony engages in those types of deals too. Again, typically they also do it with CoD. Only a year ago they had a zombie mode exclusive to PlayStation.

You're grasping at straws anyway. Sony whined that Xbox users might get special benefits and privileges, that's exactly what PlayStation users get right now, no matter how hard you try to dismiss it.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

That is Sony concern, which the CMA needs to compare it, to the current actions, which Sony is engaging it.

Microsoft can compete with Sony for these deals if they choose too.

Sony can't if Microsoft just outright buys them.

 

[MasterCornholio]

I have no problem with that.
But the problem lies at the demand Sony is displaying, while also engaging on those actions.

That is the problem.

There is no problem here. Your just turning this into a Sony thing when anyone can raise these concerns. It's a normal part of the process.

 

[Phil_the_goat]

Is xbox winning this week or nah?

 

[feynoob]

Microsoft can compete with Sony for these deals if they choose too.

Sony can't if Microsoft just outright buys them.

Are you not understanding the problem here?
Sony is actively engaging, in what they are accusing MS would do, should they acquire Activision.

Does that even make any sense?

 

[feynoob]

There is no problem here. Your just turning this into a Sony thing when anyone can raise these concerns. It's a normal part of the process.

Is logic dead here or what?

Does nobody see the problem with these stuff?

 

[MasterCornholio]

Is logic dead here or what?

Does nobody see the problem with these stuff?

It's more like your logic is dead. Having companies remain independent allows them to make marketing deals with whoever they want. The competition can always engage in a bidding war to make the deal if they so choose. If the company isn't independent they can't do that.

It's the way a competitive market works.

 

[feynoob]

It's more like your logic is dead. Having companies remain independent allows them to make marketing deals with whoever they want. The competition can always engage in a bidding war to make the deal if they so choose. If the company isn't independent they can't do that.

It's the way a competitive market works.

The problem isn't making the deals.

The problem is screaming about the deals, that the company is doing, and is afraid the other party would do the same.

That is the problem here. It's like people here are purposely trying to avoid this.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

The problem isn't making the deals.

The problem is screaming about the deals, that the company is doing, and is afraid the other party would do the same.

That is the problem here. It's like people here are purposely trying to avoid this.

This is a fight between two parties who are obviously going to lay down everything to get this deal passed/rejected. There are plenty of hypocrisies and contradictions that can be pointed out on both sides. No I don't see a problem with that. It's the way the world works.

 

[MasterCornholio]

The problem isn't making the deals.

The problem is screaming about the deals, that the company is doing, and is afraid the other party would do the same.

That is the problem here. It's like people here are purposely trying to avoid this.

It wouldn't be a deal if Microsoft owned Activision.

I think that's what your missing.

Seems like your the only one screaming here. You really need to relax and let the regulators complete their investigation.

 

[feynoob]

There are plenty of hypocrisies and contradictions that can be pointed out on both sides.

100% this.

 

[adamsapple]

This thread has basically been nothing but "oh that was different".

Jim and Phil in a nutshell

 

[IFireflyl]

Sony engages in those types of deals too. Again, typically they also do it with CoD. Only a year ago they had a zombie mode exclusive to PlayStation.

You're grasping at straws anyway. Sony whined that Xbox users might get special benefits and privileges, that's exactly what PlayStation users get right now, no matter how hard you try to dismiss it.

And again, because you and your clown posse of defensive Microsoft lovers can't seem to get this through your heads:

It's one thing to pay a third-party developer for exclusivity deals that your competitors can also engage in. It's another thing entirely for a competitor to completely buy up the third-party and eliminate the ability to compete.

In your example the third-party developer took money in exchange for a service. Microsoft had the same opportunity to pay money to the third-party developer for its own exclusive services. That means the ability to compete was still there. It's on Microsoft if they chose not to compete.

By contrast, with this acquisition Sony will never be able to make competitive agreements for Call of Duty. Microsoft would own Call of Duty, and competition around the third-party developer can never happen since they would be a first-party developer.

 

[gothmog]

This deal isn't about which current or "next-gen" plastic box the software resides on in the near term (i.e. 5-6 years / "next gen").

This is a strategic long term investment by MS of establishing recurring revenue and broader distribution channels for MS IPs/games/software across multiple channels and platforms, including MTX on any platform (Consoles, PC, Mobile, Streaming, VR, ???, etc.).

For all we know - there may not be a next-gen set of consoles in 5-6 years (most likely will - but past that???)... Even then - the definition of a next-gen console may simply be a hybrid streaming device.

All of this chatter and yapping about a single game that isn't that great to begin with ... yeesh.

Microsoft could defang this whole thing by spinning off the COD team or being willing to put in writing that COD will always be available for all platforms that want it. They won't because COD is the crown jewel.

The Time-Warner/Comcast merger failed and the rumor around it failing was that they wanted NBC to be spun out. Comcast refused to do that and the deal crumbled. Not saying that this is what is going to happen but if this game isn't a big deal they would treat it like it wasn't a big deal.

 

[MasterCornholio]

This is a fight between two parties who are obviously going to lay down everything to get this deal passed/rejected. There are plenty of hypocrisies and contradictions that can be pointed out on both sides. No I don't see a problem with that. It's the way the world works.

Its how the court of law works. I don't see the issue with this if no laws are broken.

 

[MasterCornholio]

100% this.

Doesn't mean everything is the same though. You have to study each one in relation to allowing the competition to participate in it.

 

[Markio128]

Corporations fighting for a rotten apple, with gamers either booing or cheering. What a world we live in.

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

And again, because you and your clown posse of defensive Microsoft lovers can't seem to get this through your heads:

It's one thing to pay a third-party developer for exclusivity deals that your competitors can also engage in. It's another thing entirely for a competitor to completely buy up the third-party and eliminate the ability to compete.

In your example the third-party developer took money in exchange for a service. Microsoft had the same opportunity to pay money to the third-party developer for its own exclusive services. That means the ability to compete was still there. It's on Microsoft if they chose not to compete.

By contrast, with this acquisition Sony will never be able to make competitive agreements for Call of Duty. Microsoft would own Call of Duty, and competition around the third-party developer can never happen since they would be a first-party developer.

Aka

 

[IFireflyl]

Aka

Really?

https://www.eurogamer.net/after-five-years-of-xbox-exclusivity-call-of-duty-switches-to-playstation

Microsoft started exclusivity agreements with Call of Duty. You're the clown attacking Sony when Microsoft participates in the same behaviors.

 

[feynoob]

Its how the court of law works. I don't see the issue with this if no laws are broken.

The issue is that both side are downplaying and exaggerating their points.

MS with them being weak and not able to compete, while Sony is arguing with what they have benefited from.

Both side are guilty. And I am not defending either.

 

[feynoob]

Doesn't mean everything is the same though. You have to study each one in relation to allowing the competition to participate in it.

But how can you have a proper study, when both side are clearly exaggerating.

The regulations needs to be careful with their finding. Either side isnt telling the truth here.

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

Really?

https://www.eurogamer.net/after-five-years-of-xbox-exclusivity-call-of-duty-switches-to-playstation

Microsoft started exclusivity agreements with Call of Duty. You're the clown attacking Sony when Microsoft participates in the same behaviors.

Im not attacking anyone, I'm just laughing at Sony's hypocrisy. Calm yourself down

 

[PaintTinJr]

In the event that this deal does get through UK and EU regulation - which I still doubt it will based on the CMA info from canvasing the opinion of the games industry - what could be quite interesting is if the industry - with exception of Ubisoft, EA, and T2 - completely close ranks and stop publishing on Xbox voluntarily, and start putting their handout for money just to do Series versions - by the logic that Microsoft seemingly has deep pockets to pay 40% over the value of ABK, and so can afford all content, even without a game pass deal.

Using PlayStation as a stalking horse in this way to make a lot of independent game developers millionaires from their studios getting bought out at +50% above their value could be a genuinely viable strategy for some in the west. In Japan, I would already expect them to close ranks - if this deal close - even maybe seeing Nintendo and PlayStation partnering on things if the damage ABK with game pass can do to PlayStation is real.

In Nintendo's situation, they'd maybe consider that Xbox winning is bad for their gaming landscape too, compared to helping PlayStation remain competitive - or remain as market leader IMO.