bxrz
Member
Can't Microsoft just charge tf out of it to go to PS+?
Like "yea Sony you can have COD on PS+. Give us a billion per title. No? than kick rocks"
Microsoft / Activision Deal Approval Watch |OT| (MS/ABK close)
- Status
Like "yea Sony you can have COD on PS+. Give us a billion per title. No? than kick rocks"
Banjo64
cumsessed
No, because that would feed in to their 'using its position to foreclose its rivals' concern.
Bernkastel
Ask me about my fanboy energy!
Oh my sweet summer child, they are well invested into the mobile market before MS. They just use the label "Aniplex" to publish them
Last edited:
feynoob
Banned
Pelta88
Member
Without the ability to make COD an exclusive, ATVI is worthless to XBOX. The goal is to use that ip as leverage, which is why Microsoft didn't offer any remedies to the CMA.
If Microsoft were to say "We'll sign whatever contract which ensures COD on PS for the next two generations." the deal would be done. But they refused to comment which triggered phase 2 of the CMA's scrutiny. Instead, they embarked on a self-deprecating PR campaign showcasing how inadequate their platform and services are.
At this point, anybody who believes and parrots Microsoft's PR about this deal is being disingenuous. The gargantuan gulf between Microsoft's PR about XBOX and the actual reality of the platform, as seen in the submissions to the CMA... Highlights a painful contrast.
If Microsoft were to say "We'll sign whatever contract which ensures COD on PS for the next two generations." the deal would be done. But they refused to comment which triggered phase 2 of the CMA's scrutiny. Instead, they embarked on a self-deprecating PR campaign showcasing how inadequate their platform and services are.
At this point, anybody who believes and parrots Microsoft's PR about this deal is being disingenuous. The gargantuan gulf between Microsoft's PR about XBOX and the actual reality of the platform, as seen in the submissions to the CMA... Highlights a painful contrast.
ChorizoPicozo
Member
As a fan of Xbox I have no desire for them to own Activision. Have not played Call of Duty since the original MW2 and I can't think of another game they publish that might interest me.
I prefer they invest the $70 billion in something else in the industry.
Last edited:
DarkMage619
$MSFT
Bloody hell Windows isn't a phone OS is it. Also ios is a closed marketplace and Android is almost exactly the same. The biggest stores in Windows MS doesn't own. Again no comparison.
The consoles can be compared because they are all doing the same thing: selling games on fixed platform devices that can all connect to televisions. Nintendo is where they are AFTER they adapted to market conditions and found a way to be successful even when there are larger more wealthy companies they are competing with.
Nintendo started out like Sony is now; big first party games and tons of exclusive 3rd party software as well. No longer true today. MS has also adapted to the market by focusing on Game pass over simply selling a box like Nintendo and Sony do currently. To try and act now like Nintendo isn't in this industry is completely silly. Saying Xbox is 3rd out of two competitors is nonsense. They are all doing slightly different things. Sony has VR Xbox does not. I guess they aren't competing anymore!
Bernkastel
Ask me about my fanboy energy!
And just like Bethesda deal, when they ran out of ways to say Bethesda games will be console exclusive to their platform, they have ran out of ways to say COD will stay multiplat.
Microsoft will keep Call of Duty on Sony platforms "as long as there's a PlayStation out there to ship to"
Xbox boss Phil Spencer has made Microsoft's plainest promise yet around the future of Call of Duty on PlayStation platf…
www.eurogamer.net
Back then people called Microsoft a liar or "this is just PR" whenever Microsoft expressed their intent to make Bethesda games console exclusive
Phil Spencer on Bethesda IP exclusivity | Yahoo Finance
Credits to @Hix for finding it. https://ca.movies.yahoo.com/xbox-series-x-most-powerful-170813309.html At 4:33 In terms of where games will show up, our commitment is that our games will show up on Game Pass, PC, console and xCloud. In terms of other platforms we'll take it on a case by case...
Phil Spencer further clarifies the nature of Bethesda exclusivity
https://kotaku.com/xbox-boss-phil-spencer-on-series-x-launch-halo-infinit-1845392984 Spencer had said in previous interviews that existing deals involving ZeniMax games would still be honored, suggesting that something like the time-traveling game Deathloop would still come first to PS5, as...
What happened to everyone saying "You don't make a 70 billion dollar acquisition to maintain the status quo"?
So now we are back at "it's too much revenue to leave on the table". But surely RedFall, Starfield, Elders scrolls 6, Pentiment, etc. would all sell more on PlayStation. What about that revenue?
So they want to make their platform more attractive, but not too attractive, because they want to also sell copies on PlayStation for some games... Righhhttt...
feynoob
Banned
making COD exclusive doesn't even make any sense.
Minecraft proved that letting an ip that big not exclusive, would result in more revenue. Making it exclusive would not help xbox.
Nope. MS doesn't want to offer indefinitely contract.
Plus they have every right to use every avenue they can to skip this part.
Maybe pay more attention to what is being argued first.
All arguments have holes in them. From MS point, to Sony point, to CMA point.
We would need phase 2 findings. Those usually have more concrete documents.
KingT731
Member
I know for a fact it's bundled with their other services
feynoob
Banned
Still, that is a lot of money for a service which only offers mobile games.
KingT731
Member
Last edited:
feynoob
Banned
Guess that is a good way of selling a service.Because of the Apple One service...
Pelta88
Member
1. Activision's market value before Microsoft's offer was around 50 Billion. Microsoft overpaid by 20 Billion. That's a stock market reality. For all the money Microsoft has, when it comes to gaming there is one thing they can not buy. Mindshare. It is the most valuable assets in this industry. Unfortunately for Microsoft, it has to be built and Microsoft have proven themselves incapable of building this key component and so overpaying for COD by 20 Billion is the only avenue available to them.
2. You went from saying Microsoft won't remove COD from PS because it makes no financial sense. To Microsoft doesn't have to keep COD on PS which is the definition of a contradictory statement and a nonsensical argument.
Microsoft has had every opportunity to sign documents which would make COD a multiplat. They have refused this for a reason. Phil Spencer blowing PR smoke is not a legally binding obligation. It's just PR.
After the acquisition Phil's PR will be "COD is a GP exclusive. PS fans can't play COD because SONY won't allow our service on their platform" And few, except you of course, will be surprised by this move. Despite it being telegraphed in advance.
Last edited:
feynoob
Banned
The value tanked because of the scandal.
Still, MS essentially overpaid them. Considering the competition they were facing.
COd would be on PS. But not infinite contract.
MS needs to have renegotiation option for the contract.
Indefinitely contract allows other party to make more demands, than what was agreed to. Considering that the contract won't be expired, MS would have to legally allow Sony to make any demands they want. Especially anything related to CoD.
It's why infinite contract is bad. You need to have options.
Urban
Member
u should read between the lines. "intend" is always used when something is going to get changed. Thats the political way to say something something "positive" which can turn "negativ"And just like Bethesda deal, when they ran out of ways to say Bethesda games will be console exclusive to their platform, they have ran out of ways to say COD will stay multiplat.
Microsoft will keep Call of Duty on Sony platforms "as long as there's a PlayStation out there to ship to"
Xbox boss Phil Spencer has made Microsoft's plainest promise yet around the future of Call of Duty on PlayStation platf…
Back then people called Microsoft a liar or "this is just PR" whenever Microsoft expressed their intent to make Bethesda games console exclusive
Last edited:
feynoob
Banned
Anything they say right now is for the public.
What matters is phase 2 discussion. That is when you will see the points from each side (MS, Sony, Regulators).
If MS is true to their words, then COD being on PS would be their concession.
However, there are other sectors, which regulators are concerned about. Particularly, CMA. Which is Cloud, and subscription service.
We might see a concession, where MS would have to put Activision games on those areas.
Pelta88
Member
I'm not sure what negotiation you've been following but Sony isn't asking for a contract. The point of contention is that they want COD, a multiplat, to remain a multiplat. Microsoft/XBOX execs have gone on every platform, preaching that they'd never make COD an exclusive. Everywhere except the CMA where they could make that intention legally binding.
When the CMA asked them to provide legal clarification on that point. Microsoft were like
I mean this with all due respect but it seems many, yourself included, don't actually read the submissions and findings. I'm guessing Microsoft's blatant hollow PR smoke is more mailable to your point of view.
Last edited:
DenchDeckard
Moderated wildly
So this is going through again now?
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
feynoob
Banned
As I pointed out, This needs to be done in phase 2.I'm not sure what negotiation you've been following but Sony isn't asking for a contract. The point of contention is that they want COD, a multiplat, to remain a multiplat. Microsoft/XBOX execs have gone on every platform, preaching that they'd never make COD an exclusive. Everywhere except the CMA where they could make that intention legally binding.
When the CMA asked them to provide legal clarification on that point. Microsoft were like
I mean this with all due respect but it seems many, yourself included, don't actually read the submissions and findings. I'm guessing Microsoft's blatant hollow PR smoke is more mailable to your point of view.
Sony want COD on PS permanently. Because without that, they are afraid that MS would take the game away from them. MS doesnt want to accept Sony demand.
Essentially, this needs to be talked in phase 2.
As for MS arguments in the media, it means nothing. Regulators are the decider here. They are the ones who would decide, whether MS should keep the game there or not. Since that is what is holding this deal.
feynoob
Banned
It will. Nothing would stop this deal. Its all depends on MS at this point.
They can fix this issue by agreeing to COD on PS, while demanding day1 on gamepass. They would also allow Sony to put those games on their ps+ services. This would satisfy both cma and EU.
But the big question is, Does MS wants to do these? Is there away around these, which they know?
Pelta88
Member
You don't seem to have an understanding of the most basic facts here.
To be clear, "Phase 2" was initiated because when asked for remedies to market concerns, Microsoft refused to make a submission to the CMA. "Phase 2" is not an automatically triggered as part of an acquisition.
Secondly, the bolded. Over several posts you keep claiming that
A. Microsoft won't take COD of PS platforms
B. Microsoft does not have to keep COD on PS platforms
Without realizing that the two statements can't legally exist at the same time. Again, if XBOX execs PR actually matched their intentions with COD the deal would have been done a long time ago. ie
"We have zero intention to remove COD, the deal is really about ATVI employees and mobile."
Behind the scenes, the deal they offered was "Totally inadequate" according to Sony Playstation. Giving them access to the game for 3 years.
You gotta read the submissions instead of fanboying blindly on behalf of MS.
feynoob
Banned
Phase 2 is when they go over the findings, in which they displayed in phase 1.
The issues so far in phase 1 was cloud, subscription, and COD impact.
This is where MS went in to media, about how they wont take COD from PS.
Then we found out later, that MS refused to make any concession with EU.
My claim has only be 1 in these past month. Before it was on premises that PS can be replaced, before we found out how much COD was making from PS. It was an ignorant part.
After that info, my point was taking COD would damage COD. Considering what it brings to the brand. And plus the amount of money on the line.
You cant have a long term contract. Its what I have been telling you from the start.
MS needs the negotiation option. You cant expect them to sign indefinitely contract, just like that. No sane company would do that.
You are the one who is having issues here, and calling people fanboys of MS. Instead of understanding the points from all sides.
I suggest you watch hoeg law. Or at least, read from informed people. Just like what I am doing lately.
Hendrick's
If only my penis was as big as my GamerScore!
Yes, MS should offer COD to Sony at zero cost until the end of time. That's how contracts work.
baphomet
Member
feynoob
Banned
guess you need to learn about how contracts works,
feynoob
Banned
you are right. Its not like I am not following this at all. and just doing a blind talk.
baphomet
Member
You should ask for a refund on those classes you're taking because you obviously haven't learned shit.
feynoob
Banned
R
reksveks
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/new...cement-law-banning-unfair-methods-competition
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/new...cement-law-banning-unfair-methods-competition
Would this impact the deal?
feynoob
Banned
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
I think that's severely outdated now. Since then they have said they intend to continue publishing games as long as the PS platforms exist.
Clearly some revisions have been made between then and now.
And to another point, phase 1 was information gathering and phase 2 is when they begin indepth discussion. I don't follow these acquisitions but looking as an outsider it seems clear this was always going to go to phase 2 and MS aren't showing all their negotiation hands in the first phase because that may lead to other parties demanding even more concessions later.
feynoob
Banned
if there was issues during phase 1 finding, then they move to phase 2 for further investigation. Brazil approved, since there was no issue for them.
We saw what CMA and EU issues were. All that is left is US.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Brazil approved after a long period of questioning other publishers and third parties, I don't know how CADE works but that seemed like they also needed extra investigation before they approved it, i-e their version of a phase 2.
EU and CMA started probing this after CADE so the timelines don't align. I don't think we can make a linear comparison there.
Last edited:
feynoob
Banned
They were super fast with it. It seems their issues doesnt align with cma and eu.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Ryan also didn't personally fly to Brazil to 'speak' with the regulators there, so there's that too.
Cheezewizz
Banned
This post really highlights just how disingenuous those arguing against Nintendo being a competitor really are.
Every. single. person. that is trying to claim Nintendo doesn't count... has made a statement that's along the lines of "Xbox is in third place" or "that's why Xbox is always in 3rd place every gen".
Despite the fact that the 360 finished that gen ahead of PS3, the narrative that "Xbox always finishes 3rd" is almost taken as gospel here at this point due to how often it's repeated here. Yet now that it doesn't suite some people's narrative, all of the sudden... Nintendo doesn't count, and it's been a two horse race this entire time.
You literally couldn't make this stuff up. It's just that ridiculous at this point.
Last edited:
ChorizoPicozo
Member
feynoob
Banned
Nintendo isn't really a competitor to Xbox and PS in term of new 3rd party games. Switch has to wait for a proper port or cloud version for those games.
It's only a competitor for those games, which can be ported to switch day1, or in term of exclusives and hardware sales.
Nintendo needs a strong switch, which can handle those games. Maybe switch 2 can be that console, if it's powerful enough.
Cheezewizz
Banned
Indeed I am. Consider yourself the exception rather than the norm.
Cheezewizz
Banned
So does that mean that those "new 3rd party games" aren't a requirement in order to have a successful console platform?
Topher
Identifies as young
Perhaps you should point out the people who did make those arguments rather than say "every single person" has. I know these are not arguments I have made so......who is making them?
feynoob
Banned
Ask consumers.
They are the one who buys those console in order to play those games.
Neither is android, what about tablets? So you get it. The fact that it's a 'phone', 'tablet', portable or whatever OS isn't relevant it's that the market doesn't overlap on the consumer side which is relevant . The Switch is a portable games machine too btw, so should it not be a whole new category too just like your 'portable' OS? That's why the comparison was brought up.
Not sure why you are concentrating on the store. Google and Android may be forced by the commission to offer alternative stores but that's not relevant to them being considered an OS duopoly. That's just a possible abuse of said fact.
Not many people decide between buying a samsung galaxy/tab or a macbook pro even though both can perform mostly the same functions, browse, game, work, whatever. When judging competing markets the comission doesn't look at functionality in a vacuum and say this performs the same function therefor it is the same. They look at what the consumer market is doing. The commission would have to determine if many people are making a choice between a Switch and one of the other consoles or if it's largely a different audience. The idea that they are not competing isn't farfetched though. Especially as it is a portable hybrid which many buy in addition to.
Yes and unfortunately in the console space they didn't have much luck with the N64, Gamecube and Wii U. They carved out and went after a different audience with the Wii, DS, and Switch though.
Nobody is saying nintendo isn't in the industry but if we go by the idea that functionality is what determines whether something is competing then even your own idea that:
"selling games on fixed platform devices that can all connect to televisions"
Means a lot are. you can connect anything to a television and play games on a a closed platform including tablets, phones, appletv, some android stick, etc. Do they become competing devices now? Should we be talking about 6th instead of 3rd?
Of course not. The commission determines where consumer buying habits are to determine whether something is competing. Nobody is sat there debating between an appleTV/tablet or PS5 even though, using your definition, based purely on functionality they are competing devices.
Last edited:
feynoob
Banned
Topher
Identifies as young
These are the top 20 games Nintendo consumers bought last year.
Top 10 from 2020
2019
2018
Two third party games have cracked the top 10 (or 20 this year) over the last four years.
Last edited:
ChorizoPicozo
Member
Pretty self evident. Why do people keep arguing about this stuff then. Pretty "disingenuously" if you ask me.These are the top 20 games Nintendo consumers bought last year.
Top 10 from 2020
2019
2018
Two games have cracked the top 10 (or 20 this year) over the last four years.
- Status