feynoob
Banned
Either he is a troll, or just far right in to the fanboy territory.
Microsoft / Activision Deal Approval Watch |OT| (MS/ABK close)
- Status
Jerm411
Member
Are you familiar with Jez….?
feynoob
Banned
They forgot the important element of making video games. Having enough studios, which can sustain you. They wasted 2 precious generation, which they could have expanded that. Then they showed their best skill, by bringing tv stuff, in to a gaming event.
They were out of their depth. Just like how Steve said.
feynoob
Banned
I am starting to see more of this side now.
Menzies
Banned
The chinks in their armour aren't just their own short comings, it's the brand power and loyal following they're up against.Can someone please outline to me where the kinks are in their current arsenal? People are quick to brag about the number of studios they have and state they have more coverage of different genres across their exclusive studios but now we are suddenly supposed to believe that Xbox's ability to be competitive going forward now hinges on this deal? Can we at least be honest about their current position please.
It's mismanagement of their existing resources that has put them in the position they are currently in, not a lack of resources. When you've been in a business for as long as they have their position in the market doesn't lie, its reflective of what's deserved based on their products and actions across many years. You can't suddenly start crying and pretend to be the little guy when you attempt to just buy your way into a solution.
Coming from Jez of all people?
Both sides have made missteps and fumbles, none more than Microsoft. But sins of management past aren't easy to overcome. Reality is there is a gulf in sales between the two at the moment and a significant event is likely required to balance things so consumers benefit from price increases.
CatLady
Selfishly plays on Xbox Purr-ies X
ChorizoPicozo
Member
I am starting to get pissed off at these drama queens... I feel my inner joker coming up and I am afraid.
gothmog
Gold Member
I am proud that we have brought Peggle 2 into the conversation.
GHG
Gold Member
What because Xbox doesn't have any brand power and a loyal following? If they didn't the Xbox One launch along with the RROD fiasco would have instantly killed them. That's not an honest argument and you know it. How do you think brand loyalty and power is built?
If Xbox stayed on the path that they were on during the formative years of the Xbox 360 then they would have a lot more of that brand loyalty and brand power that they seek. You can't just buy it, it's built over time.
As for a "significant event" being required, how about using one of the 20+ studios that they currently have to make a generational banger of a game that everyone is talking about and must play? That would be a significant event and one that actually provides a new product for the people who are gamers across the world.
Instead your version of a "significant" event is not one that creates anything new for the industry or gamers, just one that makes life more complicated for a lot of gamers. And why? All because they have had difficulty creating their own games that build mindshare and lead to increased market share? As a division they are lucky to have a company like Microsoft backing them because $80+ billion in a couple of years wouldn't be an option for anyone else in the industry.
The idea that there needs to be "balance" and equal market share across all competitors is one that I keep on seeing and quite simply it's a curious one, either built on false hope or out of ignorance. To put it simply it's impossible for that to be the case. Rule of economics, someone must win (even if its just by the tiniest of margins) and the only instances where that hasn't happened across the history of capitalist systems is when collusion has happened. Hint: that is definitely not good for consumers.
Every rational individual wants these companies to fight it out, nobody is suggesting otherwise. But anyone thinking that a wave of consolidation dominated by a single industry participant going around purchasing multiple publishers will lead to anything good is mistaken. Especially not when the participant in question has a history of studio mismanagement, nevermind the fact that the parent company has had a history of purchasing companies that are either competitors in a particular space (and/or companies that were useful to their competitors at the time) simply with the goal of putting them out of commission.
Last edited:
Hero of Spielberg
Member
Imagine the EU guy says 'including my GamePass subscription!' Instead … Jesus Christ the melts that would be nuclear 
gothmog
Gold Member
Why imagine?Imagine the EU guy says 'including my GamePass subscription!' Instead … Jesus Christ the melts that would be nuclear
Not sure how that would be nuclear? Nobody cares if the game is on GamePass or not.
reinking
Gold Member
You can't seem to grasp that because someone owns a product they cannot be neutral in decision making. It happens every day in the adult world.
CatLady
Selfishly plays on Xbox Purr-ies X
Can someone please outline for me where the kinks are in Sony's current arsenal? People are quick to brag about PlayStation's dominant position in the industry and their sacred exclusives that are believed to be superior to any games on any other platform, but now we are suddenly supposed to believe that Sony's ability to be competitive going forward now hinges on a guarantee in perpetuity of Xbox releasing CoD with parity on Sony's platform. Can we at least be honest about their current position please.
GHG
Gold Member
I'm not sat here saying Sony don't have the ability to move forward and compete with what they currently have. Speak to your boys.
Topher
Identifies as young
Oh man. That guy does not understand this shitstorm he just created for twitter for himself with that joke. People are going to take that shit seriously.
Hero of Spielberg
Member
Because people would read it as him basically signalling he will be looking to push the deal through, just as his comment regarding his PlayStation indicates he is looking to hamper the deal. It's an absurd thing for someone in his position to make, establishing his self interest in the outcome as a PlayStation owner.
Menzies
Banned
I'm fine for the laissez-faire, but the current free-market regulation which simultaneously hand-waves brokered deals exploiting market dominance on one side and intervenes only at acquisitions doesn't seem to promote consumer and competition interests they attempt to serve.
I'm not really seeing anything pragmatically mentioned that helps to nuke this deal, but also look after consumers that isn't just 'do better'. Maybe they can do better, but competitors cornering almost every AAA JRPG for a comparative pittance doesn't circumvent that.
feynoob
Banned
COD did $1b revenue. System owners get 30% cut of that money. That means Sony, MS, Steam get 30% cut from that money.
If Sony managed to get $150m, that would allow them to invest in their system. They also get ps+ users from those COD users. If 5m users are playing on PS, that means, Sony is getting $300m a year(5m*$60 1 year ps+).
Essentially Sony is getting total of $450+m from Cod. Not counting the mtx sales too, or warzone mtx.
That money is almost 6.4m digital copies of ragnorak sales. That is how much they would lose, if COD leaves PS.
feynoob
Banned
Entire twitter is going with that narritive sadly. Look at our lovely people response.Oh man. That guy does not understand this shitstorm he just created for twitter for himself with that joke. People are going to take that shit seriously.
Topher
Identifies as young
Hero of Spielberg
Member
Imagine he was a console collector he could force MS to release COD on the Commodore 64 too!
Hero of Spielberg
Member
It's not that they play games, more that they outline the reason why affecting the deal will benefit them personally. Bizarre decision tbh.
feynoob
Banned
Here is some irony:
feynoob
Banned
MS isnt above the law.
We can argue about regulators approach, but that doesnt mean, MS is above them.
These are the guys, who are going to approve a $68b deal. They are doing their job, to ensure there is competition, and no company has enough power, to tip the balance.
We saw what Sony and MS did during ps3 and xbox one, when they were on the top. That is what would happen, if either company takes the control.
The ones who would suffer from this are consumers. People like you and me. And I dont want that future.
Hero of Spielberg
Member
I think your concerns here underline how nonsensical the take on this acquisition is. This will not in any way result in MS magically gaining some unassailable lead in the industry. So far the focus seems to be about how much money it could cost Sony. As a consumer, why should I give a fuck if the current market leader (by a considerable amount mind you) takes a haircut On their revenue?
feynoob
Banned
That is what would Sony lose, IF MS went back on their words. That could potentially set back Sony little bit. You also have to deal with vacant players, who are now going to othr system, if in any case, COD becomes exclusive.
Regulators are worried about that. And to do that, they need to do their job.
We dont have the info they have.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
I think people are taking the wrong takeaway from here.
Even for EU, the only thing they are concerned with is CoD. If I was MS, I would be happy at this, it means just guaranteeing CoD staying on PS will be enough to smooth the deal over leaving the 99% of the rest of Activision completely unchallenged and uncontested.
That being said, the "my playstation" is a very poor choice of words from 'neutral' regulatory authority rep.
Last edited:
CatLady
Selfishly plays on Xbox Purr-ies X
So what? The regulators job is NOT about protecting Sony's dominant market position or ensuring Sony's bank account stays fat with someone else's first party games. It's about promoting competition and protecting the consumers bank accounts.
ChorizoPicozo
Member
And that is what they are doing.
feynoob
Banned
This is their job.
Consumers don't have to spend too much buying other systems, because of COD. At the same time, MS won't gain advantage on the market.
COD is a bigger IP. It's like star wars, marvel and DC combined level. That is how big COD is.
It's name alone can sell tons of xbox.
It took MS from 30m OG xbox to 85m x360. That is how powerful COD is.
gothmog
Gold Member
So you would rather the games playing regulator not play one of the most popular games on one of the most popular consoles in their country? Seems a bit backwards.
I didn't get any indication from that tweet that they were looking to shut down the acquisition. Just that they wanted to ensure that they could continue to enjoy it on their console of choice.
Also, it's not like there isn't a long history of Microsoft either flaunting the rules or breaking them outright. They put out new versions of Windows just to work around the rules in these countries. That's how far they are willing to go in order to do what they want, so it's not surprising regulators are wary no matter what Phil and the shill community is paid to say.
feynoob
Banned
Xbox fans you don't have to worry about anything. The deal is going to go through.
Only COD is the outline here. It's up to MS to reach an agreement point with the regulators.
Until then, regulators would do their job, on assessing this purchase. Since that is their job. Especially with how big this deal is. They need to make sure, there isn't any issue with the market competition. As any anomaly can collapse that balance.
Only COD is the outline here. It's up to MS to reach an agreement point with the regulators.
Until then, regulators would do their job, on assessing this purchase. Since that is their job. Especially with how big this deal is. They need to make sure, there isn't any issue with the market competition. As any anomaly can collapse that balance.
ChorizoPicozo
Member
And this is why I am suffering some brain damage at how this shit is being talked about.
Hero of Spielberg
Member
I just think it's an unfortunate comment to suggest as the regulator that your remit is to keep a particular game on your console of choice as part of your consideration in regulating the deal 'for consumers'. Especially when the key player you're seeking to 'protect' is the market leader by a great stretch as well as the one that currently blocks other platforms from accessing content in that very same game. Again, bizarre comment for a regulator to make.
Except you forgot the part that it's not "somebody elses first party games" yet and that's exactly what they are trying to do. Making sure that it becoming "somebody elses first party game" doesn't hinder competition.
If that were true there would have been much more scrutiny of the market leader buying the developer of one of the most popular MMOs, instead of it being waved through.
Weird how when Sony are consolidating the market leader status everything is fine, but when MS are trying to improve their market share all of a sudden there's concerns about competition.
Maybe because buying a developer to compete in live service games doesn't hurt competition like buying two huge publishers in a row after you had bought several small developers prior. Just a thought.
Nobody had a problem with Zenimax or the countless other acquisitions but there is massive consolidation and most of them from one platform holder, that would obviously get scrutiny.
Last edited:
Sony recently outlined a strategy where PC releases could net them $15bn annually by 2025.
And you're here arguing that potentially losing $450m would be an existential crisis for them.
That said, not only are they not going to lose access to Call of Duty, they're already well into development of multiple exclusive MP games designed to compete with COD.
Ass of Can Whooping
Member
Drell
Member
I love how this whole argunent ks only about COD and if Sony will still get it while it should be about the dangers of the GAMAMs buying whatever they want for the price they want.
And in that particular case, shouldn't we worry about the fact Microsoft is buying more and more, bigger and bigger editors for always more insane sums of money? Do people really forget that it's the same company that has an absolute unbreakable monopoly over consumers OS market since the mid 90s?
But I guess the only worrying aspect of this COD, that annoying deathmatch game with 2CM^2 maps and if Sony will get it or not. At this rate, I'd rather have the deal approved if nobody fucking care about the big picture here
And in that particular case, shouldn't we worry about the fact Microsoft is buying more and more, bigger and bigger editors for always more insane sums of money? Do people really forget that it's the same company that has an absolute unbreakable monopoly over consumers OS market since the mid 90s?
But I guess the only worrying aspect of this COD, that annoying deathmatch game with 2CM^2 maps and if Sony will get it or not. At this rate, I'd rather have the deal approved if nobody fucking care about the big picture here
Banjo64
cumsessed
- No compelling multiplayer offering. (Xbox has Sea of Thieves, Grounded & Everwild).
- No strategy games. (Xbox has Age of Empires, Halo Wars, Gears Tactics & Minecraft Legends).
- No shooters. (Xbox has Redfall, Gears, Halo, Doom, Wolfenstein & Prey).
- No simulators. (Xbox has Flight Simulator).
- No RPGs. (Xbox has Fable, Avowed, The Outer Worlds 2 & Starfield).
- No more interest in making smaller creative AA games. (Xbox has Ori & Pentiment).
Areas where they are strong;
- Sports games. (MLB developers).
- 3D platformers. (Astro & Ratchet).
- Single player narrative driven action-adventure games. (Naughty Dog, Santa Monica, Insomniac & Guerrilla).
- They own Bungie now.
Personally Xbox with Zenimax, Obsidian & Double Fine on top of Playground, The Coalition & Rare are now much more my cup of tea compared to PS, which is very narrow in its offering. (I've always liked Xbox though, even in dry patches). Adding games like Age of Empires II in January is huge IMO. I don't see the need for them to add Activision at all, and see it as a Trojan Horse for them to justify price increases later down the line due to increased 'value' and operating costs.
Banjo64
cumsessed
No one will ever take people in the video game media seriously because they all have the brain/mindset of teenagers.
I'm sure in their projections they didn't think Sackboy would have like 50 players on Steam
These are the people in the media that seem to live and breath MS for some reason. These people don't really exist for other companies, weird right?
I'm sure even with sackboy becoming some runaway success that projection wouldn't be met. I can't see that projection mentioned anywhere but the only thing I can imagine if it's real is that they think they will hit it big with future GaaS games on PC. Still seems inflated though.I'm sure in their projections they didn't think Sackboy would have like 50 players on Steam
modiz
Member
It's actually helping MS' case because holy shit, that is a bad look at EU. Not that anyone should be surprised, to be honest. Guess his Playstation has a Jim Ryan signature.(including my Playstation).
Nice to see the EU regulators are completely unbiased.
modiz
Member
By making sure Playstation will still get COD? Hmm.
- Status