Hero of Spielberg
Member
This argument would suggest that Apple or Amazon should be legally prevented from entering the gam8ng industry due to their potential to create a monopoly, by prediction of course!
Again its Crystal ball stuff.
Microsoft / Activision Deal Approval Watch |OT| (MS/ABK close)
- Status
Again its Crystal ball stuff.
People are just throwing whataboutisms around, that's all it is. Regulators were silent because it makes absolutely no sense for them to mention it. Not only because MS does the exact same deals but because an independent publisher or studio has decided to do it and a regulator has no control over their decision making and shouldn't do.
Right on the money. People kept telling me this is about King though. King is what's important to them they kept repeating when saying CoD is not important to them. Let's ignore that they could have just bought King from Activision for a lower sum. They clearly offered no proposals during that time to make the merger easier for them, bought the entirety of ABK, and argued about how unimportant CoD is to competition because they want to leverage those IPs for xbox as best as they can or are allowed to.
pasterpl
Member
Just like ABK shareholders voted to/has decided to sell to MS.
Banjo64
cumsessed
the desires of global corporations should never override what is good for consumers.
feynoob
Banned
They don't have any foot in console or PC gaming. Nobody would prevent them.
MS has XBOX. Huge difference.
Why do you think Google and Facebook are getting scrutinized for their recent purchases?
feynoob
Banned
It's was always the core of the industry. It happened before xbox existed. Xbox benefited during x360. And now they would Benifit from that in the future.
Regulators won't stop those stuff.
MS were in the wrong to downplay COD. They made the situation worse for them.
King is important for that, just like how COD is important for the industry.
MS public attention is giving them all kind of headache.
Panajev2001a
GAF's Pleasant Genius
It is not pre-cog shit, not sure if you are arguing in bad faith or if you just disagree on doing anything after the fact period especially with companies with a certain pattern of market power abuse.
Is the purchase a potentially very market distorting manoeuvre? Is it increasing competition or destroying it/negatively affecting it? It took an unprecedented abuse to get the DOJ involved after the fact, you are essentially arguing a very laissez-faire "just let it happen, you will fix it later" on an optimistic at best and bad faith at worst belief regulators will simply deal with it one day if needed. My perhaps very wrong feeling is that you would not want regulators to ever be involved and let the market play itself out without intervention or that your burden of proof would be sky high so the discussion outside of that is kind of fruitless.
DarkMage619
$MSFT
Also important to note that since the FTC in the US doesn't approve acquisitions if in the future MS does anticompetitive actions they can be forced to sell troublesome assets to remove any perceived monopolies. Consumers remain protected. Crystal balls should not be necessary.
I have yet to hear one creditable example of CONSUMERS getting harmed by this acquisition, like increased console and game prices for instance. Sony is the only entity complaining and they should not be the focus of regulatory protections.
Last edited:
Ass of Can Whooping
Member
Sony is a focus because they're the other party in what amounts to a duopoly
Shocking I know
DarkMage619
$MSFT
What is shocking is that there are three competing companies not two so there is no duopoly. MS is third in console gaming. It IS shocking.
Last edited:
Ass of Can Whooping
Member
A clown take that ignores the reality of the differentiation between Nintendo and Xbox/PS
feynoob
Banned
With unlimited money, who just this year, spent more than entire worth of Nintendo on Activision.
64gigabyteram
Reverse groomer.
if you want to play COD on console there is only 2 competing companies. it is a duopoly for powerful AAA console hardware
The guy isn't even in the department making the decisions. Are you suggesting he shouldn't buy or own anything and live like Diogenes because it would be a conflict of interest to say you own anything?
He just said in a goofball way he owns a playstation and they should update stock pictures to get rid of the controller wires. It was a stupid way of saying he is a gamer on twitter. People are just looking for bias over the daftest thing.
Can we please stop with the false equivalences. Mergers and aquisitions are a little different to independent company decision making.
What are you suggesting anyway? That developers and publishers should also be told they can't release exclusively on a given platform? gamepass too? How would you remedy this without hindering a platform holder funding games with third parties?
Mergers and aquisitions are different and something that regulators have some control over and I think you know the difference, they look at whether it hinders competition to harm consumers.
Even those exclusivity deals can be seen as part of competition by the commission as long as they are independent. Sony went and paid for Street Fighter to have an exclusive fighting game against xboxs Killer Instinct at the time, MS went and got Tomb Raider exclusivity to have an exclusive to show against Uncharted 4. Some of them can be seen as immoral if it's simply to block a release but how do you reasonably distinguish between that and funding a game?
They want King no doubt but the fact that they made no proposals and are putting up a fight for CoD and other Activison games shows that it is important to the deal for them otherwise the deal would have went through without an issue for just King. I'm referring back to a conversation I had with someone about how this isn't just about King:
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
True, so far CADE has deemed that this acquisition doesn't override it, let's see what CMA, EU, FTC etc think.
pasterpl
Member
Based on this no acquisitions should be allowed; was Sony acquiring insomniac good for Xbox users? Is Sony buying timed exclusivity on x titles good for Xbox users? No. But the consumers are not only Xbox users, same, consumers are not only PlayStation users. Consumers = whole market.
The_Mike
I cry about SonyGaf from my chair in Redmond, WA
Unlimited money they aren't allowed to spend to protect Sony.
Last edited:
Ridiculous. No, but considering that Insomniac worked mostly with PS and owned no popular IPs the harm to competition was deemed to not be significant in that aquisition.
Again how do you expect to govern this without stopping funding by platform holders?
MasterCornholio
Member
You mean Sunset Ovedrive and Fuze?
Don't know if they released anything else on Xbox.
pasterpl
Member
I am not offering solutions, I am just appplying your logic to other deals that are/were happening in the gaming industry. And you logic is flawed.
pasterpl
Member
This is irrelevant. Was that acquisition good for customers = whole market or did it only benefited playstation owners?
ChorizoPicozo
Member
Yes
MasterCornholio
Member
It gave us a good Spider-man game and kept them in business. So I guess it was good for some people.
Cheezewizz
Banned
But that's not the point though is it.
All this narrative twisting and whataboutisms are largely pointless. Either these console platform owners are allowed to pursue exclusive content for their platforms or they're not. That's all there is to it as far as that aspect is concerned.
And it's that aspect that makes this whole ordeal so interesting. Due to the way the console business has worked up to this point, as well as Xbox's place in the console market, logic would dictate that this acquisition shouldn't be a problem. At least when MS stated intentions are considered.
The CADE determination was pretty much what everyone expected. It highlighted the potential pitfalls, as well as how business was conducted and ruled accordingly. It wasn't until the CMA basically cited Sony's objections verbatim that things got weird.
Now the CMA, and EU regulators are free to rule how they want, but if they ultimately decide that a game such as COD should be forced to be on all platforms, then there's going to be consequences of that decision going forward. At least one would think so anyway.
MasterCornholio
Member
I don't see how COD being available on multiple platforms is bad for consumers.
Maybe explain it a little better so it makes sense?
Cheezewizz
Banned
It gave Playstation owners a good Spiderman game, and they weren't going bankrupt.
MasterCornholio
Member
Well Microsoft should have given them the Spiderman game first. It's not like they didn't have the chance to do that. Plus they already worked with Insomniac in the past with Sunset Overdrive.
Last edited:
Cheezewizz
Banned
It's not bad for consumers, and it's not bad for COD itself. Which is why MS has stated it's intent to keep it on multiple platforms going forward.
How much better can this be explained.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
There you go, then coming out to clarify this quickly means that they realize it was an inappropriate statement. Ol Ricky probably got reprimanded for it as well.
CoD is staying Multiplat, there's nothing to explain ?
Last edited:
SportsFan581
Member
Deal seems good for Xbox and PC consumers thanks to the value added to GP. I wonder which group of consumers is bigger PS or Xbox + PC?
Plus, MS is already saying they intend to put CoD on PS as long as that remains a viable option, so, PS gamers lose nothing.
Last edited:
MasterCornholio
Member
Yeah why there isn't a legally binding document on that. That's the only thing left to explain. They certainly wanted to make a deal with Sony before. No idea why they are delaying this.
Last edited:
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
What legally binding doc, MS doesn't own activision yet... They can't make any legally binding declarations about it yet. Only commitments to public and whatever they're talking to the regulators about.
Last edited:
MasterCornholio
Member
How much of that is guaranteed though without a legally binding document?
MasterCornholio
Member
So why did they contact Sony with that deal than? Assuming they didn't own Activision of course.
Cheezewizz
Banned
Of course, but they didn't. So Sony got it instead. No harm, no foul.
It's not specifically about Spiderman though. It's Insomniac's content overall. If Microsoft wanted access to Insomniac's content period, then they should've done so. But they didn't, and Sony did, so that's their loss.
Same goes for Activision.
MasterCornholio
Member
You do know that Microsoft could have made those marketing deals right?
Or are you talking about something else?
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
That was Phil reaching out to Jim for a handshake agreement, it wasn't a legally binding document. They literally can't make any legally binding declarations about an entity they don't own.
The only time they can make legal declarations before the deal closes is if it's required of them as part of the concessions agreements.
SportsFan581
Member
Maybe an effort to encourage Sony not to resist the deal aggressively, or it was meant to calm the fears of PS users. It's possible that Sony was aggressively against the Zenimax deal as well and that let MS know what to expect (pure speculation obviously).
Cheezewizz
Banned
How can MS even make a legally binding contract for something they don't own?
literally all they can do is declare their intent going forward, which they've done multiple times now.
MasterCornholio
Member
I don't know I'm guessing the same thing they did with the competition earlier. That's how they would make concessions to allow the deal to go through. Just saying it on a podcast wouldn't guarantee it.
MasterCornholio
Member
It didn't seem that way to me.
How can you guarantee that COD will remain on PlayStation if this deal goes through?
Without the testicals of course.
Last edited:
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
There's no guarantees, but it would be a real bad move and a PR nightmare if they don't follow through on what they've committed numerous times.
But at the rate it's going, CoD remaining Multiplat will probably be required by CMA and EU anyway.
Cheezewizz
Banned
You do know Spiderman wasn't just a marketing deal right? I'm aware that MS deferred on Spiderman, but we're talking about acquisitions and exclusive content.
If Microsoft wanted content that Insomniac makes, then they should've taken the steps to do so. But they didn't, and Sony did. So now Sony gets the benefits of that.
Everyone understands this, and it's completely reasonable.
Now it's MS's turn, and they are doing the same with Activision like Sony did with Insomniac. Only now there's a problem. Sony (and only Sony) is crying foul because they don't want MS getting the very same benefits they themselves got from acquiring Insomniac.
MasterCornholio
Member
I think it's up to them to convince regulators of that. They can't make empty promises. They need to back it up in some way for it to go though.
What regulators don't want is for them to promise one thing and then do something else without any repercussions. Something has to create a guarantee in this situation.
MasterCornholio
Member
You do know that Insomniac is tiny right? Just like Bluepoint, Ninja Theory and Double Fine were. Activision Blizzard is much larger if you didn't know.
Ass of Can Whooping
Member
Because a contract can be written and signed beforehand, in recognition that they plan to own said company
MasterCornholio
Member
If we acquire Activision Blizzard Microsoft will ensure that COD will be released on PlayStation as long as it exists.
I believe that's what regulators want to see.
SportsFan581
Member
IMO, ABK just isn't important enough to require any guarantees regardless of what MS does with the properties. The entirety of ABK is only 9% of the gaming software market with a strong amount of that revenue coming from platforms outside the consoles (from King and WoW). Competition would still be alive and well if MS pulled everything. They'd only offer guarantees if they absolutely had to, which we won't find out about until the process is over.
feynoob
Banned
adamsapple
SportsFan581
How would you guys feel as Xbox owner, if ms didnt own xbox, and Apple owned Sony and they bought Bethesda and Activision for $75b?
Would that have been a fair market?
- Status