The market leader doing that wouldn't pass regulators.@adamsappleSportsFan581
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?
Microsoft / Activision Deal Approval Watch |OT| (MS/ABK close)
- Status
Cheezewizz
Banned
What did they do with the competition earlier?
Furthermore, why should MS have to make any concessions in the first place if they're purchasing the IP? Why buy something you'd have no control over?
Let's say you wanna buy a massive top of the line Oled tv. We're friends so of course you'd have no problem with me coming over and playing a game on it, or watching the game together or whatever right. Seems completely reasonable. But surely you wouldn't be so eager to purchase said TV if it was mandated that not only could I come over and watch your tv, but that I was legally allowed to use it just as much as you were. And for the cherry on top... because of my previous contract with Dolby, I get to be sole user of all the Dolby features on your tv.
Cheezewizz
Banned
I do. I suspect it's probably why the price is bigger too. But this isn't sex, so size isn't the be all end all. It's gaming.
Ass of Can Whooping
Member
That's the dumbest fucking analogy i've ever seen lmao
Cheezewizz
Banned
That would still be a 2 to 1 market leader expanding it's marketshare.@adamsapple
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?
Replacing MS and Sony is the wrong way of looking at it. It doesn't matter who the parent company is. I know it might come across as console warring, but Playstation and Xbox are the consumer facing products here. Replacing the name of the banks behind the scenes that funds each product just doesn't work.
feynoob
Banned
But is it fair though?
Because that is what MS is essentially doing now.
feynoob
Banned
The problem is the amount of money at the table here.
Regardless of who is the market leader. If your opponent spends that much, there is nothing you can do.
ReBurn
Gold Member
The real clown take is ignoring Nintendo as a competitor to Sony and Microsoft in the console market. The reasons people in this thread have used to minimize Nintendo have them twisting themselves in knots. People literally saying that because Switch isn't as powerful or they don't get every single game PlayStation or Xbox get that they are in some weird isolated category. It's a reality that people posting in this thread made up to try to justify their opinions on this acquisition and make the impact look worse than it is. Ultimately the pie chart for console market revenue has Nintendo owning a massive slice regardless of the opinions of armchair analysts. Lots of third party games are still going there. It's just inconvenient to include while justifying a hot take.
Reality is that even after this deal Sony is still in the lead in the console market and Microsoft would have no monopoly power. So we spend time arguing about what could happen. What's going to happen in 4 or 5 years isn't clear. Sony could have less influence and Microsoft could have more. It's possible that Sony may sell fewer PS6 consoles down the line because people who primarily play COD may buy an Xbox instead. Nintendo could try to kill their company with another Wii U idea. Activision could fail under backlash from reaffirming Kotick as CEO. We don't know, and regulators don't know either. That's why they still have the power to investigate and take action even after acquisitions and can force remedies if companies break the law.
Cheezewizz
Banned
MasterCornholio
Member
Yeah its gaming. Gaming = Content.
So the more studios or developers mean that more games can be produced. That's why Activision-Blizzard is being looked so closely because of the amount of games they can produce.
I mean if Activision was small no one would care about this.
Ass of Can Whooping
Member
Right, well while you're keeping your head in the sand let me know once the biggest third party games coming next year like Hogwarts, Suicide Squad, Star Wars, COD, Madden, Avatar, Diablo etc are playable on the Switch.
feynoob
Banned
Nintendo isn't even a competitor.
When do people stop this notion?
Have you checked Nintendo top 20 sales? Compared to PS/xbox top 20 sales?
That is not a competition. Especially when Nintendo is missing a large amount of 3rd party games.
Ass of Can Whooping
Member
And yet you still replied to it.
How could I not? It was laughably bad and so far from reality lmao
feynoob
Banned
When it doesn't even have those games, how can we consider them a competitor?
Cheezewizz
Banned
The money is the difference... Not the problem.
A business's purpose is to make money. That money can either go into the company's pocket, or be spent... to make more money.
The amount of money businesses can spend in the console gaming market shouldn't be restricted based on what Sony says.
Cheezewizz
Banned
Exactly.
And after years of hearing "it's all about the games". MS decides to invest in order to produce more games.
And now suddenly there's Sony and a segment of their fanbase that's decided "Wait. Not that many games. That's too many".
So now our conversation has come full circle. Surely you can now see why much of the contention is completely unwarranted.
feynoob
Banned
Money spending isn't the same as money made.
MS a whole makes more than Sony worth in term of revenue.
The money they are spending is too much, and it's a money PS would have to make as revenue in 3 years at top level performance in a good economic year.
It an unfair advantage.
To put in a very simple thought.
That money can buy MS the entire AAA games for gamepass day1 for 20 year. That is 17 AAA games day1, which MS pays them $200m.
You see what is wrong with that money now?
CatLady
Selfishly plays on Xbox Purr-ies X
Who cares what you are OK with? Why do you, the Sony fanboys, Ryan and Sony think you get to set the terms of what is allowable competition? Sony is free to use their advantages over Xbox to foreclose Xbox, but Xbox is should not be allowed to compete on their terms and using their advantages over Sony.
Topher
Identifies as young
There is no transaction you as an individual will make that is going to change the market landscape so that analogy is a bit absurd from get-go.
Microsoft has to make concessions because the regulators will require them to. That's all that matters. You or anyone else thinking they shouldn't have to is entirely irrelevant.
"Nintendo isn't a competitor to Sony and Microsoft in the console market" isn't the right argument. Neither is making it about the power of the Switch. But the game sales concretely show a platform dominated by first party games. I've posted the top sellers for Nintendo in this thread repeatedly and if we are to say things are being made up then it is this idea that what is popular on Xbox and PlayStation is also popular on Switch. That simply isn't true. Pointing out that difference is not making anything up. With over 100 million Switch users I think if there was truly a demand for a military first person shooter on the console then it would be there even if it were a port of the mobile version of Call of Duty. It isn't there for a reason and the games that Switch owners buy show us why.
You are correct that there are a number of third party games on Switch. Only two have ever cracked the top 10 in Switch sales per NPD. Contrast that with Xbox and PS where third party are the majority.
MasterCornholio
Member
What's wrong with how Sony are making those games? It's not like they bought a big multiplatform publisher to obtain games that they already have.
The issue isn't Xbox getting games from Activision which it already is. It's those games not being made available to the competition. That's what they are looking at for the most part.
Panajev2001a
GAF's Pleasant Genius
@adamsapple
How would you guys feel as Xbox owner, if ms didnt own xbox, and Apple owned Sony and they bought Bethesda and Activision for $75b?
Would that have been a fair market?
Something tells me they would not
… considering this and the Bethesda deals were hailed as MS protecting consoles from outside interference.
MasterCornholio
Member
MasterCornholio
Member
So why are you calling him a Sony faboy?
feynoob
Banned
Competition is investment. Spending way too much money on the industry above its weight isn't a competition.
Nothing stops MS from making a long term contract with square Enix. Considering they are ready to spend 68b on Activision.
There is nothing stops MS from doing same deals as EA play.
I hope people realize that spending that much money does nothing, but destroy the industry.
We had a time when bethesda purchase,was a considered a big purchase. Now that purchase is like a baby now.
feynoob
Banned
It seems using logic is prohibited here.
Now I see how the CMA and EU feels.
MasterCornholio
Member
It's not that. It's just I never took you for a Sony fan. You always seemed to prefer Xbox. Which is fine.
feynoob
Banned
I prefer PC.
Xbox was kinda under the dog. But this purchase makes them not much so.
MasterCornholio
Member
I'm confused. Didn't you defend gamepass a lot and the value it provides?
Cheezewizz
Banned
What MS makes doesn't matter. It's what they spend.
And whether what they are spending is "too much" is your arbitrary opinion, which is obviously based on what Sony spends, or is able to.
Let's use your very own tactic here. But now let's replace Sony with Apple. If Playstation were owned by Apple, would MS currently be spending too much then?
feynoob
Banned
I still defend that. Gamepass is really great for consumers who can't afford to spend alot of money on video games.
You get alot of value if you have xbox and pc, just for 15$.
Same thing with ps+ premium now.
I am in a position, where my college loan doesn't allow me to buy alot of games.
MasterCornholio
Member
OK so i am talking to the same person. It's confusing because you had several alts. Just double checking.
feynoob
Banned
I would have loved the regulators to do their job, if Apple owned PS.
No big company should use their big wallet to disrupt the market.
The consequences isn't just Xbox vs PS. It also brings other parties such as tencent, rich Arab guys, Google, and other big techs.
Now you see where this is going?
Cheezewizz
Banned
Nothing is wrong with how Sony makes their games. They're making them the same way MS is. Just like Sony bought Insomniac, MS is buying Activision.
See? No harm, no foul. The only difference here is that suddenly Sony has decided that there is actually a problem.
Topher
Identifies as young
Fun Fact: FIFA 22 was in the top 10 best selling games for both Xbox and PS in 2021. FIFA 22 didn't crack the top 20 on Switch. Also not present (but available) on Switch's best seller list for 2021 was MLB The Show and NBA 2K22. So the sizable sports video game genre which takes up nearly a third of monthly video game sales on Xbox/PS and Switch can't break into the rankings on Switch. We are talking about 15% of the entire top 20 best selling games in the US that simply don't show up in Nintendo Switch's top 20 at all.
Let me break out the obligatory....
Last edited:
CatLady
Selfishly plays on Xbox Purr-ies X
I agree. Regulators should look at what is best for consumers and competition not protecting Sony's dominant market position or catering to what Sony demands or desires.
MasterCornholio
Member
I don't see why they are not. Consumers own PlayStations as well.
Cheezewizz
Banned
Those other parties are coming regardless, and despite what some here might think. None of those regulators can stop it.
We have a pretty long history of how MS and Sony get along in the console space. In many ways, Sony and MS are like siblings. They fight with each other fairly often, but make no mistake. If any of those other companies tries to come in and bully the market, MS and Sony would absolutely work together to drive them out.
If this deal were to fail, Activision won't suddenly not want to sell. You'd just have to take your pick as to who would buy them. So who would you prefer?
Looking at the big picture. The gaming industry is the process of these giant (mostly) tech companies attempting to take over. Not too dissimilar from what segments of the auto industry is facing. These giants are going to come in and squeeze
In what way is my logic flawed? Go back and read what you replied to
With a merger or acquisition regulators do have control because it's becoming one entity but they can't say how a company should operate as long as they can show they are acting independently (cartels and price fixing aren't allowed too based on this idea of acting independently).
When there is an acquisition they are no longer independent but one entity and they investigate any lessening of competition.
That's why this false equivalence doesn't work. You are saying it is equivalent to deals between independent companies. So are you suggesting that the logic is flawed because they should have control over independent companies? then say how you think it can be regulated. Are you suggesting that they shouldn't regulate mergers and acquisitions either because it's the same? then prepare for cartels and the collapse of competition with one entity controlling everything.
Last edited:
feynoob
Banned
And it's why we need regulators right now.
It sends a message to those people.
We As consu.
MasterCornholio
Member
CatLady
Selfishly plays on Xbox Purr-ies X
This deal is good for Xbox gamers, PC gamers, Mobile Gamers, Cloud gamers and in the end possibly Nintendo gamers if Xbox can put CoD in some form on Switch. Maybe even Sony gamers if Sony feels the heat of some competition, it's possible they might work harder to give their own users more value.
It is far more important to work to the benefit of all those users as opposed to worrying about protecting Sony's market position and bottom line.
feynoob
Banned
They need to face the reality.Are you trying to make people crazy here?
MasterCornholio
Member
SportsFan581
Member
@adamsapple
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?
I can see not being happy about it. But it still wouldn't elevate to a situation where it completely changed the market. It just doesn't represent enough of the market.
MasterCornholio
Member
No your looking at this wrong. COD can be on ganepass and still release on PlayStation. This would make consumers happy plus the regulators would probably not have an issue with this. Take it away and that's a different story.
feynoob
Banned
That fact you can say this without any issues, is worrying me alot.
I can't believe you are perfectly fine with that. Is the grudge against PS that bad?
I used to feel sorry for xbox fans before. But now, I really don't know how to feel about them.
I hope some xbox fans can see the problem with these type of logic.
What? they responded to an email and made it clear that the guy is allowed to tweet about whatever he likes:
"As you've correctly pointed out, Mr Cardoso works in the Director General for the Internal Market and not in the Directorate General for Competition,"
"Mr Cardoso is not involved in the assessment of this transaction. Furthermore, as indicated clearly in his Twitter profile, he tweets in a personal capacity."
Nowhere do they say it's inappropriate. Simply responding to media emails doesn't mean "they realize it was an inappropriate statement". Come on with that reach.
feynoob
Banned
The problem is the cash money.
Let's put Activision aside.
MS is willing to spend 68b on the purchase. That is insane amount of money.
Realistically, that money can be used to invest on xbox and gamepass day1.
If MS allocates 6b every year for gamepass. They can manage to get 30 AAA games day1 at $200m per AAA.
Imagine xbox with 30 AAA day1 on gamepass. That would be a huge benefit for the platform.
It would take them 11 years to spend close to that amount.
PS position market won't stop MS investment.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked