Microsoft / Activision Deal Approval Watch |OT| (MS/ABK close)
- Status
CatLady
Selfishly plays on Xbox Purr-ies X
After their contract expires why should they be entitled to parity with years of Only on Playstation ™? I'm sure they are throwing all these tantrums because even after their contract they think they should be entitled to carry on as before.
I'm quite sure Xbox/MS would agree to allow themselves to treat Sony exactly the same way Sony has treated other platforms for the last 8-yrs and Sony should have NO say in the matter.
GHG
Gold Member
Oh I can see that, don't worry.
Topher
Identifies as young
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
GHG
Gold Member
Their "concerns" are outlined in the CMA documents. You should read them because it clearly isn't what you think.
Menzies
Banned
This is the absolute farce of it all. I'm glad the other side has acknowledged it.
Regulators stepping in to ensure equal treatment, after a prolonged contact to assist the already market leader. And now we have raised prices in consoles and games, with fuck all impact and an unassailable lead.
Kvally
Member
Topher
Identifies as young
MS didn't have anything Sony wanted.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Kvally
Member
I should just buy Xbox and PlayStation and blend them into one, PlayBox. You can play God of War and Gears of War natively on one console. It would be the most powerful console ever made, would be 120fps and 8K minimum.
feynoob
Banned
Phil isn't MS.
Are you saying he is MS?
Topher
Identifies as young
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
CatLady
Selfishly plays on Xbox Purr-ies X
I've been wondering the same thing. Also, they should get a lifetime guarantee of game parity too, right?.
GHG
Gold Member
- CDPR are publically listed
- FromSoft already do make exclusive games for platform holders
The problem is the fact that a lot of you are conveniently missing (or rather, ignoring, I'm sure you're already aware of this) the fact that the marketing deals and associated contracts were mutually agreed upon. Sony didn't force anyone to agree to the deals and sign on the dotted line at gunpoint. Activision felt happy with the terms at the time, it's not Sony's fault that they were essentially saying Xbox as a whole and subscription services like Gamepass weren't important enough to them.
I know it might sting, but that's the truth, if not they would have said no to things like exclusive benefits on Playstation and having to forego the opportunity to negotiate a deal to be on services like Gamepass for the duration of the contract.
These deals happen all over the industry, even down to petty shit like preferential GPU vendor driver treatment for partnered games on PC. It's not the utopia some of you think or wish it was. Whenever there's big money exchanging hands it gets messy and there will be groups of consumers who don't always benefit at various points in time.
Last edited:
feynoob
Banned
He is just a ceo who can get fired the next day.
What I am talking is the company MS here.
Topher
Identifies as young
Backdate these guarantees to Bethesda games and you've got a deal!
Mr Moose
Member
Their last one was in 2018, for PSVR.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
MS is not a sentient being. It's operation is dependent on human decision makers.
Last edited:
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
CatLady
Selfishly plays on Xbox Purr-ies X
In your previous post you stated;
So, it sounds like they expect not only a lifetime contract for CoD but also, a lifetime guarantee they will have game parity even though it was something Sony never did during their contract.
So, what don't I understand, what are Sony's oh so noble concerns? Please link a source to back them up.
feynoob
Banned
And Phil is the bottom of that.
These people care more about money, than Phil's desire to play games.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
pasterpl
Member
Yet. We all know that out of all big tech they would be the best fitted to become skynet /s
CatLady
Selfishly plays on Xbox Purr-ies X
Not true, Microsoft has become self-aware.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
bxrz
Member
1. So do a hostile takeover of CDPR? Why would MS do that? Horrible decision and destroys any goodwill that they've built up.
2. FromSoft did 7 years ago. FromSoft isn't making any console exclusives after the numbers Elden Ring did as a multiplat. Would be terrible business for them
I know you said "likes of" but its not that easy. For the most part, all of the big AAA studios are under someone
Last edited:
CatLady
Selfishly plays on Xbox Purr-ies X
Not true either. Google is already Skynet,
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
The idea seems to be they can offer 10yrs but if they do more Sony's next Playstation "may as well be a smartphone running on M2 Apple chip" yet what stops something stupidly farfetched like that from happening in say 6yrs time instead? Not to mention why would it be any different to say Nintendo Tegra X1 who MS are trying to suggest they will expand onto.
pasterpl
Member
Stadia proved that they are still way off. There isn't sentient AI that would have so little respect to itself to release Stadia /s
feynoob
Banned
MS is offering Sony a 10 year deal, which can be renewed.
Sony needs to match their consoles with MS. Or have some sort of clause, which makes MS make COD on PS as long as the contract exist.
Menzies
Banned
Yes, I'm well aware.
I just think it is worth repeating. The current setup of governing bodies weighing in on, and intervening in acquisitions, but not mutually agreed upon deals, is showing its' limitations of achieving fairness in business competition.
And I'm not saying I've got it all figured out and have the answers, but you would think that an existing deal on, CMA's words "essential input" Call of Duty, for the company in blue would be a bigger offence.
CatLady
Selfishly plays on Xbox Purr-ies X
You're conveniently missing the fact that Activision wanted to be sold and the deal was mutually agreed upon. Microsoft didn't do a hostile takeover. Activision and their stockholders felt happy with the terms at the time, it's not Microsoft's fault they were essentially saying that they didn't need to include Sony in the negotiations nor give a shit whether Sony was happy with the deal.
So Sony and her fanboys should be very happy with the overly generous offer of a 10 year contract and shouldn't be demanding lifetime contracts or guarantees of game parity since Microsoft will own Activision not Sony.
ChorizoPicozo
Member
Tes
Yes
feynoob
Banned
That is all people here need to realize.
Thisnt a hostile takeover.
This is a company who put themselves for sale.
OmegaSupreme
advanced basic bitch
Then ms is at fault here. This isn't some genius scheme from Sony. They recognize the advantage they have on cod (and others) Why should they not fight to keep it? Should sony roll over just because it would make a minority happy? Sony is the smaller company here. If Sony wins out this won't be a huge win for Sony. This will be a massive failure on MS.
Nope. Because it was Bungie's condition to remain multiplatform studio. Without that there would be no deal with Sony. That's why Bungie isn't technically part of PlayStation Studios.
GHG
Gold Member
I may actually be mistaken here since having briefly scanned back through the document it was actually the CMA who raised the concerns I was referring to, couldn't find any direct quotes of Sony saying them:
So I'll actually refer it to you to show where Sony has requested the things you're stating they are requesting:
----
Doesn't need to be a hostile takeover. Twitter went from "not interested" to selling once the amount of money on the table became clear. There are many similar stories in the past with regards to publically listed companies, especially when the prospective buyer states intent, even if it's initially just enough to get a place on the board.
And the bold is precisily why further consolidation in this industry would not be a good thing.
ChorizoPicozo
Member
Has Jezzz Corden written his new manifesto already?
Why are you posting 2yr old tweets? What are you trying to say?
GHG
Gold Member
How so? You think the likes of the FTC and CMA should step in and act as an intermediary every time there is a business negotiation between two companies in every industry? You want them to also step in and stop Coca Cola and Pepsi from doing exclusivity deals with certain fast food chains? How far does this go? Or do you only want them to step in when Sony are doing deals with third parties?
Microsoft are also free to step up to the negotiation table every time these deals take place. They have the means to be able to outbid Sony every single time if necessary. The rest comes down to quality of business relationships, negotiation and communication skills (including things like cultural awareness and adaptation which have been documented as issues for them before in the past, particularly in Japan). If they have complaints that they can't even get a seat at the negotiating table with certain developers/publishers then they ought to work on all the other areas that don't involve money.
If Sony, a Japanese company, can foster relationships on a global scale with a variety of partners then there's no reason why Microsoft can't.
Last edited:
feynoob
Banned
Ass of Can Whooping
Member
Goodwill towards who? The clowns at the managment level? Fuck em
Do you think Armoured Core is going to do anything close to Elden Ring lol?
Last edited:
CatLady
Selfishly plays on Xbox Purr-ies X
I may actually be mistaken here since having briefly scanned back through the document it was actually the CMA who raised the concerns I was referring to, couldn't find any direct quotes of Sony saying them:
So I'll actually refer it to you to show where Sony has requested the things you're stating they are requesting:
----
Doesn't need to be a hostile takeover. Twitter went from "not interested" to selling once the amount of money on the table became clear. There are many similar stories in the past with regards to publically listed companies, especially when the prospective buyer states intent, even if it's initially just enough to get a place on the board.
And the bold is precisily why further consolidation in this industry would not be a good thing.
While I can't prove it, I feel confident that those CMA "concerns" are issues Ryan whispered in their ears to consider and later expressed his appreciation to them for doing so.
https://www.eurogamer.net/sony-givi...-call-of-duty-has-major-negative-implications
In a statement to GamesIndustry.Biz, the platform holder said that "by giving Microsoft control of Activision games like Call of Duty, this deal would have major negative implications for gamers and the future of the gaming industry".
"We want to guarantee PlayStation gamers continue to have the highest quality gaming experience," (Parity)Sony continued, "and we appreciate the CMA's focus on protecting gamers."
Calls the offer of additional years beyond Sony's contract "inadequate
https://www.ign.com/articles/playst...all-of-duty-promise-inadequate-on-many-levels
"Microsoft has only offered for Call of Duty to remain on PlayStation for three years after the current agreement between Activision and Sony ends," Ryan said, "After almost 20 years of Call of Duty on PlayStation, their proposal was inadequate on many levels and failed to take account of the impact on our gamers. We want to guarantee PlayStation gamers continue to have the highest quality Call of Duty experience, and Microsoft's proposal undermines this principle."
Ryan welcomes CMA deeper probe
https://www.playstationlifestyle.ne...ft-activision-deal-jim-ryan-phil-spencer-cma/
Sony has released a statement that it "welcomes the announcement" of an additional probe into the Microsoft Activision deal by the UK's Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). The regulatory body said earlier this month that the merger could "significantly weaken" the competition within the marketplace, a position that Sony agrees with. The company believes that this could have "major negative implications" on the games industry.
Then he flew off to Brussels to influence the EU regulators.
- Status