Support NeoGAF

[Kvally]

Yes

Nope

 

[ReBurn]

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.

Day 1

 

[CatLady]

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.

Because they didn't put up $67B to BUY the company.

So, your justification for Sony's entitled attitude is because they want it? That's like a 4-yr old throwing a tantrum in the toy store because they want a particular toy they can't have.

 

[Menzies]

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.

No, I'm very much not campaigning for that, however, what are these regulatory bodies trying to achieve? What is the reason for their existence? It doesn't work just looking at a singular facet. There has to be acknowledgement that with zero intervention and a dominant player, that the deluge of scratch my back deals becomes a concern. Pretend for a second, that Microsoft is a smaller company than Sony - what's the well-reasoned argument for them competing?

Yes, I agree to an extent. We all saw the colossal push-back with Tomb Raider with brand damage and entitled platform fans. I also think you're being naive to think Microsoft has a chance in hell of securing a mainline Final Fantasy game as exclusive, but yes, they can and most likely will (if this deal fails) out compete Sony now every chance they get. Way to go regulation?

 

[Three]

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.

You won't get a reply as to how they want it to work because it's nothing but a whataboutism. One their favourite company doesn't even have an issue with because they do it too.

 

[GHG]

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.

So what you're saying is that you think Jim Ryan and Sony by extension have the EU and CMA in their back pocket? You think Jim Ryan just booked a flight and barged his way into their offices without invitation?

What about any other jurisdiction that has decided (or will decide) further investigation is necessary? How deep does this rabbit hole go?

 

[CatLady]

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.

I don't think they should step into these types of dealings, but they should certainly take them into consideration when evaluating this deal and Sony's lone objections to it.

 

[HoofHearted]

 

[HeisenbergFX4]

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.

You mean like a PC?

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

I don't think they should step into these types of dealings, but they should certainly take them into consideration when evaluating this deal and Sony's lone objections to it.

Sony isn't the only one with objections.

 

[HeisenbergFX4]

Sony isn't the only one with objections.

Jimmie is doing everything he can to stop this

From the article today with the 10 year offer

 

[MasterCornholio]

Sony isn't the only one with objections.

At this point I'm wondering if regulators are being influenced by gaf.

 

[Three]

No, I'm very much not campaigning for that, however, what are these regulatory bodies trying to achieve? What is the reason for their existence? It doesn't work just looking at a singular facet. There has to be acknowledgement that with zero intervention and a dominant player, that the deluge of scratch my back deals becomes a concern. Pretend for a second, that Microsoft is a smaller company than Sony - what's the well-reasoned argument for them competing?

They are trying to achieve better competition and not one company owning or controlling a market. What they can't do though is tell you how to run your business independently. If MS see the worth of chasing higher sales for their console they can compete by getting those partnerships that would benefit an independent third party. They did this already on the 360, xbox one and Series.

Yes, I agree to an extent. We all saw the colossal push-back with Tomb Raider with brand damage and entitled platform fans. I also think you're being naive to think Microsoft has a chance in hell of securing a mainline Final Fantasy game as exclusive, but yes, they can and most likely will (if this deal fails) out compete Sony now every chance they get. Way to go regulation?

MS has a chance in hell of getting FF exclusivity but considering the built fanbase on PS they would have trouble convincing a third party company to shaft its consumers for the benefit of MS. That's a good thing. Doesn't mean they can't get FF though. Could MS convince them that increased sales from xbox would be beneficial? could they offer marketing to FF to help drive sales on the platform? Could they pay for some exclusive skin to offer people more on their platform and shift sales? That would be easy competition but they dont because they are too busy trying to convince them to forgo game sales entirely for their sub.
Now imagine if MS bought Square and possibly made it exclusive through that method instead. Would that make all the other possible methods to promote a third party game on your platform worse somehow?

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

Jimmie is doing everything he can to stop this

From the article today with the 10 year offer

Oh I don't doubt that Jim is

But I am just saying he is not alone to want the deal blocked

 

[ReBurn]

So what you're saying is that you think Jim Ryan and Sony by extension have the EU and CMA in their back pocket? You think Jim Ryan just booked a flight and barged his way into their offices without invitation?

What about any other jurisdiction that has decided (or will decide) further investigation is necessary? How deep does this rabbit hole go?

The CMA pretty much adopted Sony's position on the deal early on during phase 1. Several analysts commented on this. Their concerns parrot Sony's very closely, particularly in regard to Sony's CoD position. It's not exactly a stretch to assume that there's some Sony lobbying happening over there meant to protect Sony's dominant position.

Microsoft was right to not respond to phase 1 concerns and push to phase 2. That way they can get the regulatory concerns on record and force the regulators to provide evidence to support their conclusions instead of their feelings in order to provide a path to appeal should they block the acquisition.

 

[feynoob]

They are trying to achieve better competition and not one company owning or controlling a market. What they can't do though is tell you how to run your business independently. If MS see the worth of chasing higher sales for their console they can compete by getting those partnerships that would benefit an independent third party. They did this already on the 360.


MS has a chance in hell of getting FF exclusivity but considering the built fanbase on PS they would have trouble convincing a third party company to shaft its consumers for the benefit of MS. That's a good thing. Doesn't mean they can't get FF though. Could MS convince them that increased sales from xbox would be beneficial? could they offer marketing to FF to help drive sales on the platform? Could they pay for some exclusive skin to offer people more on their platform and shift sales? That would be easy competition but they dont because they are too busy trying to convince them to forgo game sales entirely for their sub.
Now imagine if MS bought Square and possibly made it exclusive through that method instead. Would that make all the other possible methods to promote a third party game on your platform worse somehow?

MS doesn't have a single chance for that franchise. Mainly because it's a Japanese game, targeted towards a Japanese people by a Japanese developers.

In other words, MS needs to have a presence in Japan, to even be in topic of that.

 

[HeisenbergFX4]

Oh I don't doubt that Jim is

But I am just saying he is not alone to want the deal blocked

My bad trying to do 10 things at once and misread your statement, apologies

 

[OmegaSupreme]

Because they didn't put up $67B to BUY the company.

So, your justification for Sony's entitled attitude is because they want it? That's like a 4-yr old throwing a tantrum in the toy store because they want a particular toy they can't have.

Sony has had great success without making a lot of these huge purchases. Why should they have bought them? They were all ready doing great business without that. It's Ms who is so desperate to compete in this generation alone they've spent nearly 80 billion. Why should they role over? Answer that. Because it would please you? This all goes back to ms for allowing this.

 

[GHG]

I don't think they should step into these types of dealings, but they should certainly take them into consideration when evaluating this deal and Sony's lone objections to it.

That's fair enough. In that case they can also take into account all of the dealings that go on across the industry in order to come to a fair conclusion that takes into account the overall market environment.

No, I'm very much not campaigning for that, however, what are these regulatory bodies trying to achieve? What is the reason for their existence? It doesn't work just looking at a singular facet. There has to be acknowledgement that with zero intervention and a dominant player, that the deluge of scratch my back deals becomes a concern. Pretend for a second, that Microsoft is a smaller company than Sony - what's the well-reasoned argument for them competing?

Yes, I agree to an extent. We all saw the colossal push-back with Tomb Raider with brand damage and entitled platform fans. I also think you're being naive to think Microsoft has a chance in hell of securing a mainline Final Fantasy game as exclusive, but yes, they can and most likely will (if this deal fails) out compete Sony now every chance they get. Way to go regulation?

Microsoft were the ones who managed to break the mainline FF exclusivity cycle (along with a number of other franchises that were at the time widely accepted as exclusive to the playstation brand). It's not Sony's fault they have fumbled the bag since the 360 days. They've done it before, they can do it again.

I think it was Microsoft's CEO who said "let's have competition" or words to those effect? They could have been competing the whole time instead of attempting to circumvent said competition by going on a buying spree of publishers that are seen as integral to the overall industry.

You want to compete? Get to the negotiation table like every other platform holder, storefront owner and hardware vendor does in the industry. That way they can get their own gamepass exclusive deals, timed exclusive deals and marketing deals with all the frills of exclusive content/skins/etc. Oh wait... They already do those things as well as attempting to buy out major publishers?

It's just a case of wanting to have your cake and eat it too.

 

[feynoob]

Oh I don't doubt that Jim is

But I am just saying he is not alone to want the deal blocked

It's him and Sony.
EU + CMA(cloud and other areas don't have any argument). They don't really have any concrete reason to stop it. Especially when both are asking for concessions.

Incase you don't believe it.

- Sony hired a consulting firm to set up meetings on Capitol Hill

- Jim Ryan says that MS is "a tech giant with a long history of dominating industries" and that "it is highly likely that the choices gamers have today will disappear if this deal goes ahead."

FTC on other hand wants to be tough on big tech, so this is their test.

 

[Bernkastel]

What are you even trying to say here?

Show me where Sony and Nintendo fans championed huge acquisitions due to the potential for mobile phone games being under the respective umbrellas.

I thought you guys were console gamers. I must have been mistaken this whole time.



All gamers already have access to all of Kings games. Unless you've been loving under a rock and don't have a smartphone.

Unless you didn't look up who the owner of Aniplex is. I don't get why you are pretending that the others are some purely console only business.

Spoiler

This is why Sony stated 'we believe in generations'.

This is one of the reasons I support Sony.

Except, they just hide their mobile gaming efforts from you by using the label Aniplex.

Spoiler

https://www.neogaf.com/threads/sonys-fate-grand-order-has-the-highest-amount-of-money-spent-on-mtx-by-consumers-in-mobile-games.1515979/

Nintendo entered by licensing Pokemon to Niantic for Pokemon Go and that was huge. Henceforth, they have self published mobile titles.

Fire Emblem Heroes - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And the more recent stuffs like Pokemon Unite. As for Aniplex, while Fate was the first one, they have an entire division to publish mobile titles out of anime IPs(which mostly factored into the Kadokawa deal by them and Tencent)

Aniplex - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Show me where Sony and Nintendo fans championed huge acquisitions due to the potential for mobile phone games being under the respective umbrellas.

I thought you guys were console gamers. I must have been mistaken this whole time.

As for "fans"

https://www.neogaf.com/threads/rumor-sony-is-partnering-with-ncsoft-to-develop-a-horizon-mmorpg.1644977/

The people you are projecting will not defend "mobile gaming" are not the ones being critical in this thread. Some saying it will be a great genshin clone, one even saying how "it would be great to reach new potential customers in korea".
Heck, Sony is quoting the devs of Scarlet Blade (Shift Up). If you looked them up its actually a mobile dev who first made Destiny Child and now Nikke:Goddess of Victory. Turns out Scarlet Blade was a side project.

Spoiler

Products – :: S H I F T U P ::

shiftup.co.kr

They are definitely going after gacha devs. Are you telling me the usual suspects won't praise them if they bought NC Soft and instead champion them buy saying "more money for them".

https://www.neogaf.com/threads/bungie-and-netease-are-working-on-a-new-fps-mobile-game.1638620/

GHG I thought your friends did not like mobile gaming. What are these posts about "Another win" and "More money for them? I must be mistaken the whole time.

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

It's him and Sony.
EU + CMA(cloud and other areas don't have any argument). They don't really have any concrete reason to stop it. Especially when both are asking for concessions.

Incase you don't believe it.




FTC on other hand wants to be tough on big tech, so this is their test.

it's him + Sony + regulators + I'm sure other publishers aren't pleased, they may not be as active against it

Concessions are ways to ALLOW it without it being anticompetitive, that's the whole reason for concessions.

 

[bxrz]

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?

What I know is FromSoft is a household name now like CDPR so them going back to making exclusives is horrible business for them.

 

[MScarpa]

Still no changes huh? I'll check back in a few weeks.

Continue the console wars.

 

[CatLady]

That's fair enough. In that case they can also take into account all of the dealings that go on across the industry in order to come to a fair conclusion that takes into account the overall market environment.

Totally reasonable, can agree that.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

What I know is FromSoft is a household name now like CDPR so them going back to making exclusives is horrible business for them.

Complete nonsense. Once again Elden Ring is not guaranteeing success with any other new IP they make.

 

[OmegaSupreme]

Can anyone explain why Sony should not fight?Because it's mean to little old MS? Sony is being a big bully? They should let all that money go because...?

 

[bxrz]

Complete nonsense. Once again Elden Ring is not guaranteeing success with any other new IP they make.

Elden Ring did over 18 million in one year alone. Was a gaming phenomena. Stamped them as undeniably one of the best game development studios in gaming.

And you are trying to tell me their next new IP wouldn't be successful?

 

[Menzies]

could they offer marketing to FF to help drive sales on the platform? Could they pay for some exclusive skin to offer people more on their platform and shift sales?

Square Enix: you have to pay us our ransom to even get access to our game.

This doesn't paint a nirvana of balance and fairness.

Microsoft were the ones who managed to break the mainline FF exclusivity cycle (along with a number of other franchises that were at the time widely accepted as exclusive to the playstation brand). It's not Sony's fault they have fumbled the bag since the 360 days. They've done it before, they can do it again.

I think it was Microsoft's CEO who said "let's have competition" or words to those effect? They could have been competing the whole time instead of attempting to circumvent said competition by going on a buying spree of publishers that are seen as integral to the overall industry.

You want to compete? Get to the negotiation table like every other platform holder, storefront owner and hardware vendor does in the industry. That way they can get their own gamepass exclusive deals, timed exclusive deals and marketing deals with all the frills of exclusive content/skins/etc. Oh wait... They already do those things as well as attempting to buy out major publishers?

It's just a case of wanting to have your cake and eat it too.

Yes, yes - the time machine argument.

Well, you're either for increased competition or against it. Again, there's the little handbook of rules that Microsoft is allowed to follow at play. At the time they went of their buying spree - how many developers did each platform own and what were the lifetime to date console sales figures?

There are always these takes presented that all Microsoft needs to do is natural growth, create their own studios, and build new. I don't believe these are sincere in the slightest and are more well-wishes derived from people with bias, who know this will amount to very little over a short period of time.

 

[feynoob]

it's him + Sony + regulators + I'm sure other publishers aren't pleased, they may not be as active against it

Concessions are ways to ALLOW it without it being anticompetitive, that's the whole reason for concessions.

Regulators want a concessions, meaning it won't be blocked. They are allowing if they think they can get those concessions. With MS going for phase 2, making a concessions is going to be difficult, since that would give them more new info. And some of these info might even impact Sony too.

Third parties aren't having an issue with it, since that would allow them the opportunity of making a marketing deal with Sony.

 

[feynoob]

Elden Ring did over 18 million in one year alone. Was a gaming phenomena. Stamped them as undeniably one of the best game development studios in gaming.

And you are trying to tell me their next new IP wouldn't be successful?

He is right.
Elden ring is like skyrim. Once a hit game.
Replicating that success is difficult.

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

Regulators want a concessions, meaning it won't be blocked. They are allowing if they think they can get those concessions. With MS going for phase 2, making a concessions is going to be difficult, since that would give them more new info. And some of these info might even impact Sony too.

Third parties aren't having an issue with it, since that would allow them the opportunity of making a marketing deal with Sony.

I am talking about other major stakeholders holders like Nintendo, Tencent, etc.

I think the deal goes through, but I think it only does so after major concessions. Microsoft already went from 3 years to 10 years (even though they said they want to keep it on PS forever lol). Clearly they are playing weird word games and their intentions arent very clear

 

[bxrz]

He is right.
Elden ring is like skyrim. Once a hit game.
Replicating that success is difficult.

Well you're wrong too cause Fallout 4 was VERY successful for Bethesda. It doesn't need to replicate Elden ring's success. It just needs to be successful, which it will be

FromSoft games, assuming they continue to be very high quality, will always be successful. Thats what Elden Ring did for them. Just like what Witcher 3 did for CDPR. And Skyrim did for Bethesda.

 

[GHG]

Unless you didn't look up who the owner of Aniplex is. I don't get why you are pretending that the others are some purely console only business.

As for "fans"

https://www.neogaf.com/threads/rumor-sony-is-partnering-with-ncsoft-to-develop-a-horizon-mmorpg.1644977/

The people you are projecting will not defend "mobile gaming" are not the ones being critical in this thread. Some saying it will be a great genshin clone, one even saying how "it would be great to reach new potential customers in korea".
Heck, Sony is quoting the devs of Scarlet Blade (Shift Up). If you looked them up its actually a mobile dev who first made Destiny Child and now Nikke:Goddess of Victory. Turns out Scarlet Blade was a side project.

Spoiler

Products – :: S H I F T U P ::

shiftup.co.kr

They are definitely going after gacha devs. Are you telling me the usual suspects won't praise them if they bought NC Soft and instead champion them buy saying "more money for them".

https://www.neogaf.com/threads/bungie-and-netease-are-working-on-a-new-fps-mobile-game.1638620/

GHG I thought your friends did not like mobile gaming. What are these posts about "Another win" and "More money for them? I must be mistaken the whole time.

This is hilarious, you're resorting to quoting individuals who are not fond of Sony posting out of irony (here's your" another win guy"):

https://www.neogaf.com/threads/sony-shutting-down-all-official-playstation-forums.1526310/page-4#post-256967082

He's actually a PC gamer and I know so from all the PC discussion threads on here but I digress...

Here's what you're missing. I'm not a fan of Sony's GAAS/MMO/mobile initiatives because they are of no benefit to me. Those things are not why I have and continue to game on PlayStation. Further to that I would argue that anyone who would argue those are positive steps for PlayStation as a brand is an idiot because those are not the pillars upon which they have built their brand to be what it is today. I'm not afraid to say it. Nobody who owns a Playstation console gets more games by them putting resources into mobile gaming - it is not why people purchased playstation consoles.

It's a shame I can't say the same for anyone who is suddenly hugging around the fire entitled "King". It's gone from fantasising about COD being exclusive and on gamepass to that? Doesn't add up my friend. Even worse, I'm not seeing anyone willing to call it out, people who were deep in the aforementioned fantasy are now idly sat by the fire reading from a newly updated script.

Microsoft are spending a collosal amount of money on something that is primarily valued what it is due to a franchise they are likely to not be allowed to have full control of. And nobody is willing to say anything about it? Sorry but the joke is on you guys.

 

[Three]

MS doesn't have a single chance for that franchise. Mainly because it's a Japanese game, targeted towards a Japanese people by a Japanese developers.

In other words, MS needs to have a presence in Japan, to even be in topic of that.

Then MS has failed there and not competition laws. They didn't cater and sell to that audience when they could.
They concentrated mainly on online multiplayer games and specifically shooters and failed to garner consumer attention in other regions.

Odd thing was that during the time when MS was dominating with those shooters in the western world and people were saying PS sucked for shooters COD was once exclusive to xbox. Didn't stop Sony from building a CoD fanbase on PS later on. One that ultimately surpassed xbox.

MS had and have a chance to establish FF on xbox, they just don't do it. Nothing stopped MS from going and signing a 3 game deal with square for new games. That's competition. Hell you don't even need to convince anyone to remove anything, offer marketing, pay for extra creative content, establish a fanbase and game sales. sell consoles and convince them why not releasing on your console is a bad idea. That's competition. Buying studios to ultimately have control over the content is not competition however people try to slice it. The consumer has no say or control over that whatsoever.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

Elden Ring did over 18 million in one year alone. Was a gaming phenomena. Stamped them as undeniably one of the best game development studios in gaming.

And you are trying to tell me their next new IP wouldn't be successful?

No one is saying their games won't be successful. The only way they're going to repeat Elden Rings success is if they stick with the Elden Ring formula going forward like Bethesda sticks with their formula, and FROM isn't doing that.

 

[Three]

Square Enix: you have to pay us our ransom to even get access to our game.

This doesn't paint a nirvana of balance and fairness.

Ransom? nobody is asking for a ransom. Square want sales. They want funding for development. They want exposure. If they had sales on MS platforms with a good ROI then no convincing has to happen whatsoever. They wouldn't even need MS to lift a finger.

Yes, yes - the time machine argument.

Well, you're either for increased competition or against it. Again, there's the little handbook of rules that Microsoft is allowed to follow at play. At the time they went of their buying spree - how many developers did each platform own and what were the lifetime to date console sales figures?

There are always these takes presented that all Microsoft needs to do is natural growth, create their own studios, and build new. I don't believe these are sincere in the slightest and are more well-wishes derived from people with bias, who know this will amount to very little over a short period of time.

That is competition at least. Acquisitions are not really. Nothing is decided by the consumer in an acquisition. Acquisitions are often at the detriment of competition which is why anticompetition laws and regulators exist in the first place

 

[GHG]

The CMA pretty much adopted Sony's position on the deal early on during phase 1. Several analysts commented on this. Their concerns parrot Sony's very closely, particularly in regard to Sony's CoD position. It's not exactly a stretch to assume that there's some Sony lobbying happening over there meant to protect Sony's dominant position.

Microsoft was right to not respond to phase 1 concerns and push to phase 2. That way they can get the regulatory concerns on record and force the regulators to provide evidence to support their conclusions instead of their feelings in order to provide a path to appeal should they block the acquisition.

Can you explain to me:

• As far as COD is concerned who else are the likes of the CMA and EU supposed to be looking to protect?
• Are they not supposed to be protecting the company whom by their own admission owe much of their recent success to a franchise under the control of Activision Blizzard?
• Is the purchasing party in this scenario not deemed to be the aggressor, especially considering the cost is beyond anything the party this deal most affects is capable of feasibly affording?

Please answer honestly.

Square Enix: you have to pay us our ransom to even get access to our game.

This doesn't paint a nirvana of balance and fairness.


Yes, yes - the time machine argument.

Well, you're either for increased competition or against it. Again, there's the little handbook of rules that Microsoft is allowed to follow at play. At the time they went of their buying spree - how many developers did each platform own and what were the lifetime to date console sales figures?

There are always these takes presented that all Microsoft needs to do is natural growth, create their own studios, and build new. I don't believe these are sincere in the slightest and are more well-wishes derived from people with bias, who know this will amount to very little over a short period of time.

It's not a time machine, these are things that actually happened. It's part of their history as a business division.

It's just that whereas the vast majority of businesses in this world need to live by their mistakes, undergo transformation and learn, Xbox have decided to use a get out of jail free card that's not available to 99% of other businesses out there - call trillionaire daddy and ask for cash, lots of it.

 

[feynoob]

Then MS has failed there and not competition laws. They didn't cater and sell to that audience when they could.

MS isnt a Japanese company. They never had a chance to begin with.

They concentrated mainly on online multiplayer games and specifically shooters and failed to garner consumer attention in other regions.

Games which works on their home turf.

Odd thing was that during the time when MS was dominating with those shooters in the western world and people were saying PS sucked for shooters COD was once exclusive to xbox. Didn't stop Sony from building a CoD fanbase on PS later on. One that ultimately surpassed xbox.

Sony benefited massively from global audience.
MS without COD marketing still competed with PS on UK and US. The rest of world, MS had no presence due to OG being home box, x360 being their starter to success, just for x1 to bring them down without reaching that global success.

MS had and have a chance to establish FF on xbox, they just don't do it. Nothing stopped MS from going and signing a 3 game deal with square for new games. That's competition. Hell you don't even need to convince anyone to remove anything, offer marketing, pay for extra creative content, establish a fanbase and game sales. sell consoles and convince them why not releasing on your console is a bad idea. That's competition. Buying studios to ultimately have control over the content is not competition however people try to slice it. The consumer has no say or control over that whatsoever.

Again, MS has no chance for big Japanese games.
Those games audience are Japanese people. MS needed at least xbox to have some presence their in Japan.
It didn't. X360 sold 1m, while x1 sold 144k.

You cant expect those 3rd party publishers to put their big games on xbox. It doesn't make it financially possible.

 

[bxrz]

No one is saying their games won't be successful. The only way they're going to repeat Elden Rings success is if they stick with the Elden Ring formula going forward like Bethesda sticks with their formula, and FROM isn't doing that.

They don't need to repeat Elden Rings success. They just need to be successful. Which they will be

Bethesda didn't need to repeat Skyrim's success. Fallout 4 was still successful
CDPR didn't need to repeat Witcher 3's success. Cyberpunk was still successful.

FromSoft making exclusives for anyone clearly hampers that

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

They don't need to repeat Elden Rings success. They just need to be successful. Which they will be

They've always been successful, even before they were making exclusives.

Bethesda didn't need to repeat Skyrim's success. Fallout 4 was still successful

Skyrim, Fallout and Starfield are all the same fucking formula, of course they're going to be successful lmao

 

[feynoob]

I am talking about other major stakeholders holders like Nintendo, Tencent, etc.

I think the deal goes through, but I think it only does so after major concessions. Microsoft already went from 3 years to 10 years (even though they said they want to keep it on PS forever lol). Clearly they are playing weird word games and their intentions arent very clear

Those people don't really care about it. Nintendo would benefit from this, as thay would allow some Activision games to be available on their platform.


The issue presence now is how can they handle the contract situation.
MS doesn't want forever contract, and Sony doesn't want to lose the game and dont want it on gamepass.

Regulators need to have middle road, where both party can agree with each other.

 

[feynoob]

Well you're wrong too cause Fallout 4 was VERY successful for Bethesda. It doesn't need to replicate Elden ring's success. It just needs to be successful, which it will be

Sold 12m, while skyrim surpassed that and sold more than 30m copies.

You can have a successful franchise. But sales is what matters by the end of the date. Fromsoft won't see those numbers any time soon.

 

[ChiefDada]

I don't think they should step into these types of dealings, but they should certainly take them into consideration when evaluating this deal and Sony's lone objections to it.

This argument that Sony is the only company complaining never made sense to me. Who else would complain? What other company's traditional business model is negatively impacted by the potential acquisition? This wouldn't even be an issue if Microsoft didn't sell consoles. Sony and Microsoft are essentially operating in a duopoly; Microsoft has failed to organically produce blockbuster games/services that elevate their position in the marketplace so they have resorted to purchasing goliath publishers. That is an antitrust concern, regardless of your opinion on free markets (and if you check my history, I've always been in support of deal strictly from a free market perspective.)

 

[bxrz]

Sold 12m, while skyrim surpassed that and sold more than 30m copies.

You can have a successful franchise. But sales is what matters by the end of the date. Fromsoft won't see those numbers any time soon.

Fallout 4 sold 12 million AT LAUNCH. That number is MUCH higher by now.

In fact, Pete Hines has said Fallout 4 has sold around the same as Skyrim during the same time frame.

https://www.gamespot.com/articles/fallout-4-surpasses-skyrim-to-become-bethesdas-mos/1100-6447621/

FromSoft can definitely see those numbers again, or even higher if they create another masterpiece.

 

[Menzies]

Ransom? nobody is asking for a ransom. Square want sales. They want funding for development. They want exposure. If they had sales on MS platforms with a good ROI then no convincing has to happen whatsoever. They wouldn't even need MS to lift a finger.


That is competition at least. Acquisitions are not really. Nothing is decided by the consumer in an acquisition. Acquisitions are often at the detriment of competition which is why anticompetition laws and regulators exist in the first place

For all intents and purposes, the CMA and EU authorities have determined Call of Duty is important input, that needs feature and release parity protected. They have investigated and will further scour and scrutinize the industry to make this determination.

Are you saying that it's reasonable for them to publicly share this position and protect all competitors subsequent to their investigations, while also harboring the view its 'competition' when half-decade exclusive deals are struck? You don't have any problem with that?

 

[Ozzy Onya A2Z]

Because they didn't put up $67B to BUY the company.

So, your justification for Sony's entitled attitude is because they want it? That's like a 4-yr old throwing a tantrum in the toy store because they want a particular toy they can't have.

This sounds on the money for today's mega-corpos and billionaires.

 

[Drewpee]

Hopefully all Bethesda titles stay on PlayStation. I'd love to see the day that Halo is on a Sony console. I HATE what console wars have done to gaming. We spend 85% of our time arguing about a piece of hardware and tearing down amazing pieces of work just because its not on our preferred console.

Cannot wait for the day console exclusives die.

 

[Menzies]

It's not a time machine, these are things that actually happened. It's part of their history as a business division.

It's just that whereas the vast majority of businesses in this world need to live by their mistakes, undergo transformation and learn, Xbox have decided to use a get out of jail free card that's not available to 99% of other businesses out there - call trillionaire daddy and ask for cash, lots of it.

Yes, they've made mistakes. Are you advocating that they just fall on their sword and disappear? Would that be better? Or can we actually discuss pragmatic solutions that help foster and cater to more balanced competition right now. Taking all the past failings into account and realise yes, they've found themselves in a considerable hole - much of their own doing, not denying that. Yet understanding and recognising the course correction required is more substantial than just the meek suggestions of "create your own".

 

[OmegaSupreme]

Hopefully all Bethesda titles stay on PlayStation. I'd love to see the day that Halo is on a Sony console. I HATE what console wars have done to gaming. We spend 85% of our time arguing about a piece of hardware and tearing down amazing pieces of work just because its not on our preferred console.

Cannot wait for the day console exclusives die.

PC is the one console future.