DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Microsoft / Activision Deal Approval Watch |OT| (MS/ABK close)
- Status
bxrz
Member
You'd be surprised
The regulators aren't gamers. They know nothing about the industry. They are learning everything based on what Sony/Microsoft/Third Party tells them
Topher
Identifies as young
Lawyers saying shit again?
Lawyers saying shit again.
gothmog
Gold Member
I wouldn't say it was their entire position. I think they have a strong argument that the amount of data Xbox would obtain by owning COD would be damaging. Imagine having a digital spy reporting everything your users are doing to a competitor that also happens to be the best selling product on your platform. Enterprises spend a shit ton of money moving away from competitor's products like Office and Gsuite because they are worried about content and meta-data being used against them. Industrial spying is actually a problem in the big tech space.
thebigmanjosh
Member
Wishful thinking to expect this to close before mid-2023. Everyone I've talked to expects it to roll through most of next year.
If this deal goes through, I don't see how MS doesn't just go on a shopping spree to pick up the remaining private publishers. They'll have precedent from two major acquisitions and enough COH to buy out the industry. Sony will get acquired by Google or Amazon to remain competitive or we'll be playing god of war on GP by 2030.
If this deal goes through, I don't see how MS doesn't just go on a shopping spree to pick up the remaining private publishers. They'll have precedent from two major acquisitions and enough COH to buy out the industry. Sony will get acquired by Google or Amazon to remain competitive or we'll be playing god of war on GP by 2030.
feynoob
Banned
Hey, can I get some of that weed?
caligula13
Gold Member
It is a big deal for everyone with game pass. I am not buying the game. But I will instantly play it when it comes to game pass.
HoofHearted
Member
gothmog
Gold Member
I've heard weirder predictions come true.
I think the deal is dead personally. There are just as many valid as invalid concerns here. When I make any major decision on my team I always tell them "a yes is a yes, a no is a no, and a maybe is a no". Unless there is a clear, risk free advantage to the market letting MS acquire I would say no. Just too many potentially valid risks by the giant tech company that almost wrote the book on how giant tech companies abuse their positions.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
The race to the bottom.
HoofHearted
Member
If it were to be made available on Game Pass - then sure, I'd play it for the campaign - and to see how bad I've gotten at it at multiplayer - then move on. Sorta like Dirt 5...
However - Is it a big enough deal for me to subscribe to Game Pass or, alternatively, if I were a "Sony Only Pony" to jump ship? Meh - NO - as that's not the underlying reason for which I'd originally bought my PS5 nor would it be the primary reason I'd subscribe to GP.
The entire premise of all of these discussions is that CoD is the most valuable asset of this deal - when every other available data/metric indicates otherwise.
Last edited:
According to Sony: COD is more important when it comes to adding users than its collection of first party games.... LOL.
MS saying that COD is not the most important IP on the market and on the other hand Sony saying that without COD they cannot compete and underestimates the value of their own IPS...
And here they told me that it was only MS who was exaggerating, downplaying COD
Then Sony's response is pure gold.
Sony: "MS bought Compulsion, Ninja Theory, Obsidian and their games will be exclusive and that affects Playstation users "..... Sony bought Insomniac, Horsemarquer etc to make their games cross platform???
Sony: " When MS gives an example of Nintendo being competitive without COD, it clearly indicates that their intention is to turn PlayStation into Nintendo"
MS saying that COD is not the most important IP on the market and on the other hand Sony saying that without COD they cannot compete and underestimates the value of their own IPS...
And here they told me that it was only MS who was exaggerating, downplaying COD
Then Sony's response is pure gold.
Sony: "MS bought Compulsion, Ninja Theory, Obsidian and their games will be exclusive and that affects Playstation users "..... Sony bought Insomniac, Horsemarquer etc to make their games cross platform???
Sony: " When MS gives an example of Nintendo being competitive without COD, it clearly indicates that their intention is to turn PlayStation into Nintendo"
Last edited:
EU has seemingly dropped that from their concerns, it was a part of the survey but wasn't in the phase one summary. I also don't think also the CMA raised it.
CatLady
Selfishly plays on Xbox Purr-ies X
The highlighted is hilarious. Oh NOES !1!!! Microsoft might actually do the shit Sony is currently doing or has already done
It's only okay for Sony to charge more than the other platforms. Does Sony actually think this is a good argument?
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Thanks, still seems a bit .. scummy .. for the lack of a better word. I gotta imagine MS had offered them the 10 year thing a while ago and not just the very day Phil talked about it in pubic.
The highlighted is hilarious. Oh NOES !1!!! Microsoft might actually do the shit Sony is currently doing or has already done
It's only okay for Sony to charge more than the other platforms. Does Sony actually think this is a good argument?
Yeah, people are rightfully calling out the hypocrisy. They're fearmongering MS doing things that they themselves have already done.
Last edited:
xHunter
Member
Well Geoff Keighly has access to the full NYT article where they said that the 10 year deal was proposed on the November 11th, two weeks after the this new Document. So to me it seems more like the 10 year deal is MS answer to this document.
feynoob
Banned
They would take it to court, if regulators rejects it.
You also have to worry about the money MS has now, which would have huge impact on the industry.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
HeisenbergFX4
Member
I think Phil saying they would ship COD as long as there was a PS to ship to was made like 2 or 3 days after the 28th so I agree with you these statements were to get ahead of what was coming
MS have lost their minds.
Somehow they think Sackboy: A big adventure and Bloodborne are "third party content". They are Sony published games and IP. Not only that but they bring up Bloodborne here as "excluded from xbox" for some reason.
Does this mean we can expect to get Ori, Dead Rising 3, Crackdown, Ryse, Quantum break, and Fable on Playstation because you clearly don't seem to understand what first party content is?
Somehow they think Sackboy: A big adventure and Bloodborne are "third party content". They are Sony published games and IP. Not only that but they bring up Bloodborne here as "excluded from xbox" for some reason.
Does this mean we can expect to get Ori, Dead Rising 3, Crackdown, Ryse, Quantum break, and Fable on Playstation because you clearly don't seem to understand what first party content is?
According to you, Sony has also lost its head when it criticizes that MS makes exclusive the games of Compulsion, Obsidian, compulsion etc...?? Doesn't Sony know the concept of exclusives? We have to wait for Insomniac games and other Sony studios to make games for Xbox?
feynoob
Banned
"Lawyers"
You new to this Clown circus?
Both MS and Sony lawyers are making up all kinds of shit arguments.
Wait so Sony wouldn't want to dominate the Japanese game market and be swimming in cash?Sony: " When MS gives an example of Nintendo being competitive without COD, it clearly indicates that their intention is to turn PlayStation into Nintendo"
gothmog
Gold Member
Depends on the backdoor chatter. Depends on the country. Depends on the political situation in said country. Depends on the suggested concessions.
I was at Time-Warner Cable when they went through their multiple attempts at mergers. The TWC/Comcast deal was so done we had letterhead and signs ready to go up in our offices. Suddenly Comcast cancelled the merger and took the financial penalty. Rumor was regulators wanted Comcast to spin out NBC as its own entity and Comcast said no way.
I doubt MS would go through with it if losing COD was a condition of the deal.
What?According to you, Sony has also lost its head when it criticizes that MS makes exclusive the games of Compulsion, Obsidian, compulsion etc...?? Doesn't Sony know the concept of exclusives? We have to wait for Insomniac games and other Sony studios to make games for Xbox?
feynoob
Banned
But in this case, COD is the only issue, which can be fixed by extending the contract.
There aren't any issues after that.
CatLady
Selfishly plays on Xbox Purr-ies X
I haven't read the whole thing yet either maybe about half, but it is infinitely better than Sony's hilariously bad lies, exaggerations and fear-mongering that MS could possibly do the shit Sony is currently doing. There is NO way the regulators can't see through Sony's BS.
It's funny, but it seems that the CMA is buying that argument.....
The_Mike
I cry about SonyGaf from my chair in Redmond, WA
THE COMPANY ARGUES THAT XBOX WILL BECOME THE HOME OF FPS GAMES IF ITS ACTIVISION DEAL IS APPROVED
The comments were made in a newly-published response to UK regulator the Competition and Markets Authority's decision to expand its investigation into the proposed acquisition.
In its 22-page response, Sony Interactive Entertainment alleges that if the deal were to go through, users would leave PlayStation's ecosystem, Microsoft could raise Xbox prices, and independent developers would be harmed in the fallout.
As has been the trend with the regulatory back-and-forth, much of the document focuses on Call of Duty and the perceived harm Sony claims the Activision Blizzard deal would cause, should the flagship franchise be made exclusive to Xbox.
In one section of its statement, the platform holder singles out comments made by Microsoft that other platforms have prospered without Call of Duty, including Nintendo Switch. In its latest response, Sony says this claim 'ignores the facts'.
SIE argues that Nintendo's strategy is differentiated from PlayStation and Xbox because it doesn't rely on 18-rated shooter franchises – games which it argues Microsoft will have virtual exclusive ownership of should the Activision deal be approved by global regulators.
In this sense, it alleges Microsoft's "true strategy" with the Activision Blizzard deal is to make PlayStation like Nintendo, in that it does not compete in this space.
"Microsoft claims that Nintendo's differentiated model demonstrates that PlayStation doesn't need Call of Duty to compete effectively. But this reveals Microsoft's true strategy," SIE's statement reads. "Microsoft wants PlayStation to become like Nintendo, so that it would be a less close and effective competitor to Xbox.
"Post-Transaction, Xbox would become the one-stop-shop for all the best-selling shooter franchises on console (Call of Duty, Halo, Gears of War, + Doom, Overwatch), as the Decision explains, and it would then be free from serious competitive pressure."
SIE's statement goes on to claim that Activision's games, "in particular Call of Duty", are "critical" to PlayStation.
"The franchise is firmly entrenched in gamers' psyche: every instalment since Call of Duty was first released back in 2003 has consistently topped the charts," it states, going on to share redacted percentage figures of the share of its audience it believes it would lose to Xbox should CoD go exclusive.
"Ignoring these facts, Microsoft argues that Nintendo has been successful without access to Call of Duty," it continued. "This misses the point. The Decision identifies a wide body of evidence showing that Nintendo offers a differentiated experience to Xbox and PlayStation because it is focused on family-friendly games that are very different from PEGI 18 FPS games like Call of Duty.
"This is supported by Microsoft's internal documents, which, so the CMA found, show that: "In general, Microsoft's internal documents track PlayStation more closely than Nintendo, with Nintendo often being absent from any internal competitive assessment".
While the Activision deal has been approved by regulators in Saudi Arabia and Brazil, the UK's Competition and Markets Authority recently expanded its investigation to a second phase. It is in the process of inviting members of the public to share their views on the acquisition before giving its final decision by March 1, 2023.
In its explanation of its decision to approve the acquisition, Brazil's CADE said it agreed with Microsoft's claim that PlayStation did not need Call of Duty to remain competitive.
"As is already seen, Nintendo does not currently rely on any content from Activision Blizzard to compete in the market," it said.
https://www.videogameschronicle.com...trategy-is-to-make-playstation-like-nintendo/
Tl: DR -
- Sony fear call of duty going exclusive despite Microsoft saying it won't as long as there's playstation.
- Microsoft event suggested to make a 10 year call of duty contract with Sony, but Sony declined.
- After this decline, Sony still yells up about call of duty going exclusive.
- Sony dominates the console race and third person games, and fear Microsoft could get the upper hand with first person shooters.
- Sony defends itself behind being compared to Nintendo with "getting left behind" because Nintendo is all about games for the children.
The comments were made in a newly-published response to UK regulator the Competition and Markets Authority's decision to expand its investigation into the proposed acquisition.
In its 22-page response, Sony Interactive Entertainment alleges that if the deal were to go through, users would leave PlayStation's ecosystem, Microsoft could raise Xbox prices, and independent developers would be harmed in the fallout.
As has been the trend with the regulatory back-and-forth, much of the document focuses on Call of Duty and the perceived harm Sony claims the Activision Blizzard deal would cause, should the flagship franchise be made exclusive to Xbox.
In one section of its statement, the platform holder singles out comments made by Microsoft that other platforms have prospered without Call of Duty, including Nintendo Switch. In its latest response, Sony says this claim 'ignores the facts'.
SIE argues that Nintendo's strategy is differentiated from PlayStation and Xbox because it doesn't rely on 18-rated shooter franchises – games which it argues Microsoft will have virtual exclusive ownership of should the Activision deal be approved by global regulators.
In this sense, it alleges Microsoft's "true strategy" with the Activision Blizzard deal is to make PlayStation like Nintendo, in that it does not compete in this space.
"Microsoft claims that Nintendo's differentiated model demonstrates that PlayStation doesn't need Call of Duty to compete effectively. But this reveals Microsoft's true strategy," SIE's statement reads. "Microsoft wants PlayStation to become like Nintendo, so that it would be a less close and effective competitor to Xbox.
"Post-Transaction, Xbox would become the one-stop-shop for all the best-selling shooter franchises on console (Call of Duty, Halo, Gears of War, + Doom, Overwatch), as the Decision explains, and it would then be free from serious competitive pressure."
SIE's statement goes on to claim that Activision's games, "in particular Call of Duty", are "critical" to PlayStation.
"The franchise is firmly entrenched in gamers' psyche: every instalment since Call of Duty was first released back in 2003 has consistently topped the charts," it states, going on to share redacted percentage figures of the share of its audience it believes it would lose to Xbox should CoD go exclusive.
"Ignoring these facts, Microsoft argues that Nintendo has been successful without access to Call of Duty," it continued. "This misses the point. The Decision identifies a wide body of evidence showing that Nintendo offers a differentiated experience to Xbox and PlayStation because it is focused on family-friendly games that are very different from PEGI 18 FPS games like Call of Duty.
"This is supported by Microsoft's internal documents, which, so the CMA found, show that: "In general, Microsoft's internal documents track PlayStation more closely than Nintendo, with Nintendo often being absent from any internal competitive assessment".
While the Activision deal has been approved by regulators in Saudi Arabia and Brazil, the UK's Competition and Markets Authority recently expanded its investigation to a second phase. It is in the process of inviting members of the public to share their views on the acquisition before giving its final decision by March 1, 2023.
In its explanation of its decision to approve the acquisition, Brazil's CADE said it agreed with Microsoft's claim that PlayStation did not need Call of Duty to remain competitive.
"As is already seen, Nintendo does not currently rely on any content from Activision Blizzard to compete in the market," it said.
https://www.videogameschronicle.com...trategy-is-to-make-playstation-like-nintendo/
Tl: DR -
- Sony fear call of duty going exclusive despite Microsoft saying it won't as long as there's playstation.
- Microsoft event suggested to make a 10 year call of duty contract with Sony, but Sony declined.
- After this decline, Sony still yells up about call of duty going exclusive.
- Sony dominates the console race and third person games, and fear Microsoft could get the upper hand with first person shooters.
- Sony defends itself behind being compared to Nintendo with "getting left behind" because Nintendo is all about games for the children.
Last edited:
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Oh come off it. It's just as bullshittery. They are literally calling Sony first party IPs, 3rd party. Honk honk!
Last edited:
Bernkastel
Ask me about my fanboy energy!
They would make their own Xenoblade Chronicles? Like Nintendo?
No, that was the fanboys and Zubytech
brian0057
Banned
Hahahahahahahaha... Oh, god. Sony can't be serious with that statement.
And that's bad because...?
Nintendo is one of the few developers making games actually worth playing.
GhostOfTsu
Banned
How would Sony know the exact number? 
xHunter
Member
Your TLDR is all over the place. Your linked article doesnt event mention the 10 year deal. The newly published document from today is from October 28th, 2 weeks before MS proposed the 10 year deal, which Sony didnt publicly decline yet. They declined to comment on it.
Could be an estimate, there seems to be some estimates in the MS materialsHow would Sony know the exact number?
tommib
Banned
They wouldn't make it up. It's an estimate.How would Sony know the exact number?
Last edited:
- Status