Microsoft / Activision Deal Approval Watch |OT| (MS/ABK close)

Do you believe the deal will be approved?

  • Yes, will be approved without changes.

    Votes: 221 24.9%

  • Yes, will be approved but with structural changes to ABK.

    Votes: 102 11.5%

  • Yes, will be approved but only with behavioral concessions.

    Votes: 262 29.6%

  • No, will not be approved.

    Votes: 301 34.0%
  • Total voters
    886
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
It's a few things I think.

There's really not a ton on Xbox, GamePass basically IS the system. If I didn't have gamepass, I'm not sure what I'd use my Series X for beyond a great way to play old games.

And it's lagging behind PlayStation, because the PlayStation one offers little behind the bare minimum. I have the highest Plus tier, and they're putting fucking ZERO effort into it. The classics are a slow trickle and ps3 streaming works great sometimes and awful at others. The middle tier is probably their best one, but without those games being day one, I've bought them all already anyway. There's a ton of amazing stuff on there though if you're patient, great deal.
 
Sony: Call of duty is the life blood of all gaming.
MS: Call of duty is entirely unremarkable.
Sony: GP expected to grow substantially.
MS: GP growth has basically flatlined.
 
Last edited:
Bernkastel said:
I wonder why you got so focused on one guy when I linked two entire threads
image.png


image.png

image.png

image.png

image.png

image.png

image.png

image.png

And from the NCSoft thread
image.png

image.png

image.png


image.png

image.png
Weird that you don't have any issue with these people talking about their platform maker making more money, claiming they are console only gamers who will never defend mobile gaming.

Suddenly its only about you and its okay as long as you claim to not support it. But apparently @adamsapple stating the business decisions behind acti-bliz deal makes all Xbox users fans of mobile gaming. Very few Xbox fans care about King or Candy Crush, just like Minecraft. But the next time your favorite platform invests in another mobile game, I would like to see the reactions from your so called elite console warriors who are supposed to hate mobile gaming.
Click to expand...

I'm only going to go off what you showed me, hence that's what I addressed. While I appreciate you showing several other examples (a couple of which are clearly sarcasm by the way, how you can take a post that just says "wonderful" any other way I don't know), I've already said I do have a problem with those stances (along with outlining my reasons why) in the post you quoted.

Since you want this to be about anything other than my original point let's bring it back shall we. Are there or aren't there individuals who were once saying this acquisition is to take COD exclusive (in addition to adding it to gamepass) who are now saying it's because of King and are celebrating that?

If yes you can stop trawling through old threads, we are in agreement. If no, you are blind. This whole "but playstation" shite is tiresome, why not address my original point in isolation? If you can't do that don't bother, it will clearly save you a lot of time and effort.
 
feynoob said:
But in this case, COD is the only issue, which can be fixed by extending the contract.
There aren't any issues after that.
Click to expand...
Sony's main issue in that new response is that "Microsoft would control irreplaceable content that drives user engagement". Extending the contract does not fix that.
 
This "woe is me we can't compete" talk after four straight generations of dominance (PS3 still outsold globally in the end even if 360 had the mindshare) is hilarious to me.

Game Pass has been around a lot longer than the new PS+ anyway and is available on more platforms so this feels like a weird comparison.
 
Lol is this the reply to "Playstation has a 170m installed base and Gamepass has already flatlined?" :messenger_tears_of_joy:
It's pretty clear what both companies are doing here, trying to downplay their own success to look innocent in the eyes of regulators.

In any case if they're talking about the PS+ subscribers just to Extra and Premium vs Gamepass and not including Essential it's realistic they're behind Gamepass. They're at 45m but counting Essential which is not the same service as Gamepass.
 
Last edited:
M1chl said:
Is this accurate? Or is it some bait for CMA?
Click to expand...

At this point assume any statements coming from Sony/Microsoft and not the regulators themselves are bait for one another and the regulators.

Especially so if not backed up with data.
 
Oh my fucking lord.

I fully expected Sony to go full hyperbole, but this is some next level shit
In the short-term, PlayStation users would no longer have access to Call of Duty
Click to expand...
False
In the mid-term, a significant number of PlayStation users would likely switch to Xbox and/or Game Pass
Click to expand...
Not if you provide quality content or great service. Which is exactly definition of competition.
Faced with weaker competition, Microsoft would be able to: increase console and game prices for Xbox users
Click to expand...
Really Sony? That is your argument? After you increased price of your consoles?
Microsoft's foreclosure strategy would lock in many consumers to Xbox, including existing Xbox users who play Call of Duty and those switching from PlayStation to play Call of Duty
Click to expand...
Call of Duty would not be exclusive, so that is no problem at all.
the Transaction would tip demand for multi-game subscription services towards Xbox/Game Pass.
Click to expand...
You are complaining that Microsoft wants to compete? Then compete you whiners
In that weakened negotiating position, independent developers would likely receive worse terms for their content from Microsoft or even be required to promise exclusivity in return
Click to expand...
What? You are using same tactic when dealing with indie developers. So stop whining.
the Transaction cannot harm competition because PlayStation is currently more popular than Xbox. This contention is misconceived.
Click to expand...
What? Sony really imply that they are not market leader in current console space? What drugs are they taking?

Also, is Sony really complaning that Call of Duty games would not be on PlayStation Plus when Activision will go to Microsoft? Since when are Call of Duty games in subscription services now, when Activision is independent?

What a load of horseshit.
 
Last edited:
GHG said:
At this point assume any statements coming from Sony/Microsoft and not the regulators themselves are bait for one another and the regulators.

Especially so if not backed up with data.
Click to expand...
I am confused, because seems like if they provably lie then it's to detriment of their case. But lawyer business isn't something I am familiar with.
 
OmegaSupreme said:
Poor trillion dollar MS! Getting strong armed by Sony!
Click to expand...

They are literally saying they can't compete with one another in their respective responses. Microsoft saying they can't compete without this acquisition and Sony saying they can't compete if the acquisition goes through.

Neither are true. It's hilarious.

M1chl said:
I am confused, because seems like if they provably lie then it's to detriment of their case. But lawyer business isn't something I am familiar with.
Click to expand...

Lawyers bend the truth to make it fit the law in their favour. It's literally their job.
 
Last edited:
HeisenbergFX4 said:
gHEhAwP.jpg
Click to expand...
I'm no lawyer, but I'd assume it's pretty dumb to accuse a competitor to potentially do what you already done yourself.
GHG said:
2025 onwards if this goes through.

But you always had to buy it anyway if its a franchise you're into so what's changed?
Click to expand...
I like call of duty, I bought them annually since cod 4 mw, but as I grew older I got fatigued from the annual cod releases.

Getting them on game pass, on a service i already pay for makes me bring able to play them without spending extra money.
Jennings said:
What's wrong with becoming like Nintendo? I could use more game companies like Nintendo.
Click to expand...
Nintendo doesn't want to dominate the industry by doing monopoly deals like Sony, that's what's wrong becoming Nintendo.
 
The_Mike said:
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."
Click to expand...

This reads very strange to me. So basically they're saying they don't want to adapt and everything should just stay the same so they don't have to?

I also find those examples pretty funny. Is Gears of War, Doom or even Halo (these days) really the best selling shooter franchises? What about Fortnite, Apex Legends, Battlefield, PUBG, GTA or even Destiny (which Sony themselves just bought).
 
Last edited:
gothmog said:
Sony's main issue in that new response is that "Microsoft would control irreplaceable content that drives user engagement". Extending the contract does not fix that.
Click to expand...
Sony argument doesn't hold water, considering their current situation.
Their content is much bigger than what MS is going to do with Activision.
 
Darsxx82 said:
LOL, they belittle Nintendo and differentiate it because it is the example that you can be competitive without COD.....
Click to expand...
Nintendo literally is different than MS and Sony. Different global strategies, different market focus, different employees to house, different support, lesser hardware specs due to that, etc, etc..
 
Last edited:
The_Mike said:
I like call of duty, I bought them annually since cod 4 mw, but as I grew older I got fatigued from the annual cod releases.

Getting them on game pass, on a service i already pay for makes me bring able to play them without spending extra money.
Click to expand...

There are plenty of games that I like that I don't like enough (or don't have enough time for) to purchase. Sometimes I don't have access to those games in an easy way if they are on a platform I don't own (bayonetta 2 and 3 I'm looking at you). It is what it is, life goes on. You make use of what you do have, for most people now that is not lacking.

But generation entitled don't understand how to deal with this and must have access to everything even if they don't really need it or want it that much.
 
Last edited:
bxrz said:
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
Click to expand...

It's pretty easy to see that Sony increased the prices of their consoles. If they get asked about that I'm sure Sony can provide information about the costs.
 
Microsoft alludes to Elder Scrolls VI's potential exclusivity in its latest filing to UK regulators Classifies it as "mid-size," setting up an exclusivity justification that doesn't contradict its use of Minecraft as proof it won't take CoD exclusive

 
Banjo64 said:
So basically both Sony and Microsoft are presenting the most inane ridiculous comparisons/arguments in the hope that they can bullshit the regulators? Got it.
Click to expand...

Exactly right. When you have Microsoft basically claiming they suck at the video gaming industry while highlighting how awesome Sony is......that's when you know you are in la-la lawyer land.
 
Last edited:
HeisenbergFX4 said:
Meanwhile

Click to expand...

Marketing deals. We know. Everyone is free to make them, nobody is when you buy everybody up.

You are smarter than this when it comes to context and nuance. Especially when they're just doing what MS has done to them, Sony however, has not purchased two of the largest 3rd party publishers with dozens and dozens of storied 3rd party IPs and studios that span for decades.
 
Last edited:
GHG said:
There are plenty of games that I like that I don't like enough (or don't have enough time for) to purchase. Sometimes I don't have access to those games in an easy way if they are on a platform I don't own (bayonetta 2 and 3 I'm looking at you). It is what it is, life goes on. You make use of what you do have, for most people now that is not lacking.
Click to expand...
I make use of what I have, I have game pass and would love to have call of duty on it lol.

The whole purpose of game pass is having access to a library that is interesting to you lol.

Why would anyone subscribe to Netflix, hbo or game pass, if you just make use of what you have.
 
DeepEnigma said:
Marketing deals. We know. Everyone is free to make them, nobody is when you buy everybody up.

You are smarter than this when it comes to context and nuance. Especially when they're just doing what MS has done to them, Sony however, has not purchased two of the largest 3rd party publishers with dozens and dozens of storied 3rd party IPs and studios that span for decades.
Click to expand...
I just find it amusing thats all

I will be grabbing that pack later myself I just dont like the Oni skin
 
Robb said:
This reads very strange to me. So basically they're saying they don't want to adapt and everything should just stay the same so they don't have to?

I also find those examples pretty funny. Is Gears of War, Doom or even Halo (these days) really the best selling shooter franchises? What about Fortnite, Apex Legends, Battlefield, PUBG, GTA or even Destiny (which Sony themselves just bought).
Click to expand...
Gears of war has always been pretty niche. The same with doom. They have a solid fanbase but its not among the biggest boys.

Halo once were, not anymore.

Also you can't really compare f2p games to f2p, as every BR game would have been dead if they were b2p, and relying on people actually owning the game.
If you don't get full lobbies all the time then it actually destroy the purpose of the games.

GTA is not a first person shooter, but a third person sandbox game.

Destiny 2 is pretty hard to compare also because it's f2p with paid expansions. But yeah seems pretty silly Sony cries about call of duty when they acquired Bungie even under this CMA investigation.
 
DeepEnigma said:
Marketing deals. We know. Everyone is free to make them, nobody is when you buy everybody up.

You are smarter than this when it comes to context and nuance. Especially when they're just doing what MS has done to them, Sony however, has not purchased two of the largest 3rd party publishers with dozens and dozens of storied 3rd party IPs and studios that span for decades.
Click to expand...

Thank you! I just don't understand this type of thinking. Anyone in the current market landscape is free to make a new, novel deal on an IP or new IP. Look at Kojima and Microsoft for an example in reverse.

Again, the competitive landscape is pretty equal and fair right now. It's not Nintendo or Sony's fault they just do it better than Microsoft.

The question is will the Activision/Bizzard acquisition change the landscape in a monopolistic manner that is detrimental to consumers and the industry?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

MS/ABK is advertising games that don't exist for data collection
46
2K
POKEYCLYDE replied
My apologies to Ubisoft, Sony, Activision, EA, MS etc. for making a big deal out of $70 games
2 3 4
156
6K
MDSLKTR replied
Microsoft, Activision Deny Report Regarding Financial Performance
Business Hardware  2 3
131
11K
Jaybe replied
What happened to all the people that were cheering over that MS Activision acquisition?
Drama  5 6 7 8 9
414
18K
GateofD replied
Microsoft has Closed the Activision Blizzard King Deal
22 23 24 25 26
1K
99K
MasterCornholio replied
Top Bottom