Swift_Star
Banned
And risk losing the massive ps revenue? Not happening.
Microsoft / Activision Deal Approval Watch |OT| (MS/ABK close)
- Status
jm89
Member
Really you seem to be the one constantly having to reassure people it will go through? You sure that reassurance isn't for your self?
Not denying it won't go through, you just seem to be coping a bit.
TheGodfather07
Member
Not when you sell 15m copies on their platform you won't.
feynoob
Banned
I am getting insight from ACTUAL lawyers, and knowledgeable people, and using logic, instead of fanboys thoughts.
So far, we havent seen any attemp to stop it. There is 80% chance on concession. Until we have the info that can actually block this deal, it will go through,
Edit: Sorry if I come strong there. I am just tired of fanboys from both side.
Last edited:
ChiefDada
Member
"Any suggestion that the transaction could have anticompetitive effects is absurd"
See, it's language like this that gets me. There are valid arguments in favor of the merger; I've even stated some here, but to claim any counter arguments against are "absurd"??? I mean, how can any reasonable person take you seriously?
feynoob
Banned
Corporate people saying corporate shit.
Never take these people serious. Its just a job for her. She doesnt care about that.
TheGodfather07
Member
Concessions are pretty much guaranteed going by what the regulators have said. Which is a funny turn of events considering people thought it would go through easily and with no problems for Microsoft. It was never going to be simple buying a publisher like activision.
Cheezewizz
Banned
It's really not. The only reason Bungie's games won't be exclusive to PS, and operates independently is because Bungie insisted on those things as part of the condition of being acquired.
MS isn't acquiring A/B in order to "crush" Sony. As far as consoles goes... They want constant quality content for Gamepass, and CoD provides exactly that. It's a well oiled machine that releases on a yearly basis.
ChiefDada
Member
The tweet would have been completely acceptable and got the message across without that sentence is my point. Even for a corporate insider, it seemed a bridge too far imo.
feynoob
Banned
Call of duty is their biggest obstacle. And advertising for gamepass actually gave regulators a good argument against MS. Since that would make gamepass a very strong service. In essense, MS is digging a hole with their messages.
Notable argument, which Sony used was reaching more consumers. By removing Call of duty, MS is going back against their words, which harms the consumers who were playing the game on PS.
That was MS campaign for their cloud gaming, which is also in hot seat with CMA. Since that would make Xcloud, a strong cloud gaming service with activision content. Meaning services like Geforce would be unable to compete with Xcloud, due to those offering.
As they say, keep your mouth shut, and you save yourself some troubles.
Last edited:
pasterpl
Member
For one we would have platform parity with cod, no more exclusive content on playstation so players on Xbox, pc etc would be able to get all perks. It would also put ms in better position to compete with Sony and might force Sony to innovate more and create games outside their comfort zone.
TheGodfather07
Member
True. Microsoft keep saying things but then doing the complete opposite. It would benefit them to stay quiet more. They do too much unnecessary pr and end looking a little hypocritical later on.
TheGodfather07
Member
But why don't Microsoft innovate more and create games themselves instead of buying multiplat ips? Isn't that better for the industry instead of what they're doing now? Why don't Microsoft create a new fps ip to go against cod?
Last edited:
Badlucktroll
Member
They should just give that 70 billion to feed the poor
feynoob
Banned
I hope people stop usng that. Sony isnt a competitor to MS.
They have Xbox+Windows store. This deal would essentially strengthen those 2 markets, and Mobile market. They can gain tons of revenue from these 3 markets.
Sony on other hand is a console business, and currently expanding their mobile market.
To break it down.
Xbox consoles would have All RPG games, All shooter games.
PC would have the same, plus blizzard PC games, not to mention they are getting Riot games with PC games.
Sony cant compete with those financially. Console wise, yes. But they have no foot on PC like MS.
Probably not massively relevant to the deal (at least not Sony's complaints) but it's related to the fear that Big Tech has too much power. I think the EU may have concerns about Azure licensing costs and the general cloud advantage in the ABK deal but the complaint from Slack was largely about bundling Teams with Office.
The Slack complaint was a long time ago and this investigation into Office/Teams has been signalled for a while
https://slack.com/intl/en-gb/blog/news/slack-files-eu-competition-complaint-against-microsoft
bentanchorbolt
Banned
I love this thread. Everyone is an expert here. I've learned so much about mergers.
DenchDeckard
Moderated wildly
Sony seem to be on a mission to drag this out to get the most concessions they can, which is unsurprising. I can see MS having to agree that they wont put COD on gamepass for a certain amount of years etc. It is obvious Sony are making this a pain for all involved with quite frankly laughable complaints against the buy.
one thing is for sure, this is getting seriously entertaining, and Sony have shown their complete ass and probably totally fucked themselves with Activision and MS whichever way it goes.
Buckle your seatbelts because we are just getting started lol.
one thing is for sure, this is getting seriously entertaining, and Sony have shown their complete ass and probably totally fucked themselves with Activision and MS whichever way it goes.
Buckle your seatbelts because we are just getting started lol.
MasterCornholio
Member
Well so far I haven't seen Sony demand that gamepass be blocked. So there's that. Seems they are more concerned with it becoming an exclusive over anything else.
Also to be fair both sides have shit on their faces with this. Microsoft making themselves look like the victim is pretty funny to watch.
Last edited:
twilo99
Member
We need to go to that $40 range and there is no way to do that if the deal goes through. We either need some solid FUD or the deal actually not closing.
reinking
Gold Member
Wasn't it Phil that said if they did not get mobile it is XB that is untenable. So, without mobile (King) Xbox is dead.Shit, Sony fighting for their lives!
If they loose the Cod they've said their position in the games industry is untenable and will be bowing out. I didn't realise they were on such thin margins, maybe we should have a whip round for them?
I don't really believe that. Just pointing out that these kind of comments are silly (and fun) from both sides.
bentanchorbolt
Banned
Mobile gaming is the future. There are plenty of legacy brands that didn't keep with the times and ended up losing their ass when something new and dominant comes along. Walkman used to be the biggest portable music player in the world and then in merely a blink of an eye it was nothing. If you can't adapt to the market you won't survive.Wasn't it Phil that said if they did not get mobile it is XB that is untenable. So, without mobile (King) Xbox is dead.
I don't really believe that. Just pointing out that these kind of comments are silly (and fun) from both sides.
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
lol there's just too much that is in their favor historically.
You're really gonna make me do this on Thanksgiving?
Ok then. Welp, let's take a look at what MS are saying here.-Low share of console game publishing: Is this in reference to the amount of titles they publish compared to the rest of console game publishers, the amount of unit sales their games have, the amount of revenue their published games generate, the amount of profit their published games generate? Is it per year, per quarter, in general?
None of that is quantified in the statement.
-Low share of console digital downloads: Same as above.
-Low share of console MAU: Also same as above, but taking this stance on MAU is kind of funny because ABK's games (COD, COD Warzone, Overwatch, Overwatch 2, Diablo etc.) combined probably constitute a similar MAU as the bottom 50% of all other console games on the market combined!
-Low share of AAA games: Again, this is a case of using quantity when it can favor them statistically, but this also works against their argument. This year for example, ABK could have only released MW2 (dunno if that's the only game they have published aside from Warzone 2 launching, though), but with just that one SINGLE game, have generated as much revenue as probably the bottom 20% (or, all games within the lower 20th percentile) of games released this year combined!
What other IP is doing $800 million revenue in two days? Maybe Pokemon? But, Pokemon isn't the IP in the process of potentially being acquired by a buyer; COD is.
-Low share of game-time on Xbox consoles: Now this one may be true (I am not saying the other ones aren't true, btw, just that they are skewing the perspective in choosing certain metrics that benefit Microsoft's own argument), but again there's a lot of context not covered here. They are including markets outside of the United States, but individually those markets each constitute much smaller portions of gaming revenue than America or certain European markets like the UK.
We already know the reason Xbox as a brand is weak in many ROTW markets but this should really focus on comparisons between Xbox and other platforms in markets where Xbox is actually competitive, two of which in general happen to be two of the biggest individual markets for gaming in general (console gaming or otherwise). I can guarantee you play-time for COD on Xbox in markets like the U.S is a narrower gap between it and PlayStation than just throwing in ROTW markets to sink Xbox's average.
I'm guessing this is their way of saying that second-favorite games which could be very different genre-wise to COD have just as likely a chance of moving to an owner's 'most-played' position as another shooter/FPS does if COD were to no longer be an option.
If I'm reading that right, though, then isn't that an example of Microsoft painting a scenario illustrating intent (even if just as a thought exercise) to remove COD from PlayStation platforms after all?
-Shooter genre not most popular in UK: Yeah, sure, as a genre it may not be, but they're going by retail revenue here to make that statement. That doesn't account for the myriad of shooters that are F2P; a player doesn't suddenly not exist just because they can play a shooter via F2P but may not actually spend any revenue in the game's ecosystem.
So this is kind of another example of skewing the data to a metric favorable for the argument at hand, but doesn't actually account for every element. You simply can't ignore the F2P angle and the other side of it where there are legions of players who play without spending in the ecosystem. They are still players of that game, and that would factor into its popularity and therefore popularity of the genre the game belongs to.
-Shooter genre not most popular on PS in UK: More or less the same as above, but in the case of PlayStation, also leaves out the fact that Sony's platforms have more games released on them, and that affects the variety of games they offer.
This allows for a greater degree in what way certain metrics being measured can skew, and allows more cherry-picking. For example, if the claim is that shooters aren't the most popular for PS in UK based on total released games, then a platform with a lot of games released on it has an increased chance of more non-shooters also being released, which collectively would outweigh the number of shooters released. This can work the same if going by revenue metrics where only shooters are isolated and others are collectively calculated, as another example.
And just reiterating again that going on genre-by-genre basis, shooter games have a higher proportion of F2P-model games than other genres, by far, and like I was just saying above, you can't discount F2P gamers who don't spend on the game, as being non-existent. They are still customers in a sense and would count towards other metrics regardless, so they factor into popularity as well.
I'm guessing you're just reading right along the things you linked and agreeing on face value, but I actually took the time to think over what was mentioned and question some of the methodology of the points being presented. Which is to say, nothing MS are claiming in these points is false, but they are only true if you skew the metrics to reflect the data you want to be reflected, meaning certain things could be completely omitted or not factor at all into the claim itself, when they likely should.
But all companies (and, well, people in general) do this to some degree when they need to reference data to argue their cases (Sony's done it as well, in this very same case!), it's just a matter of doing your best to abstain from the temptation of skewing way too far or too much, which is much easier to do when you don't have billions of dollars riding on the line of an important business transaction. I understand that.
Not exactly sure how true or false that notion is, TBH. My belief is that if they are making these arguments focused on mitigating COD's impact if it were to leave a certain ecosystem, then they actually are considering removing COD in some fashion from that platform, which is the original thing Jim Ryan was speaking out against in the first place. And if the idea is that COD being removed off one ecosystem won't change things very much for that platform, it begs the question as to why Microsoft would posit the question to begin with, or even why they are buying ABK, because if COD having exclusivity tied to PS or even being on PS "changes nothing" if those things were to disappear from PS, is it not worth coming to the conclusion that COD or those features going to Microsoft's platform will "do nothing" in terms of their market-share or mindshare?
Because historically speaking, this is kind of false. When MS had COD exclusivity rights in marketing and perks with 360, they dominated the US & UK markets over Sony. Sony obtained such rights in the PS4 generation, and dominated XBO in those markets, though I would add, notably less so than 360 did vs PS3. So maybe Microsoft are operating under the belief that PlayStation as a platform is "too big to fail" and I'm sure they would have loved to have GOW Ragnarok sales numbers at the time they wrote this response to support that claim. But we've already seen PlayStation fall before with the PS3, and it's not like that could never happen again. Sony also claim that part of the reason they can sustain the production budgets for games like GOWR & Spiderman is thanks to the revenue 3P games bring, and there's a good chance a lot of those 3P game sales on PS benefit from the presence of COD on PS and the perks Sony's marketing with COD bring in particular.
I bring that up because there is no way of knowing how much that 3P revenue would drop off if PS lost that content, and Sony's business model as a corporation is vastly different from Microsoft's (yes, Microsoft as a whole DOES play a part in this, even though they are doing their hardest to isolate the view to just Xbox vs PlayStation). Microsoft could theoretically fund several GOWR, Spiderman 2 etc. games even if Xbox as a division were in the red, just from the money they pull in through Azure cloud, Windows, and MS Office. Whether MS want to admit it or not, their clear financial strengths in areas outside of console gaming, DO benefit console gaming. I mean, that's why they're able to attempt acquiring ABK in the first place, it surely isn't Xbox money being used in the purchase because Xbox doesn't bring in nearly that much in profit to cover the $70 billion costs.
Sony does have other divisions that are profitable alongside PlayStation, but not to the point where they could let PlayStation run into the red and keep it around. By necessity the PlayStation division has to be a lot more self-sufficient and independent than the Xbox division does over at Microsoft, so it actually relies on stuff like 3P game sales revenue a lot more than Xbox does. You can try criticizing Sony for that and say it's their fault they didn't invest in cloud or make a Windows OS, but who COULD make an OS as prolific as Windows in today's age? In fact it's a bit funny some of MS's accusations towards Sony's console market benefits because MS's enjoyed that for DECADES with Windows, and to much more dominant degrees. To the point they had to go through an anti-trust over it. MS may've scaled back on that stuff these days, but they still inherently benefit to this day from more deliberate business & marketing decisions they made with Windows in the '80s and '90s.
So what I'm getting that in that regard is if MS have some belief that Sony have come to abuse market power with PlayStation due to prior generations of market dominance, and that they (Microsoft) should be allowed to purchase ABK to counterbalance that, then Sony or some other company can use these same talking points against MS when it comes to the OS space, or business productivity software market, simply by insinuating the same type of practices by Microsoft in those fields (and have more concrete evidence of manipulative practices to boot), as a means of them making massive acquisitions in the OS, software or even cloud markets to counterbalance. I'm not saying it would be a right or wrong thing to do, just that the possibility is there.
But getting back to this deal specifically, I can see just as many arguments favoring Microsoft's idea that PlayStation would be "just fine" without something like COD (idea being that there is nothing inherently special to COD in and of itself or as a game opening up customers to buying other types of games) as there are arguments against that very same idea (which I spoke of in the above paragraphs).
I've already spoke up on this above. Basically, there are historical trends that can be used to disprove this notion that COD does not attract customers to a platform or that COD has no effect in encouraging additional 3P and 1P sales for a console platform.
The fact MS keep bringing this scenario of an absent COD up, also shows some thought on their end that they have at least entertained the idea of making COD an exclusive IP for their platform, which they would not do if they did not feel COD brings any specific benefits to that platform or its ecosystem. Otherwise, why speculate on a possibility of the IP being removed in the first place (and keep in mind, they are specifically suggesting the idea of COD itself being removed, not exclusivity benefits tied to a platform)?
-COD does not drive platform adoption: TBH I think this is kind of a moot point to focus on statistically. The bigger question is if COD drives platform revenue, either in and of itself or in terms of increasing sales revenue of other 3P and 1P titles on that platform. What it may or may not do for MAU engagement on the platform is also of relevance because that can have a bearing on revenue engagement.
The thing is, either MS have decided not to focus on answering that, or simply cannot answer it due to insufficient evidence. Which, they would need evidence from other platform holders like Sony, to provide in order to answer it (keep in mind the same IP can have different metric influences (and different rates of influence) on two different platforms, because the quantity and quality of things that can be influenced by such will differ).
-COD does not drive spend: Again, this is Microsoft ignoring what influence COD's presence as an IP on Sony platforms has in encouraging spending and playtime of other 3P and 1P games on those platforms. COD itself could account for say 10% of total software revenue on the platform, but act as a catalyst for driving 5% of the revenue growth for each IP constituting 50% of the remaining 90% of software revenue.
That could lead to noticeable drop in platform software revenue by way of its absence, and it's something not talked about in any of these bullet points MS brings up. And keep in mind, I'm saying all of this as someone who isn't so much inherently against MS owning ABK, but more so what that could lead to in terms of a domino effect of mass consolidation by big tech and investor groups (at a higher & more significant rate than it's already happened) threatening the independent 3P market & resources.
And I've even laughed at quite a lot of Sony's responses WRT this acquisition, like the claim MS wants to make them "like Nintendo" (I know what they mean in regards to being a lower-priority option for 3P devs & pubs, but model-wise PS is already closer to Nintendo than they are not and have been that way for generations. They just happen to enjoy prevalence with 3P devs/pubs in a way Nintendo hasn't since the SNES/SFC, though, and understandably they wouldn't want that to go away for reasons I described earlier). But it doesn't change that MS have provided some hilarious responses of their own, and it's even funnier seeing journalists & hardcore fanatics sinking countless hours into both discussing this and acting as they're members of MS's litigation team.
So this is probably the extent of how in-depth I'm going to get on the topic for a long while, I just genuinely can't be asked to keep talking about a business deal that does nothing for my bank account, for any large length of time. At least not unless there's some absolutely massive decision reached like the deal getting rejected or going through. I'll probably have a lot more to say in instances like those.
DenchDeckard
Moderated wildly
Their demands won't be known until this progresses...it could be anything. Microsoft have to promise cod won't be on game pass for some time. Must be content parity for some time etc....we will have to see. Sony aren't in a position to make demands for this to go through they have norhing to do with that decision. What they have to do is paint the deal in the worst way so regulators pressure MS to make concessions.
We won't know about the concessions but Sony are obviously pushing to make this as difficult for ms and acti as possible.
Sonys issue is Activision want this to go through...so do MS obviously and Sony are making some really reaching arguments with questionable data to try and win over the regulators. Anyone in gaming can see how daft this is (see hoeg laws latest video) so I feel Sony are muddying their name here. No one really believes the arguments they are saying make any sense. Which they don't.
Gonna a be fun to see how this pans out. I'm more invested in how fun it is both ways. I think MS and Activision are going to pull the big guns out and this will actually stop MS from playing Mr nice guy after this deal goes which ever way and Sony will have brought it on themselves I think.
bentanchorbolt
Banned
Yeah. Xbox is doomed if the deal falls through and PlayStation will be relegated to being a welfare brand if regulators allow it.
Kagey K
Banned
Sony: If we lose CoD you might as well throw your PS5 in the trash.
MS: CoD isn't even that good, we don't even know why we are buying it TBH.
Pelta88
Member
This doesn't bode well
/cloudfront-us-east-2.images.arcpublishing.com/reuters/NHSZ36VGG5KM7IS453LL7GW6PQ.jpg)
www.reuters.com
Exclusive: EU antitrust regulators ramp up Microsoft scrutiny, probe likely - sources
Microsoft is likely to face an EU antitrust investigation as regulators intensify their scrutiny into its practices in a case triggered by Salesforce.com's workspace messaging app Slack, people familiar with the matter said on Thursday.
www.reuters.com
GhostOfTsu
Banned
Just read this post at the other place and I thought it was very well written.
Mebecomingl
Mebecomingl
Last edited:
oldergamer
Member
That was covered earlier. That one has been in the cards for a while.
oldergamer
Member
Sorry but it still seems like a slanted view of things IMO. Yes its clearly about the future as the threat of foreclosing keeps getting mentioned. However, they need to look at current company practices, and not things that occurred back when bill gates was running the show. its a different company now simply put, and they should be allowed to compete in the markets they choose to spend dollars in. They want in on mobile, they want a bigger console presence, but could do both without directly impacting sony, cloud, or other areasJust read this post at the other place and I thought it was very well written.
Mebecomingl
Thirty7ven
Banned
Exclusive: EU antitrust regulators ramp up Microsoft scrutiny, probe likely - sources
Microsoft is likely to face an EU antitrust investigation as regulators intensify their scrutiny into its practices in a case triggered by Salesforce.com's workspace messaging app Slack, people familiar with the matter said on Thursday.
www.reuters.com
Oh look MS caught doing monopoly stuff
ChiefDada
Member
Sony: If we lose CoD you might as well throw your PS5 in the trash.
MS: CoD isn't even that good, we don't even know why we are buying it TBH.
The_Mike
I cry about SonyGaf from my chair in Redmond, WA
Consoles are allowed to have a wallet garden.
Oh no, Microsoft having a meeting app in their own OS, the horror.
Fine Microsoft and ban their meeting app.
It's not like you can't install other programs on your Windows.
Are apple getting slammed by using safari on their macs?
Or slammed over macos bring so wallet as possible?
gothmog
Gold Member
Lol. You might want to read up on some history there.
The only thing about the slack complaint was the turn around.
"What we've seen over the past couple of months is that Teams is not a competitor to Slack," said Butterfield in an interview with CNBC this week. "When they [Microsoft] talk about the product, they never mention the fundamentals that Slack does, and it's been 3+ years at this point that they've been bundling it, giving it away for free, and talking about us."
Then like 4 months later, they filed the first complaint.
I would be interested to see if the EU forces MS to charge for Teams separately for smaller companies.
Not saying that they shouldn't.
"What we've seen over the past couple of months is that Teams is not a competitor to Slack," said Butterfield in an interview with CNBC this week. "When they [Microsoft] talk about the product, they never mention the fundamentals that Slack does, and it's been 3+ years at this point that they've been bundling it, giving it away for free, and talking about us."
Then like 4 months later, they filed the first complaint.
I would be interested to see if the EU forces MS to charge for Teams separately for smaller companies.
Not saying that they shouldn't.
Last edited:
DenchDeckard
Moderated wildly
But it is absurd....just listen to what anyone with any knowledge on law or gaming is saying and not fan boys on a forum.
bitbydeath
Gold Member
PC also has walled gardens?
Windows / Linux / MacOS are three different gardens.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Sony: If we lose CoD you might as well throw your PS5 in the trash.
MS: CoD isn't even that good, we don't even know why we are buying it TBH.
They're not buying acti for just CoD. We've known that for a while.
Last edited:
Ass of Can Whooping
Gold Member
Like the CMA? lol
Secret of Evolution
Banned
If that were the only goal MS could just throw money at them to get it on gamepass every year.
ChiefDada
Member
Does this include FTC and CMA regulators, many of whom are attorneys?
Kagey K
Banned
I realize that, but CoD is what all this squabbling and pleading poor is all about. Imagine being some of the other devs at Activision and feeling completely ignored.
Like being at the kids table during Thanksgiving and trying to participate in the conversation happening over at adult table.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
The fact that everyone's only talking about CoD makes me believe MS will be happy to offer perpetual availability for that on a platter so they get a hold of everything else, especially King.
DenchDeckard
Moderated wildly
Yes, it is absurd to say that owning call of duty is anticompetitive. We need more competition and should hope that EA make titanfall 3, or an apex legends game or some game that competes with COD. Actually puts out a good battlefield. Why doesn't Sony make an incredible FPS game and invest their own money to make an awesome product. MS should also make an actually awesome halo. Any of those things could compete with COD and we as players would win.
To say COD is irreplaceable is ridiculous...it could absolutely be replaced by a better product. It is not anticompetitive to own Activision. That is a fact.
Do you believe sonys arguments that COD is that good it can never be replaced?
If they lost it playstation would literally die?
Last edited:
ChuckeRearmed
Member
Oh, Slack. I remember the days when they openly stated that "Teams cannot compete with Slack". But then their magic has ended and they started complain to the regulators. Considering that Teams is not bundled for free but a part of the more expensive tiers, this will go nowhere. Not to mention Slack is integrated with Salesforce these days too so it won't give them higher ground.Exclusive: EU antitrust regulators ramp up Microsoft scrutiny, probe likely - sources
Microsoft is likely to face an EU antitrust investigation as regulators intensify their scrutiny into its practices in a case triggered by Salesforce.com's workspace messaging app Slack, people familiar with the matter said on Thursday.
Oh look MS caught doing monopoly stuff
Last edited:
The_Mike
I cry about SonyGaf from my chair in Redmond, WA
They do?
AFAIK you are allowed to install anything on your PC from everywhere you download it.
M1chl
Currently Gif and Meme Champion
I don't like teams, but Slack is biggest garbage, I have ever had displeasure of using.
- Status