Support NeoGAF

[feynoob]

WTF is Idas, where is this info coming from and what makes it credible?

He is a lawyer, who is covering this deal.

 

[Kagey K]

WTF is Idas, where is this info coming from and what makes it credible?

A resetera user who has been parsing these hundreds of pages of documents.

 

[NickFire]

for more info, here is Idas take.

I don't understand his take. If the FTC sues it's manageable if the UK cuts a deal on concessions, but MS won't want to make a deal with FTC seems a takeaway.

Why wouldn't the FTC require an independent deal on concessions if they sued? Does the FTC have a habit of saying something is off, but they'll ignore it because a 3rd party made a deal that the FTC is not a party to (and cannot enforce)?

 

[feynoob]

I don't understand his take. If the FTC sues it's manageable if the UK cuts a deal on concessions, but MS won't want to make a deal with FTC seems a takeaway.

Why wouldn't the FTC require an independent deal on concessions if they sued? Does the FTC have a habit of saying something is off, but they'll ignore it because a 3rd party made a deal that the FTC is not a party to (and cannot enforce)?

CmA highlighted their problem. If MS and CMA comes in to a deal, MS can use that against FTC.

But the main issue with ftc would be this part. MS won't be able to acquire anything until the settlement is done.

Besides, I don't think that MS is willing to accept a settlement with the FTC because since October 2021 the Prior Approval and Prior Notice Policy is active again. That means that any parties who settle a merger investigation with the FTC "can expect (at minimum) a ten-year post-settlement period, during which the parties must seek the FTC's prior approval to pursue a transaction in a directly affected market (or even an indirectly affected market) from the transaction covered by the FTC order".

 

[NickFire]

CmA highlighted their problem. If MS and CMA comes in to a deal, MS can use that against FTC.

But the main issue with ftc would be this part. MS won't be able to acquire anything until the settlement is done.

How would they use CMA deal against FTC? Wouldn't that deal be used by FTC to show their concerns were legit? And if so, why wouldn't FTC insist on same deal terms (at least) to settle their complaint, which the analyst thinks MS would not want at all?

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

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.

TBF MS is reaching with some of their arguments as well, I just talked about some of those earlier. Also Hoeg is a great lawyer (I'm assuming), but they aren't the authority on what's the "right" perspective for this topic. They can get things wrong too just like everyone else.

Both MS and Sony have selfish reasons for this to go through or get denied, respectively. Neither side's hands are clean in any of this, but I think some of the people who fervently argue on behalf of Microsoft WRT the acquisition don't remember to keep that in mind.

If that were the only goal MS could just throw money at them to get it on gamepass every year.

This. MS's plans with ABK go WAY beyond GamePass or just software content itself.

Just read this post at the other place and I thought it was very well written.

Mebecomingl

They posted that in the official MS/ABK acquisition thread? They're brave (prob gonna get reported and thread-banned for challenging the popular narrative )

I agree with most of what they're talking about except the idea game streaming is rapidly growing or that the industry model itself is quickly changing. Subscription services (including those like PS+, XBL Gold, & NSO alongside PS Now and GamePass, Luna, Stadia etc.) only accounted for 4% of total gaming revenue last year. So, since these services started kicking off in earnest I'd say at least around 2008, they've grown to a whopping 4% of all gaming revenue. In 12 years.

Granted, gaming revenue as a whole has grown a ton in that same time, so the absolute value of that 4% would make it a lot more than 4% if put in the context of the industry even say 5 or 7 years ago. I get that. But overall I don't see game streaming or game rental-esque subscription services growing that much more worth of gaming revenue over the next 5 or even 10 years. Maybe they end up constituting 10% of gaming revenue by then instead of 4%, but that still means 90% of revenue is coming via other means.

Also, I think if the traditional console model were growing ineffective, we wouldn't have Sony, Nintendo and even Microsoft sustaining near-record levels of annual console gaming revenue. We'd see software sales across the board taking big declines, and hardware sales dropping (especially with certain consoles like PS5 having raised their prices some in certain markets). But none of that is happening, so I think aside from the ridiculously ballooning budgets and manpower for AAA games the time-tested business model is still operating very well and isn't in danger of falling off anytime soon.

 

[feynoob]

How would they use CMA deal against FTC? Wouldn't that deal be used by FTC to show their concerns were legit? And if so, why wouldn't FTC insist on same deal terms (at least) to settle their complaint, which the analyst thinks MS would not want at all?

Because this deal is hard to sue without strong evidence.
If CMA is willing to make a concessions with MS, it means that the lawsuit would be dropped out from the court.

CMA currently highlighted 3 problems. Which is COD, gamepass, and Xcloud. Which are the potential affects of this deal. These can be fixed by a concessions.

FTC needs more than that to actually sue, and guarantee a win.

 

[GhostOfTsu]

Sony does the same stuff with exclusivity and preventing other consoles from getting access to content (to answer someone who raised that on my last post). Some of Sony's first party exclusives are coming from studios they purchased, not "home grown". There is no difference. Sony's arguments are dumb.

FF7 and most Sony first-party are all on PS+. If Xbox wants them they just have to allow PS+ on Xbox. Ask Phil.

They posted that in the official MS/ABK acquisition thread? They're brave (prob gonna get reported and thread-banned for challenging the popular narrative )

It's a hivemind there. Someone was dogpiled for pages and banned permanently for saying MS didn't have GOTYs.

 

[lefty1117]

These kind of arguments just tell me that people who makes them, will never be able to have a business, let alone a hot dog cart in the street.

Ffs it's not about fanboys. It's not about COD. This merge is very dangerous for the industry as a whole. It's not just about pleasing fanboys and making exclusive deals.

Are you not paying attention? It's entirely about COD. Did Sony fight the Bethesda acquisition in this way? Did Microsoft fight the Bungie acquisition? Do you think Sony wouldn't have attempted something like this if they had hundreds of billions in cash sitting around? Sony has been punched in the face with their own tactics, that is the bottom line. Regarding industry-wide implications, the horse left the barn decades ago when regulators decided it was OK for platform holders to also be content providers. Whether it's Apple, Google, Comcast, AT&T, Amazon, Microsoft, the argument against mega acquisitions is long settled. It's not a case of stopping these mergers, it's now about regulating their activities after they've been completed - that's the best path available to protect consumers.

 

[bitbydeath]

Because this deal is hard to sue without strong evidence.
If CMA is willing to make a concessions with MS, it means that the lawsuit would be dropped out from the court.

CMA currently highlighted 3 problems. Which is COD, gamepass, and Xcloud. Which are the potential affects of this deal. These can be fixed by a concessions.

FTC needs more than that to actually sue, and guarantee a win.

Concessions is a very broad term that could change the deal considerably, for example a concession Disney had to make in order to acquire Fox was to sell off all of its acquired Regional Sports networks.

If MS's main priority is acquiring King (as they've previously pointed out) their concession may be that they have to sell Activision and/or Blizzard in order to take the deal.

Concessions shouldn't be taken too lightly.

 

[Kagey K]

Concessions is a very broad term that could change the deal considerably, for example a concession Disney had to make in order to acquire Fox was to sell off all of its acquired Regional Sports networks.

If MS's main priority is acquiring King (as they've previously pointed out) their concession may be that they have to sell Activision and/or Blizzard in order to take the deal.

Concessions shouldn't be taken too lightly.

I don't think there will be concessions like this.

Everything is so pointed at CoD that the rest is background fluff, regulators and the responses seem to me, more focused on that and talking about gamepass and cloud gaming as secondary (or ancillary) concerns.

 

[CatLady]

Important part of document for those who dont want to read those long part.

• MS is not denying the relevance of COD, but the data doesn't automatically show that COD is the only game to attract gamers to a console or that losing it would become critical
• without the acquisition Activision is not interested in subscription services
• Publicly available data suggests that PlayStation MAUs in 2021 are more than double Xbox MAUs (107 million versus [X] million).
• Activision has had a strong incentive to come up with different forms of content and marketing exclusivity which it could monetize in its negotiations with Microsoft and Sony. Since 2005 these marketing arrangements have included: (i) exclusive console marketing arrangements following the release of new titles and downloadable content; (ii) priority access to new maps (until these were phased out following the introduction of cross- platform play); (iii) exclusive access to the online alpha version of the game and access to the beta version of the game 5 days earlier than gamers on Xbox consoles or PC; (iv) game bonuses such as extra "tier skips" on the battle pass; (v) the ability to access additional "experience points" (e.g., through exclusive events); and (vi) certain in-game character customisations and content bundles.
• When Xbox decided not to continue with the Call of Duty co-marketing agreement in 2015, it simply found other ways to market and promote its platform. Sony, as the market leading console with an extensive first-party and third-party exclusive game catalogue, is even better placed to do the same.
  
  • (c) Microsoft [X] Call of Duty exclusivity: Microsoft's exclusive arrangements for Call of Duty content expired at the end of 2015. (Page 31)
    
    (d) Microsoft did not expect [X]. Microsoft did not [X], but does not believe this agreement [X]. Microsoft was not foreclosed as a result of the agreement. (Page 31)
• hypothetical foreclosure strategy would involve putting at risk a significant portion of Activision's revenues. The consequences would be even more severe in the EMEA region where ca. [X]% of Call of Duty's total MAUs (and ca. [X]% of console MAUs) are on PlayStation. This would be a commercially irrational strategy, in particular in circumstances where Microsoft could not conceivably expect to foreclose Sony from the market. (In case COD leaves PS)
• Xbox's share of yearly sales is even lower, suggesting that its share of installed base is likely to decrease against Nintendo and Sony in the near future. The global and UK leader Sony just cannot be foreclosed by losing access to a single franchise among the broad range of alternatives for gamers available on the PlayStation platform.
• . Third-party data procured by Microsoft in the ordinary course of business suggests that at the very least [20-30]% of PlayStation 5 users also owned an Xbox Series X/S and [X] also gamed on a PC. These metrics are as of December 2020 and are likely to have [X] at the time of this submission. [20-30]% of PlayStation 5 users also owned an Xbox Series X/S whereas [10-20]% of Xbox Series X/S users also owned a PlayStation 5.
• Sony and Nintendo do not currently allow gamers on their platforms to access Game Pass or other gaming services via the browsers on their consoles – but could easily do so.
• Moreover, Microsoft would have to navigate current contractual restrictions to place Activision content into Game Pass. (Seems activision games is going to be blocked from gamepass for a while)
• Activision has never published any newer content on multi-game subscription services and has no intention to do so in the future.
• A large component of Activision's share of PC game publishing is due to World of Warcraft, a single-game subscription title that is not part of any multi-game subscription service and would be technically very challenging to integrate into a multi-game subscription service.
• Microsoft is aware that Sony has secured contractual rights to prevent games from a number of publishers from being included on Game Pass.
• Game Pass' share is miniscule on PC: the overall revenue from subscription services on PC accounts for less than [X]% of the global PC gaming segment and [X]% in the UK.
• While cloud gaming on mobile may grow, adoption is not expected to be rapid as it requires a significant change in consumer behaviour.
• The revenue Microsoft receives from licensing Windows Server via SPLA is substantial at ca. USD [X] billion [X] (equating to approximately [X]% of SPLA revenues) and it is not credible that Microsoft would forgo this revenue in order to protect its position in cloud gaming which does not generate material revenues and is loss-making.

Thanks for posting this. It's really interesting and it's good to now have another lawyer give their opinion on the various parties involved in the acquisition positions and responses.

Hoeg said the MS response was over 100 pages, but he would look at it over the holiday and the weekend and try to do another video early next week. His video on Sony's response was fantastic and supremely entertaining.

Has Idas given any opinions/breakdown on Sony's response? It would be interesting to see if (s)he found it as lacking and ridiculous as Hoeg did.

 

[Kagey K]

Thanks for posting this. It's really interesting and it's good to now have another lawyer give their opinion on the various parties involved in the acquisition positions and responses.

Hoeg said the MS response was over 100 pages, but he would look at it over the holiday and the weekend and try to do another video early next week. His video on Sony's response was fantastic and supremely entertaining.

Has Idas given any opinions/breakdown on Sony's response? It would be interesting to see if (s)he found it as lacking and ridiculous as Hoeg did.

Yes they did. I don't browse reset enough to find it though. I think feynoob posted it a few pages back.

 

[bitbydeath]

I don't think there will be concessions like this.

Everything is so pointed at CoD that the rest is background fluff, regulators and the responses seem to me, more focused on that and talking about gamepass and cloud gaming as secondary (or ancillary) concerns.

Thought I'd point it out as I was getting the impression feynoob believed concessions to be only monetary based.

 

[DarkMage619]

You guys love to spin everything as a Pro Gamer move when it comes to Microsoft. lol

This move doesn't benefit all gamers. It's just that simple. That's just something Xbox fans are buying because they see Microsoft as the savior of the gaming industry.

And many non Xbox customers want to make MS out to be the boogieman and they continue to show they have no idea what they are talking about. This deal benefits anyone who isn't opposed to MS on principle. No one is claiming MS is saving the gaming industry but they are absolutely saving me MONEY and that's what I care about.

 

[GhostOfTsu]

No one is claiming MS is saving the gaming industry but they are absolutely saving me MONEY and that's what I care about.

What games you were going to buy Day 1 recently but you saved money because of Game Pass?

 

[PuffyCan]

What games you were going to buy Day 1 recently but you saved money because of Game Pass?

Thing is, game pass saves money and you get games day one.

There are a lot of games that I would buy down the line but instead I get to play them day one.

 

[DForce]

And many non Xbox customers want to make MS out to be the boogieman and they continue to show they have no idea what they are talking about. This deal benefits anyone who isn't opposed to MS on principle.

You guys are making Sony out to be the boogieman. Do you see how hypocritical that is?

No one is claiming MS is saving the gaming industry but they are absolutely saving me MONEY and that's what I care about.

That's what you're pretending to do. Whenever someone brings up MS practices, you're here to defend it. Don't pretend that you don't. lol.

Just face the facts.

No deal = PS and XB gamers play COD
Deal goes through = XB gamers play COD. PS Gamers don't

 

[JerryinSoCal]

You know you can own more than one videogame console and enjoy them all right? People who want this deal to go through want what's best for gaming. And what's best for gaming is more competition and a stronger, more competitive Xbox to put pressure on Playstation. This deal does that. What Microsoft is doing with these acquisitions like Bethesda and now with Activision Blizzard is they're giving Xbox customers guarantees they can take to the bank. Whether people are willing to admit it or not, everybody knows that for many years the greatest weapon in Sony's arsenal has always been their market power and the ability of playstation to cast doubt in the minds of Xbox gamers. One minute a game that was expected to be on both Playstation or Xbox can suddenly end up as a Playstation exclusive. This is something I accept as a gamer, that it comes with the territory, so I'm the type of gamer who can't risk not having every console to protect myself. Xbox securing big guarantees that major games will always be on Xbox and always day one in Game Pass is a major thing for the industry, even when they're not exclusive. This is what has made Playstation such a big deal for years. A Playstation console generally means guarantees. It's good that Microsoft is doing more to create more guarantees for Xbox.

You never know what game might skip Xbox at any given moment, so trying to limit that list as much as possible is important.

I have both consoles and what you just said is pure fan fiction. These deals aren't best for gaming, why is everyone acting like MS hasn't had 21 years to create their own IP to bring customers over to their side? Every AAA IP they have not named forza was created by an outside studio and then MS bought either the IP or the studio. Don't bring up SoT that's not a AAA game.

The fact is Xbox is run poorly, there is no real creative vision at the top and Spencer has had years now to fix things and his answer is to just buy more of what other people have created, they've already bought one publisher and now you are trying to do some kind of mental gymnastics to convince people that they should be allowed to buy the biggest 3rd party publisher on console. People don't stay away from Xbox because of doubt they stay away because they don't make enough games that they want to play. So they buy Activision, what's to stop them from buying EA and or Take Two after that? The best thing for MS to do would be to invest in the studios they already own and make new IP that bring people to their platform, they haven't done it effectively in 21 years but it's better that they are forced to keep trying than to just let them buy the industry out.

BTW This deal doesn't give xbox only gamers access to any games they wouldn't already have access to without it, yes they won't be on game pass although MS could pay Activision enough to do that if they wanted to but you'd have access to every game PlayStation owners do you just have to be willing to pay directly for that game.

 

[Kagey K]

Thought I'd point it out as I was getting the impression feynoob believed concessions to be only monetary based.

He was only reposting a lawyers response to those items.

It wasn't his/hers beliefs on the matter I don't think.

 

[JerryinSoCal]

Thing is, game pass saves money and you get games day one.

There are a lot of games that I would buy down the line but instead I get to play them day one.

What games though? if you average out how many AAA games they've launched on console since they started the day one thing with GP it's one ever 18 months or so.

 

[JerryinSoCal]

"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?

There is also valid reasons for it not to be allowed to go through, they've had over 20 years to build the brand out and attract customers and they've failed to do it so now they just want to buy the industry out. MS doesn't really create things they just buy their way in, they've stuck with gaming longer than most though but this isn't good for gamers, none of these big publishers should be picked up by anyone MS, Sony, Tencent, Nintendo etc.

 

[Kagey K]

BTW This deal doesn't give xbox only gamers access to any games they wouldn't already have access to without it, yes they won't be on game pass although MS could pay Activision enough to do that if they wanted to but you'd have access to every game PlayStation owners do you just have to be willing to pay directly for that game.

This is just not true.

Let's look at Crash Bandicoot, let's look at Deathloop, Ghostwire Tokyo.

Sony was trying to buy these games away for a minimum of 1 year, sometimes less sometimes more.

If MS hadn't stepped up Starfield could be a permanent exclusive (or so far away it might as well be permanent)

Those games weren't positively coming to Xbox, just like now there's a chsnce they don't cone to PlayStation.

 

[Kagey K]

What games though? if you average out how many AAA games they've launched on console since they started the day one thing with GP it's one ever 18 months or so.

Good thing there's more out there than AAA. Otherwise we'd all only be playing 2 or 3 games per year.

I think people call those casuals.

 

[Kagey K]

There is also valid reasons for it not to be allowed to go through, they've had over 20 years to build the brand out and attract customers and they've failed to do it so now they just want to buy the industry out. MS doesn't really create things they just buy their way in, they've stuck with gaming longer than most though but this isn't good for gamers, none of these big publishers should be picked up by anyone MS, Sony, Tencent, Nintendo etc.

They should just be allowed to be bought out one game at a time?

Square Soft and Enix were both around long before PS and even merged into Sqaure Enix before PS came out.

So Sony shouldn't be allowed to moneyhat them, based on thier history.

If they can't survive without Sony money they deserve to die. Since they had at least an extra 10 years on the market.

 

[InverseAgonist]

You never know what game might skip Xbox at any given moment, so trying to limit that list as much as possible is important.

"Sony's platform might have this particular game or better games, so we need to form a monopoly and make sure that doesn't exist."

You have to work for Microsoft, right?

 

[MadPanda]

FF7 and most Sony first-party are all on PS+. If Xbox wants them they just have to allow PS+ on Xbox. Ask Phil.

Have you got any statement from Sony's officers to back up your claims? If not, stop with silly arguments.

Just face the facts.

No deal = PS and XB gamers play COD
Deal goes through = XB gamers play COD. PS Gamers don't

Could you explain how ps gamers don't play cod if Microsoft buys ABK?

 

[DForce]

Have you got any statement from Sony's officers to back up your claims? If not, stop with silly arguments.



Could you explain how ps gamers don't play cod if Microsoft buys ABK?

After the deal is up.

 

[Kagey K]

FF7 and most Sony first-party are all on PS+. If Xbox wants them they just have to allow PS+ on Xbox. Ask Phil.

Factually untrue.

Ghosts of Tushima, Forgotten Weat, and Ragnarok are just a few missing

 

[Kagey K]

Have you got any statement from Sony's officers to back up your claims? If not, stop with silly arguments.



Could you explain how ps gamers don't play cod if Microsoft buys ABK?

If Sony gamers were going to take a stand this would have been the release to do it. Instead they bought it in droves.

 

[gothmog]

Sounds like we're entering the bargaining phase of grief where people are now asking how much is it going to cost for the deal to go through. As I said a few days ago I think the deal is dead and now the deal is just going through the process of dying. MS might try and fight this one out, but there are risks to doing it that go beyond gaming. Having increased levels of scrutiny of their Azure, Office, and Xbox divisions for years to come if they force it is risky.

 

[Kagey K]

Sounds like we're entering the bargaining phase of grief where people are now asking how much is it going to cost for the deal to go through. As I said a few days ago I think the deal is dead and now the deal is just going through the process of dying. MS might try and fight this one out, but there are risks to doing it that go beyond gaming. Having increased levels of scrutiny of their Azure, Office, and Xbox divisions for years to come if they force it is risky.

No concessions have been asked, and its all speculation.

I still expect it's going to pass with flying colors.

The argument ends against it are weak, and Sony didn't satisfy the criteria needed to make it anticompetitive.

 

[GhostOfTsu]

Have you got any statement from Sony's officers to back up your claims? If not, stop with silly arguments.

It's in the document Sony sent to the CMA. Xbox doesn't want PS+ on Xbox but they want GP on PlayStation. Anti-consumer and very selfish of them.

Factually untrue.

Ghosts of Tushima, Forgotten Weat, and Ragnarok are just a few missing

They will be there eventually. I didn't say Day 1. Ghost of Tsu is there since June. I gave them permission to add it on PS+ for all my fans. I would love to reach more fans on Xbox too

 

[gothmog]

No concessions have been asked, and its all speculation.

I still expect it's going to pass with flying colors.

The argument ends against it are weak, and Sony didn't satisfy the criteria needed to make it anticompetitive.

Assuming this is about Sony is the problem here. I think this recent set of announcements is more about politics and bad timing. There is a sentiment that these giant tech firms need to be reined in.

 

[DarkMage619]

You guys are making Sony out to be the boogieman. Do you see how hypocritical that is?

Who is you guys? I have a PlayStation 5. I think Sony offers an objectively worse value proposition but I like some of their games. There is nothing hypocritical here.

That's what you're pretending to do. Whenever someone brings up MS practices, you're here to defend it. Don't pretend that you don't. lol.

I think MS offers better practices. Console price hikes vs. no price hikes? Game pass with new games vs. PS+ with mostly old games? Normal retail options for digital games vs. Sony being the sole digital source for PS5 games? Free cloud game saves and superior BC vs. paid cloud saves and lacking BC? Features like quick resume and smart delivery vs. none of that? I am not ashamed I prefer better services and features.

Just face the facts.

No deal = PS and XB gamers play COD
Deal goes through = XB gamers play COD. PS Gamers don't

The facts are deal = Game pass CoD, Diablo, and any other Activision game + better treatment of employees and no more Kotick vs. no deal and none of those positive things. I'm for the deal.

 

[12Dannu123]

There is also valid reasons for it not to be allowed to go through, they've had over 20 years to build the brand out and attract customers and they've failed to do it so now they just want to buy the industry out. MS doesn't really create things they just buy their way in, they've stuck with gaming longer than most though but this isn't good for gamers, none of these big publishers should be picked up by anyone MS, Sony, Tencent, Nintendo etc.

This is impossible to enforce. If a publisher is in decline, they should be able to be acquired by another company, the company has to answer to their shareholders.

 

[Danjin44]

I'm doing my part for this thread.....

 

[DJ12]

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 anywhere. Not to mention Slack is integrated with Salesforce these days too so it won't give them higher ground.

Teams is included in windows 11 for free, you can remove it, but seems every update likes to readd it.

Im talking about properly removing it to by getting rid of the staging package not just clicking uninstall.

 

[MasterCornholio]

You know you can own more than one videogame console and enjoy them all right? People who want this deal to go through want what's best for gaming. And what's best for gaming is more competition and a stronger, more competitive Xbox to put pressure on Playstation. This deal does that. What Microsoft is doing with these acquisitions like Bethesda and now with Activision Blizzard is they're giving Xbox customers guarantees they can take to the bank. Whether people are willing to admit it or not, everybody knows that for many years the greatest weapon in Sony's arsenal has always been their market power and the ability of playstation to cast doubt in the minds of Xbox gamers. One minute a game that was expected to be on both Playstation or Xbox can suddenly end up as a Playstation exclusive. This is something I accept as a gamer, that it comes with the territory, so I'm the type of gamer who can't risk not having every console to protect myself. Xbox securing big guarantees that major games will always be on Xbox and always day one in Game Pass is a major thing for the industry, even when they're not exclusive. This is what has made Playstation such a big deal for years. A Playstation console generally means guarantees. It's good that Microsoft is doing more to create more guarantees for Xbox.

You never know what game might skip Xbox at any given moment, so trying to limit that list as much as possible is important.

I don't believe 3rd parties will abandon Xbox so they need to be bought so Xbox gets those games.

I know Sony is the market leader but it doesn't mean that Xbox is so weak that it can't compete with them. To suggest Xbox is weak is ridiculous at this point.

Anyways there are other ways for Microsoft to become stronger as a competitor. Buying huge muktiplatform publishers isn't the only option. I know Sony didn't get to where they are by doing that. Maybe Microsoft should do something similar? I certainly know they are capable of doing that if what they want is to sell more consoles than Sony.

And to answer your question I don't need an Xbox to enjoy Microsoft games. I'll definitely build a new PC once prices drop. At the moment I can't say the same about Sony games on PC and some of the ports are just bad.

 

[freefornow]

Forgotten Weat

Such a good game. Sucks is you are gluten intolerant though.

 

[DForce]

Who is you guys? I have a PlayStation 5. I think Sony offers an objectively worse value proposition but I like some of their games. There is nothing hypocritical here.

I think MS offers better practices. Console price hikes vs. no price hikes? Game pass with new games vs. PS+ with mostly old games? Normal retail options for digital games vs. Sony being the sole digital source for PS5 games? Free cloud game saves and superior BC vs. paid cloud saves and lacking BC? Features like quick resume and smart delivery vs. none of that? I am not ashamed I prefer better services and features.

The facts are deal = Game pass CoD, Diablo, and any other Activision game + better treatment of employees and no more Kotick vs. no deal and none of those positive things. I'm for the deal.

You're one of the biggest Xbox fans on this forum and you're denying your actions?

People remember your posts.
People know which posts you agree with.

You're denying your actions that many people are aware of. Having a PlayStation console doesn't change this fact. That's like saying Tim Dog owning a PlayStation console means people should overlook every Pro Xbox tweet he makes on his account.

The problem is that you guys often play the victim and try to pretend that MS can do no wrong.

This deal doesn't benefit gamers, it benefits MS and people on their Platform.

I can easily admit that Final Fantasy 16 exclusive doesn't benefit gamers, it benefits PS gamers.

Why is so hard for you to do the same? lol.

 

[JerryinSoCal]

This is just not true.

Let's look at Crash Bandicoot, let's look at Deathloop, Ghostwire Tokyo.

Sony was trying to buy these games away for a minimum of 1 year, sometimes less sometimes more.

If MS hadn't stepped up Starfield could be a permanent exclusive (or so far away it might as well be permanent)

Those games weren't positively coming to Xbox, just like now there's a chsnce they don't cone to PlayStation.

It's 100% true, those were timed exclusives (wasted money by Sony btw) and MS does that with other third party games too, hell they are the company that started paying for timed exclusive content. Sony trying for a year exclusivity on Starfield is just a rumor, not only that but a deal was never reached and that wasn't because of MS buying Bethesda that rumor was going around before the PS5 even launched.

Personally I wish both Sony and MS would stop buying timed third party exclusives, it doesn't make the game better for people on either machine if people who own another console are kept from playing it. I have both a PS5 and a Series X so I'm fine either way I just don't like the idea of MS coming in and buying out the industry when they haven't even proven they are doing what most gamers want, f they had been doing that they'd already be a strong number 2 instead of a consistent number 3. It's crazy that anyone thinks this deal is good for gamers, it's good for xbox and that's it.

 

[Warablo]

I just don't understand what grounds they have if they do challenge this. If they bought like Take 2, Ubisoft and EA like all at once I could understand, but even then that is only mostly the console market share which is the minority compared to mobile.

 

[JerryinSoCal]

This is impossible to enforce. If a publisher is in decline, they should be able to be acquired by another company, the company has to answer to their shareholders.

My point is people shouldn't be cheering this on, there are so many crazy takes on this by people here it's almost laughable. Activision doesn't need to be rescued they just need a new CEO, they are making a ton of money. Phil Spencer isn't the second coming of Christ the way some people online pretend he is, he's a guy who's not particularly good at his job and if he didn't have Windows/Azure/Office money to back his division up he'd probably be out of a job.

 

[Three]

From pages 70 to 90 everything is about Gamepass: I think that they offer good arguments, specially the ones about ABK (extensively) being against subscriptions if there is no deal. Therefore, saying that without the merger all competitors could potentially have access to all the ABK content doesn't make a ton of sense because all the evidence points against that: without the acquisition Activision is not interested in subscription services (not even their own).

Activision wasn't against subscriptions. They offered about 4 older CODs already on a subscription (PS+). It was never "against" it. It just knows that their COD games sell really well so releasing it for a service would be cutting sales and any subscription service would have to come up with a hell of a deal to lose that for whatever the services were willing to pay.

If as MS says "what if COD isn't good anymore" in the future then those games are more likely to release on subscriptions and it would be fair access on any subscription service.

As Mr. Spencer explained because of "[X]." In particular, the concept of a next- generation game store that operates across a range of devices ("Universal Store") is risky…
Moving consumers away from the Google Play Store and Apple App Store on
mobile devices will require a major shift in consumer behaviour.

I'm surprised there isn't pages of people calling MS a hypocrite for this. They were the first company to try and push a Universal Store with UWP. They tried to restrict all apps to use UWP in a bid to launch a Universal Store.

 

[bentanchorbolt]

You're one of the biggest Xbox fans on this forum and you're denying your actions?

People remember your posts.
People know which posts you agree with.

You're denying your actions that many people are aware of. Having a PlayStation console doesn't change this fact. That's like saying Tim Dog owning a PlayStation console means people should overlook every Pro Xbox tweet he makes on his account.

The problem is that you guys often play the victim and try to pretend that MS can do no wrong.

This deal doesn't benefit gamers, it benefits MS and people on their Platform.

I can easily admit that Final Fantasy 16 exclusive doesn't benefit gamers, it benefits PS gamers.

Why is so hard for you to do the same? lol.

its ok to like MS more.

 

[Clintizzle]

Fuccccckkkkkkk how do I explain to my fiance that I spent our wedding fund on ATVI.

 

[DForce]

its ok to like MS more.

I like PS more, but I'm not going to lie when they're making moves to benefit their brand and not gamers entirely.

 

[bentanchorbolt]

My point is people shouldn't be cheering this on, there are so many crazy takes on this by people here it's almost laughable. Activision doesn't need to be rescued they just need a new CEO, they are making a ton of money. Phil Spencer isn't the second coming of Christ the way some people online pretend he is, he's a guy who's not particularly good at his job and if he didn't have Windows/Azure/Office money to back his division up he'd probably be out of a job.

Company was for sale, worse parties could have bought it. That's the thing people ignore. I guess we'd all rather have Embracer or Tencent pick them up, or Amazon. I'm sure those companies would do a much better job amirite?

 

[MadPanda]

After the deal is up.

My question was how not when, if Microsoft offered 10 years of guaranteed releases on PlayStation.

It's in the document Sony sent to the CMA. Xbox doesn't want PS+ on Xbox but they want GP on PlayStation. Anti-consumer and very selfish of them.

They will be there eventually. I didn't say Day 1. Ghost of Tsu is there since June. I gave them permission to add it on PS+ for all my fans. I would love to reach more fans on Xbox too

Don't want and being offered are two different things.