Support NeoGAF

[Warablo]

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

Maybe Battlefield will finally kick into gear if this deal goes through, or Sony will finally take another stab at a FPS.

 

[Barakov]

 

[pasterpl]

It would be interesting if the deal doesn't go through because of Sony and instead ABK and MS sign long term full exclusivity deal that would include gamepass ($10-$20bn).

 

[DenchDeckard]

Has sony offered MS to have playstation plus?

That would be cool.

 

[Elios83]

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.

The deal is at a crossroad, either Microsoft quickly addresses the concerns and makes all the required concessions (certainly not during interviews with Tom Warren ), or they decide the deal is not worth 70 billions with such concessions and they withdraw.
No one wants to go in court for tons of reasons, as you said it implies a higher level of scrutiny in other business, it can get ugly with fines and legal expenses but most of all the companies involved can't really plan strategies for the next months/years because everything is stucked in a limbo that can still end with an unfavourable outcome.

 

[feynoob]

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.

Not really. The deal would pass from the looks of it.
So far, each issues has been addressed. It's up to cma to make a decision.

The 2 outlines of cma were cloud and gamepass.

• Activision isn't interested in gamepass or ps+ from now on. (Edit: this was before the purchase)
• Xcloud is facing huge issues. And one of the key issues is that fps games is hard to play on the service.
• Wow won't be on gamepass, due to the nature of subscription mode.

All that is left is call of duty, which MS made a 10 year commitment.

 

[The_Mike]

Has sony offered MS to have playstation plus?

That would be cool.

So you want to play Xbox Gold to play online games, and playstation plus on Xbox to play online games on Playstation?

 

[DenchDeckard]

So you want to play Xbox Gold to play online games, and playstation plus on Xbox to play online games on Playstation?

Im thinking how sweet it would be to have gamepass and playstation plus on both systems, then I can just use my memberships on whatever box I have and if someone locks in a deal for the service it wouldnt matter which console you had.

Would be pretty cool, really.

 

[Three]

• Activision isn't interested in gamepass or ps+ from now on.
• Xcloud is facing huge issues. And one of the key issues is that fps games is hard to play on the service.
• Wow won't be on gamepass, due to the nature of subscription mode.

All that is left is call of duty, which MS made a 10 year commitment.

What? So you're telling me it was all bullshit about the aim being to reach "more platforms" and a huge mobile audience via streaming and that there is actually no consumer benefit to the deal because it's not even coming to gamepass?

 

[Three]

Maybe Battlefield will finally kick into gear if this deal goes through, or Sony will finally take another stab at a FPS.

How would not competing for sales against COD make Battlefield kick into gear? If anything it means they can afford to make a worser game and not have to compete.

 

[feynoob]

What? So you're telling me it was all bullshit about the aim being to reach "more platforms" and a huge mobile audience via streaming and that there is actually no consumer benefit to the deal because it's not even coming to gamepass?

I think you missed the point.
Before the deal, Activision weren't interested in gamepass. Post purchase would be different.

Main argument of cma was that, MS would not allow Activision games on other devices after the purchase.

MS argument here is that, Activision weren't going to release their games on those services before the purchase.

So essentially, MS isnt responsible as to why Activision games isn't on those services.

It would be on gamepass, but not on those services after the purchase.

Hope that clarifies it.

 

[Elios83]

I think you missed the point.
Before the deal, Activision weren't interested in gamepass. Post purchase would be different.

Main argument of cma was that, MS would not allow Activision games on other devices after the purchase.

MS argument here is that, Activision weren't going to release their games on those services before the purchase.

So essentially, MS isnt responsible as to why Activision games isn't on those services.

It would be on gamepass, but not on those services after the purchase.

Hope that clarifies it.

Emm what kind of argument is this?
If Activision actually doesn't want their games on subscriptions then the CMA could ask that either these can be available on every possible subscription after the deal paying the proper price or that they can't be available at all as per Activision's wish.
It's not like regulators would fall for such stupid tricks.

 

[feynoob]

Emm what kind of argument is this?
If Activision actually doesn't want their games on subscriptions then the CMA could ask that either these can be available on every possible subscription after the deal paying the proper price or that they can't be available at all as per Activision's wish.
It's not like regulators would fall for such stupid tricks.

CMA can't enforce that. If they do that, then Sony, MS, and Nintendo would have to do the same thing.

 

[MasterCornholio]

CMA can't enforce that. If they do that, then Sony, MS, and Nintendo would have to do the same thing.

Why would Nintendo be forced to put their 1st party games day one on a subscription service?

The CMA doesn't have that kind of power.

 

[Elios83]

CMA can't enforce that. If they do that, then Sony, MS, and Nintendo would have to do the same thing.

We're only talking about Activision games so how Sony and Nintendo could make the same thing? Who is telling you they can't ask that?
You're probably still missing the piece that regulators won't make Microsoft any favour, they could block the deal altogether.

 

[feynoob]

Why would Nintendo be forced to put their 1st party games day one on a subscription service?

The CMA doesn't have that kind of power.

That just example. If cma forces Activision to do that, then they are opening a can of worms.

 

[feynoob]

We're only talking about Activision games so how Sony and Nintendo could make the same thing? Who is telling you they can't ask that?
You're probably still missing the piece that regulators won't make Microsoft any favour, they could block the deal altogether.

Because cma would force a company to do what they don't want to do.
According to the report, Activision didn't want to put their new titles on sub services.

 

[Elios83]

Because cma would force a company to do what they don't want to do.
According to the report, Activision didn't want to put their new titles on sub services.

Emmm lol concessions have precisely that purpose?
Also you're not making a lot of sense honestly.
Activision doesn't want their games on subscriptions, but after the deal Microsoft will be able to put COD on Gamepass, against Activision's wish, but it won't be possible for competitors to have COD on their own subscription services paying a proper fair price?
That's precisely what regulators would want as a compromise.
That Microsoft won't like it it's obvious but at this stage it could be either that or no deal.

 

[MasterCornholio]

That just example. If cma forces Activision to do that, then they are opening a can of worms.

Thats a pretty bad example since the CMA is dealing with an acquisition. Just because they request concessions with it doesn't mean the other companies have to do the same.

 

[Three]

I think you missed the point.
Before the deal, Activision weren't interested in gamepass. Post purchase would be different.
Main argument of cma was that, MS would not allow Activision games on other devices after the purchase.

MS argument here is that, Activision weren't going to release their games on those services before the purchase.

Oh, so none of the points have actually been addressed then? Activision games were coming to other subscriptions already. As I said several Call of Duty games came to PS+ before (CoD: Black Ops 3, COD: Modern Warfare Remastered, CoD: Black Ops 4, CoD: WW2, COD: Modern Warfare 2 Campaign Remastered) . As has Crash and Tony Hawks Pro Skater 1+2, again on PS+. Where is the idea that they weren't interested in subscriptions unless will be when they are bought coming from?

So essentially, MS isnt responsible as to why Activision games isn't on those services.

It would be on gamepass, but not on those services after the purchase.

Hope that clarifies it.

But they were on those services. They might not be after depending on what MS decides.

 

[feynoob]

Thats a pretty bad example since the CMA is dealing with an acquisition. Just because they request concessions with it doesn't mean the other companies have to do the same.

What I mean is that, CMA is making Activision put their games on other services. This goes against what Activision was doing. CMA is essentially forcing Activision here.

 

[feynoob]

Emmm lol concessions have precisely that purpose?
Also you're not making a lot of sense honestly.
Activision doesn't want their games on subscriptions, but after the deal Microsoft will be able to put COD on Gamepass, against Activision's wish, but it won't be possible for competitors to have COD on their own subscription services paying a proper fair price?
That's precisely what regulators would want as a compromise.
That Microsoft won't like it it's obvious but at this stage it could be either that or no deal.

CMA argument was Activision content would make gamepass attractive.

MS here is saying that, Activision content wouldn't have landed on other services, because Activision doesn't want their games on those services.

If MS doesn't buy them, their games won't be on those services. So MS isnt making gamepass attractive.

 

[jumpship]

Xcloud is facing huge issues. And one of the key issues is that fps games is hard to play on the service.

If this is true doesn't it contradict MS's commitment post sale to reach more players via xcloud. COD already works better natively on mobile which Activision already released and support.

 

[feynoob]

If this is true doesn't it contradict MS's commitment post sale to reach more players via xcloud. COD already works better natively on mobile which Activision already released and support.

Yes it does. The service so far is on trial, and needs more work.

 

[Elios83]

CMA argument was Activision content would make gamepass attractive.

MS here is saying that, Activision content wouldn't have landed on other services, because Activision doesn't want their games on those services.

If MS doesn't buy them, their games won't be on those services. So MS isnt making gamepass attractive.

So you're telling me that Microsoft won't put COD on Gamepass if the deal is done?
Are we kidding ourselves? Do you think antitrust people are idiots?

The point is what happens after the deal not before.
The situation is simple. Regulators could ask Microsoft to keep COD multiplatform and in the case COD goes to Gamepass, to not give their service an unfair advantage over the competition, they might be asked to give the competitors the possibility to pay a proper fair price to put the game on their subscription services as well.

 

[GHG]

I think you missed the point.
Before the deal, Activision weren't interested in gamepass. Post purchase would be different.

Main argument of cma was that, MS would not allow Activision games on other devices after the purchase.

MS argument here is that, Activision weren't going to release their games on those services before the purchase.

So essentially, MS isnt responsible as to why Activision games isn't on those services.

It would be on gamepass, but not on those services after the purchase.

Hope that clarifies it.

What people don't seem to realise is that regulators also look into why the business being acquired might have rejected a prior business deal from the acquiring party.

If the reasons are financially sound (as in if putting the game(s) on a subscription services day one instead of selling them as normal would result in less revenue leading to a reduction in reinvestment for future titles) then it can be argued an M&A deal could lead to value destruction on the consumer side if the properties are mishandled. This is especially true if said properties are seen as important to the overall industry and/or competitors of the acquiring company.

These things are looked at in a far more in depth and complex way than people here want to realise or admit.

 

[feynoob]

So you're telling me that Microsoft won't put COD on Gamepass if the deal is done?
Are we kidding ourselves? Do you think antitrust people are idiots?

The point is what happens after the deal not before.
The situation is simple. Regulators could ask Microsoft to keep COD multiplatform and in the case COD goes to Gamepass, to not give their service an unfair advantage over the competition, they might be asked to give the competitors the possibility to pay a proper fair price to put the game on their subscription services as well.

But the problem here isn't MS, but Activision.
They are the ones who don't want to put their products on sub services.
It would end on gamepass, due to them being 1st party games.
CMA would need to assess that. But also asses the affect it would have on consumers, incase of irregularity.

GHG gives out a good explanation.

 

[Elios83]

But the problem here isn't MS, but Activision.
They are the ones who don't want to put their products on sub services.
It would end on gamepass, due to them being 1st party games.
CMA would need to assess that. But also asses the affect it would have on consumers, incase of irregularity.

GHG gives out a good explanation.

That's the point of regulation.
If it ends up exclusively on Gamepass it gives that service an unfair advantage over competitors who won't have access to something so successful and mainstream anymore. That hurts competition and puts all possible competitors in a very difficult situation to compete with their subscription services in a permanent way.


This is precisely the scenario antitrust wants to regulate.
In any case let's not drag this on forever, it's clear that the deal is past the point where Microsoft will be able to do what they wanted. Now it's either accepting a compromise which is going to favour their competitors, or withdraw.

 

[Pelta88]

It would be interesting if the deal doesn't go through because of Sony and instead ABK and MS sign long term full exclusivity deal that would include gamepass ($10-$20bn).

I don't think you understand the current state of XBOX globally. ATVI as an independent publisher moved their marketing rights to Playstation for a reason. Without a purchase, that marketing situation remains unchanged.

 

[ManaByte]

 

[feynoob]

That's the point of regulation.
If it ends up exclusively on Gamepass it gives that service an unfair advantage over competitors who won't have access to something so successful and mainstream anymore. That hurts competition and puts all possible competitors in a very difficult situation to compete with their subscription services in a permanent way.


This is precisely the scenario antitrust wants to regulate.
In any case let's not drag this on forever, it's clear that the deal is past the point where Microsoft will be able to do what they wanted. Now it's either accepting a compromise which is going to favour their competitors, or withdraw.

What you are not understanding is that, those games won't reach those services at all. Regardless of purchase or not. And if they are going on other services for some reason, the price market is going to be crazy, and not something CMA can dictate (COD makes insane profit). So the sub service part, isn't going to be feasible.

However cma can look in to consumers side. That this purchase is giving advantage to those gamepass user who pay $15 vs those who pay $70. They have a shot on that.

 

[Crispy Gamer]

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.

Yeah even though I think the deal will eventually go through some of the arguments in favor of it are ridiculous lol it's not an honest debate. I'm of two minds because I think our capitalistic system is bullshit with corporations growing ever more powerful but at the same time I can appreciate Microsoft trying to provide more value to Xbox gamers but just stop saying that it's for "all gamers" they'd much rather have Sony out of gaming as would Sony want Microsoft out of gaming and both companies have showed that with their actions their words mean nothing.

 

[feynoob]

So essentially what Idas said.

Cma seems to be the leader for this deal then.

 

[Kiraly]

Good to see more people recognize Sony's dirtiness.

 

[Topher]

Saying this week's news did not "move the needle one way or another" is absurd. News that FTC will challenge the purchase is significant. I've been hesitant to say this, but now it seems clear this Hoeg guy is trying hard to paint this all in a positive light for Microsoft.

 

[adamsapple]

There's a reason why all parties involved set an expectation of mid 2023 for the completion, no one in the know from the start expected it to be a quick turnaround.

Saying this week's news did not "move the needle one way or another" is absurd. News that FTC will challenge the purchase is significant. I've been hesitant to say this, but now it seems clear this Hoeg guy is trying hard to paint this all in a positive light for Microsoft.

But there's no 'news' that FTC is challenging the deal, it was an unconfirmed off-hand commentary from some folks.

 

[feynoob]

Saying this week's news did not "move the needle one way or another" is absurd. News that FTC will challenge the purchase is significant. I've been hesitant to say this, but now it seems clear this Hoeg guy is trying hard to paint this all in a positive light for Microsoft.

Ftc angle is stop big corporations. So they were expected to make some lawsuits.
But that doesn't mean that would stop the deal
Until their result are out, the trajectory is the same.

We just need to pay more attention to cma. They are the ones who have the outcome of this deal.

 

[ToTTenTranz]

Steam has launched a new console without Call of Duty: The Steam experience is also directly relevant to console, as Steam has recently launched a new console, the Steam Deck, without Call of Duty. The Steam Deck is a handheld console which has a docking station that allows it to be plugged into a television or used as a PC. 141 The console runs on a Linux-based operating system and allows gamers to access Windows PC games through the Steam digital storefront. In the words of Valve, "[t]he Proton translation layer allows most Windows games to run with equal or better performance on Steam OS without requiring game developers to do any heavy porting work to get their games running". This means that there are thousands of games available to play on the Steam Deck – and as explained above this does not currently include Call of Duty. Valve has promoted the Steam Deck using a range of other popular titles (including a number of Sony first-party titles) – see Figure 32 below.

Well this is BS because:

1 - In almost all instances, Proton runs Windows games with equal or worse performance on Steam OS (translation layers require CPU cycles) and fewer features available (like raytracing). It's not like the translation layer isn't coming at a cost because it is, and Microsoft isn't making GamePass available to SteamOS which doesn't exactly bring them any favors to their point, to be honest.


2 - Steam Deck has no Call of Duty?

Save for the latest one, all the others that say "unsupported" work just fine. I actually finished CoD WW2's single player campaign last week on my Steam Deck and it played great. Almost all CoDs claimed as "unsupported" are running a splash page unsupported on Linux, which is easily circumvented with a command line in the game's settings.


If they're trying to convince regulators with these claims, they shouldn't make such blatantly false statements that are easily countered with a quick search.

 

[Topher]

Ftc angle is stop big corporations. So they were expected to make some lawsuits.
But that doesn't mean that would stop the deal
Until their result are out, the trajectory is the same.

We just need to pay more attention to cma. They are the ones who have the outcome of this deal.

I haven't seen any expectations of lawsuits from FTC from anyone, including Hoeg. Maybe I missed it, but primarily folks have acted like this was going to sail through. So FTC challenging the acquisition is no big deal, but Sony's vocal opposition to it is the big controversy here? Sony's position in the US isn't much different than it is in Europe and somehow, this is shocking? Hard to take this guy seriously with such bizarre takes.

 

[feynoob]

Well this is BS because:

1 - In almost all instances, Proton runs Windows games with equal or worse performance on Steam OS (translation layers require CPU cycles) and fewer features available (like raytracing). It's not like the translation layer isn't coming at a cost because it is, and Microsoft isn't making GamePass available to SteamOS which doesn't exactly bring them any favors to their point, to be honest.


2 - Steam Deck has no Call of Duty?

Save for the latest one, all the others that say "unsupported" work just fine. I actually finished CoD WW2's single player campaign last week on my Steam Deck and it played great. Almost all CoDs claimed as "unsupported" are running a splash page unsupported on Linux, which is easily circumvented with a command line in the game's settings.


If they're trying to convince regulators with these claims, they shouldn't make such blatantly false statements that are easily countered with a quick search.

Steam never had newer COD, until now. There is statement to the regulators is correct.

 

[Topher]

But there's no 'news' that FTC is challenging the deal, it was an unconfirmed off-hand commentary from some folks.

It was reported by a legit news organization citing knowledgable sources. No, the news isn't "confirmed", but it is news.

 

[feynoob]

I haven't seen any expectations of lawsuits from FTC from anyone, including Hoeg. Maybe I missed it, but primarily folks have acted like this was going to sail through. So FTC challenging the acquisition is no big deal, but Sony's vocal opposition to it is the big controversy here? Sony's position in the US isn't much different than it is in Europe and somehow, this is shocking? Hard to take this guy seriously with such bizarre takes.

The issues with Sony, is that they are downplaying themselves like MS.
Both companies statement were a shock to the community.

FTC one is expected, if you know who is Lina.Kan.

 

[PaintTinJr]

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.

Going by the Series launch trailer (2years ago) that was about as close to tangible gaming coming to Xbox as an updated Californication CGI music video you have to wonder if this was Microsoft's plan all along.

If someone said to Microsoft it would only cost them $2-3b in advertising to be associated as the owner of ATVI for 2years to big up Game Pass and Xbox through the launch period, and get a conversation changer - from where are the new games from those 20 something studios you own on Game Pass, today? - and still with the chance of actually buying ATVI for $70b, they would probably take that strategy IMO.

Without this deal the false Starfield release date claim - as the game was barely past alpha according to gaf in the gameplay reveal, so had no chance of launch this year - gamers would be talking about the high proportion of studios to the very low output of games by Microsoft game studios for Xbox and Game Pass IMHO.

 

[Topher]

The issues with Sony, is that they are downplaying themselves like MS.
Both companies statement were a shock to the community.

FTC one is expected, if you know who is Lina.Kan.

Expected, by who? Did anyone predict this?

 

[MasterCornholio]

Expected, by who? Did anyone predict this?

I mean there was that one publication that said the deal would be done last August. Pretty sure there's a ton if stuff people didn't predict in relation to this.

 

[DenchDeckard]

"The biggest surprise is the vociferousness (and, honestly, speciousness) of rival Sony's position. That is going to do some damage to industry comity."

.....

 

[feynoob]

Expected, by who? Did anyone predict this?

Yes. Any lawyer, and people who follow this deal would have predicted this.

MS a trillion tech company buying another big company is a nice meal for current ftc.

 

[xHunter]

I haven't seen any expectations of lawsuits from FTC from anyone, including Hoeg. Maybe I missed it, but primarily folks have acted like this was going to sail through. So FTC challenging the acquisition is no big deal, but Sony's vocal opposition to it is the big controversy here? Sony's position in the US isn't much different than it is in Europe and somehow, this is shocking? Hard to take this guy seriously with such bizarre takes.

Also this thread is funny in hindsight:

https://www.neogaf.com/threads/microsoft-and-activision-blizzard-the-ftc-could-approve-the-acquisition-in-august.1639176/

Some people were even thinking they would be able to play MW2 for free via Gamepass on launch. But somehow this stance changed into "it always going to be 2023".

 

[MasterCornholio]

Also this thread is funny in hindsight:

http://[URL]https://www.neogaf.com/...ld-approve-the-acquisition-in-august.1639176/

[/URL]

Some people were even thinking they would be able to play MW2 for free via Gamepass on launch. But somehow this stance changed into "it always going to be 2023".

Weird how that changed.

 

[adamsapple]

Also this thread is funny in hindsight:

https://www.neogaf.com/threads/microsoft-and-activision-blizzard-the-ftc-could-approve-the-acquisition-in-august.1639176/

Some people were even thinking they would be able to play MW2 for free via Gamepass on launch. But somehow this stance changed into "it always going to be 2023".

The article from your link is a speculation piece, it uses the word 'could' in the very title.

-

The deal was expected to close by June 2023 via MS themselves, they said this just days after the acquisition announcement itself:

Microsoft-Activision deal expected to close in FY 2023

Yahoo Finance's Dan Howley joins the Live show to discuss reports that Activision CEO Bobby Kotick would be leaving the scandal-plagued company after the acquisition by Microsoft is finalized in 2023.

news.yahoo.com

anything beyond that was speculation.

this is not the gotcha you're expecting.