Support NeoGAF

[Ass of Can Whooping]

They would get more respect if they were honest. lol.

I keep telling them to just wear a hat, but no, let's pretend to be one of those weirdo I love all consoles gamer

 

[reinking]

Well there are plenty games that would have been on Xbox had Sony not intervened. It is business. Nothing is stopping a customer from getting a game via an alternative method. That is not 'harm'. An example of harm is raising the price of a console. At least with Xbox you aren't required to purchase the console in the first place.

That is exactly some of the "harm" that these bodies are investigating. It remains to be seen if they consider it enough harm to prevent the acquisition.

 

[nikolino840]

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

Watching that Lina Khan video....I get what she is trying to achieve.

And MS/Activision would be a perfect case study for her hypothesis or whatever.

 

[GhostOfTsu]

Another difference between the platforms.

And you don't want that PS+ app on Xbox? You just shrugged no comments about this big news.

Very pro-consumer of Sony to offer PS+ on Xbox. Spider-Man, FF7, GOT, God of War on Xbox. Wow.

 

[jumpship]

They don't plan to take COD off PlayStation, and they're clearly angling towards offering that as a concession.

They're downplaying COD because there's other arguments around cloud streaming and Gamepass that are being made around the franchise. Not to mention regulatory reluctance for one party in a console duopoly to own a franchise that's being construed as a 'must own'.

Nobody's going to allow MS buy Valve, for example, even if MS legally promises the whole world that they'll make Steam available on Linux or Mac.

Bit of an oxymoron here, If they don't plan to take COD off PlayStation then why do they need to offer concessions to regulators this far into the process?

Not trying to dismiss your point I just think there is overwhelming evidence from MS's own arguments to CMA that they plan to remove COD from PS at some point. If they plan COD to remain multiplatform why waste so much energy explaining the outcome of a COD-less PlayStation future. The effects on revenue, player numbers, network effects etc including statistics that takes time to research. Even suggesting Sony can innovate and make a COD alternative of there own. Again why suggest this if they plan to keep it on PlayStation?

Not to mention the rejected 3 year offer to Sony and MS returning with a longer 10 year deal instead of making the concession directly with regulators.

I'm glad the CMA are transparent and publish each company response. Because while all this goes on behind the scenes the public face of Microsoft want you believe the deal benefits all gamers when it obviously doesn't.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

And that GAF thread where the news was that the FTC could approve the deal as soon as August and some people even thought that MW2 on Gamepass this year was a possibility ended up being a fairy tale

Hopium is a hell of a drug.

 

[DarkMage619]

That is exactly some of the "harm" that these bodies are investigating. It remains to be seen if they consider it enough harm to prevent the acquisition.

It is not a regulators job to prevent 'harm' to corporations. A company offering superior options to customers is part of competition. If they can find a law being broken then fine. So far there has been no evidence of laws being broken by this acquisition. That is what matters.

Hopium is a hell of a drug.

MS always claimed 6/23 for closure for the deal. People should actually pay attention to the details of the transaction.

 

[Ozriel]

Bundling teams for free and leveraging their extremely dominant market position is not a monopolistic move? You don't seem to understand how this works.

Call it anti competitive if you're so inclined.

My point stands that that's for the EU to decide, after reviewing the available data. Not a random fanboy on a gaming forum.

Slack famously initially dismissed any competition from Teams. Neither Google or Zoom have made any complaint.

 

[Menzies]

If they don't plan to take COD off PlayStation then why do they need to offer concessions to regulators this far into the process?

From what I understand this is normal process. You don't bend over to appease this regulator and this regulator and that regulator. You wait and hopefully bring them all into alignment.

I just think there is overwhelming evidence from MS's own arguments to CMA that they plan to remove COD from PS at some point. If they plan COD to remain multiplatform why waste so much energy explaining the outcome of a COD-less PlayStation future.

This is the regulators prognostications. There is no in perpetuity arrangement that they can tie them down to. They still need to evaluate distant scenarios that may eventuate if either business changes strategy.

 

[Warablo]

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.

It would open a bigger market for a FPS on Sony consoles. I am sure EA and other developers are looking into capitalizing that.

I see/know where you are coming from, but I don't think a failed Battlefield 2042 can get any worse.

We're not talking about what benefits YOU, this is about GAMERS in general.

You guys have been shouting that Sony has been doing anti-consumer practices for years by getting exclusive deals, but as soon as someone states that fact that acquiring a publisher is anti-consumer, you have an excuse as to why it's not.

The point is, don't complain about Sony's anti-consumer practices when MS has been guilty of doing the same thing.

You're known for laugh reacting to everything whenever someone is a bit critical of MS and you agree with almost anything someone criticizes sony for. People can see right through this dude, so stop pretending you're this neutral gamer. lol

All of Sony's responses have been self serving and doesn't demonstrate how it would hurt all gamers instead of just "Sony" gamers. In fact, a lot of their responses show how them having dominate market share allowed them to raise prices of their consoles and games while they claim Xbox could.

Highly advise watching Hoegs livestream replay if you want to go through the entirety of Sony's response and form your own opinion.

 

[ToTTenTranz]

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.

What shocks me the most is all these supposed experts being so convinced that everything is happening because of Sony.

They're actually painting this weird picture of Jim Ryan, the CEO of a $100B company moving all the strings to stop a $1840B (one point eight trillion dollars) company from buying a $70B supplier almost as big as their competitor.
Big bad Sony doing some flexing to stop small poor 18x larger Microsoft from purchasing a supplier.

It's almost like regulators having a very long history of anti-trust issues with Microsoft is playing absolutely no part in this. Or how Microsoft just finished buying a $8B software supplier (Bethesda) abd the first thing they did afterwards was stopping all their franchises from ever going into Playstation. It's like they really think regulators have no mind of their own.

They're trying to paint all this as a Sony vs. Microsoft when the regulators' job is to act in the interests of consumers vs. monopolies.

These guys seem so out of touch with the process that I wonder if they even have an actual degree of they ever practiced law outside of armchair youtuber videos.

 

[reinking]

It is not a regulators job to prevent 'harm' to corporations.

Individually? No. I did not mention corporations. You implied there is no harm to consumers. It does in fact impact some consumers regardless of what services MS offers. BTW, I have all consoles so it does not impact me personally. I have spent more time recently playing a PC game on Game Pass than anything else. However, I do understand that this does impact others.

What does the FTC do?

...The agency leverages its resources and targets its enforcement efforts at practices that cause the greatest harm to consumers.

The basic statute enforced by the FTC, Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, empowers the agency to investigate and prevent unfair methods of competition, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices affecting commerce. This creates the Agency's two primary missions: protecting competition and protecting consumers.

I have no idea if they will find that this acquisition falls under the category of unfair competition or if they find it harms consumers but it appears they are going forward.

 

[gothmog]

Some things become a tradition. COD has become that. Competing with it is like trying to make a better Christmas. People aren't going to give up a tradition because it means a lot to them. So while Battlefield could be 10x better than COD in the gameplay and content department it is never going to dethrone COD as a tradition.

 

[reksveks]

Bit of an oxymoron here, If they don't plan to take COD off PlayStation then why do they need to offer concessions to regulators this far into the process?

Because regulators and Sony don't like verbal promises and rather have things written down?

 

[DForce]

It would open a bigger market for a FPS on Sony consoles. I am sure EA and other developers are looking into capitalizing that.

I see/know where you are coming from, but I don't think a failed Battlefield 2042 can get any worse.


All of Sony's responses have been self serving and doesn't demonstrate how it would hurt all gamers instead of just "Sony" gamers. In fact, a lot of their responses show how them having dominate market share allowed them to raise prices of their consoles and games while they claim Xbox could.

Why do you keep bringing up irrelevant information in this discussion? Microsoft is guilty of anti-consumer practices and Xbox fans are excusing it every time it's mentioned. That's the point of this conversation.

 

[feynoob]

Read the thread. That is not a good one.
This guy has more error on his assessment.

 

[feynoob]

Because regulators and Sony don't like verbal promises and rather have things written down?

MS can talk all they want,but there has to be a written contract.

 

[DarkMage619]

Individually? No. I did not mention corporations. You implied there is no harm to consumers. It does in fact impact some consumers regardless of what services MS offers. BTW, I have all consoles so it does not impact me personally. I have spent more time recently playing a PC game on Game Pass than anything else. However, I do understand that this does impact others.

Impact and harm are different things. Xbox fans are impacted by Sony's exclusives for 3rd party games I'd hardly call it harm. I also have all the consoles and I wouldn't call these actions harm, it's business.

I have no idea if they will find that this acquisition falls under the category of unfair competition or if they find it harms consumers but it appears they are going forward.

I have seen little mention of consumer harm from regulators outside of CADE's findings. It certainly appears that if regulators are basing findings on if Sony is harmed they'll rule against the deal if it is about consumers it will be passed just like CADE found. Protecting Sony should not be the regulators focus.

Why do you keep bringing up irrelevant information in this discussion? Microsoft is guilty of anti-consumer practices and Xbox fans are excusing it every time it's mentioned. That's the point of this conversation.

This is about a video game acquisition. Tell us all what anti-trust actions MS has taken in gaming to warrant blocking this deal. That is what this whole conversation is about.

 

[Warablo]

Why do you keep bringing up irrelevant information in this discussion? Microsoft is guilty of anti-consumer practices and Xbox fans are excusing it every time it's mentioned. That's the point of this conversation.

I am bringing up how Microsoft being competitive actually helps consumers yet you see it as a bad thing. I can't keep arguing if you can't look at the deal with unbiased eyes.

 

[feynoob]

Impact and harm are different things. Xbox fans are impacted by Sony's exclusives for 3rd party games I'd hardly call it harm. I also have all the consoles and I wouldn't call these actions harm, it's business.

 

[reinking]

Impact and harm are different things. Xbox fans are impacted by Sony's exclusives for 3rd party games I'd hardly call it harm. I also have all the consoles and I wouldn't call these actions harm, it's business.

I have seen little mention of consumer harm from regulators outside of CADE's findings. It certainly appears that if regulators are basing findings on if Sony is harmed they'll rule against the deal if it is about consumers it will be passed just like CADE found. Protecting Sony should not be the regulators focus.

It's not! You can't seem to see anything past your green blinders. I don't even think you are trying to troll. You really believe this.

 

[feynoob]

I have seen little mention of consumer harm from regulators outside of CADE's findings. It certainly appears that if regulators are basing findings on if Sony is harmed they'll rule against the deal if it is about consumers it will be passed just like CADE found. Protecting Sony should not be the regulators focus

People never ever ever for God sake, ever preach for a corporate.

Do people not pay attention to these document's, or do they just preach?

CMA talks about consumers nonstop. Sony userbase are Consumers. They aren't Sony.

 

[DarkMage619]

It's not! You can't seem to see anything past your green blinders. I don't even think you are trying to troll. You really believe this.

OK so when Sony gets exclusives it's business but if MS gets exclusives it's harm? I believe business is business no matter who gets the exclusive. Of course ad hominems of troll instead of actual proof shows how weak these arguments are.

 

[freefornow]

it seems clear this Hoeg guy is trying hard to paint this all in a positive light for Microsoft.

The 3 hour video clearly shows that he isnt (its long, but it really is worth a watch). Argues the legal points as it relates to Sonys arguments. He criticies MS where there arguments are not supported by interpretation of antitrust law.
His video on MS 111pg response is going to be one hell of a watch.

 

[DForce]

This is about a video game acquisition. Tell us all what anti-trust actions MS has taken in gaming to warrant blocking this deal. That is what this whole conversation is about.

This thread is. The conversation was not.

How can you not understand this?

 

[freefornow]

Yes, according to a document sent to the CMA but they said no. I don't see a lot of anger from the green rats and journalists about this. But Sony has to bow down and allow GP or they are the devil.

So much hypocrisy. Phil will get his award

Watch Hoegs video for his response to the "does not permit PS plus on xbox"
There is a reason that this Sony response has been labled as "absurd".

 

[DForce]

I am bringing up how Microsoft being competitive actually helps consumers yet you see it as a bad thing. I can't keep arguing if you can't look at the deal with unbiased eyes.

Does it help Sony consumers if the game is taken away from the platform? No.


That's not hard to understand.

 

[Topher]

The 3 hour video clearly shows that he isnt (its long, but it really is worth a watch). Argues the legal points as it relates to Sonys arguments. He criticies MS where there arguments are not supported by interpretation of antitrust law.
His video on MS 111pg response is going to be one hell of a watch.

I've seen his videos before and really doesn't change my opinion.

Watch Hoegs video for his response to the "does not permit PS plus on xbox"
There is a reason that this Sony response has been labled as "absurd".

No more/less absurd than Game Pass on PS.

 

[reinking]

OK so when Sony gets exclusives it's business but if MS gets exclusives it's harm? I believe business is business no matter who gets the exclusive. Of course ad hominems of troll instead of actual proof shows how weak these arguments are.

 

[freefornow]

Hopium is a hell of a drug.

It's the gateway drug for Copium.
The Copium market will explode by middle of 2023. If you have any cash avaiable, buy those stocks now. You may be able to retire at a very young age.

 

[gothmog]

The 3 hour video clearly shows that he isnt (its long, but it really is worth a watch). Argues the legal points as it relates to Sonys arguments. He criticies MS where there arguments are not supported by interpretation of antitrust law.
His video on MS 111pg response is going to be one hell of a watch.

Hoeg is great but as I said before he's dealing with a lot of increased celebrity. He's saying more than a lawyer should to pander to the fanboys IMO. Most lawyers are incredibly reluctant to give their opinions for very good reasons. Even behind closed doors and under retainer they are pretty conservative.

That you are saying the next response is going to be a hell of a watch kinda proves my point. This isn't Better Call Saul.

 

[freefornow]

No more/less absurd than Game Pass on PS.

Yep. And he called out MS on this very point.

 

[DarkMage619]

People never ever ever for God sake, ever preach for a corporate.

Do people not pay attention to these document's, or do they just preach?

CMA talks about consumers nonstop. Sony userbase are Consumers. They aren't Sony.

Consumers were rarely mentioned in the CMAs comments. Remember how Sony was mentioned way more than consumers were? If anyone is preaching for corporations it was the CMA. Again CADE had this right. Normal consumers are not harmed by this deal. Sony is but Sony is not who should be protected.

 

[Pelta88]

of all people saying he's neutral because he has a PS5. A PS5 that he never talks about unless he wants to shit on Sony.

That's obviously not what they meant. It was probably a native PS+ app on Xbox but we all play we all win Phil said no.

They would get more respect if they were honest. lol.

What blows my mind is those who claim they want the deal to go through for the benefit of the ATVI employees. Yet when you check their history there's zero mention of said employees even at the height of the scandal.

Like, you can be for the acquisition for whatever reason. Just don't lose self-respect with yourself for the sake of an online debate.

 

[Topher]

Yep. And he called out MS on this very point.

Then where are all his tweets calling out all the "speciousness" of Microsoft's arguments?

 

[feynoob]

Consumers were rarely mentioned in the CMAs comments. Remember how Sony was mentioned way more than consumers were? If anyone is preaching for corporations it was the CMA. Again CADE had this right. Normal consumers are not harmed by this deal. Sony is but Sony is not who should be protected.

People who use PS, are consumers. If they lose COD, they are getting harmed by this deal. Even if the contract lasts 10 year.

 

[Warablo]

Does it help Sony consumers if the game is taken away from the platform? No.


That's not hard to understand.

So its the governments job to protect Sony customers? Why does Sony get government protection to their market share? Sony consumers aren't the entirety of consumers.

 

[Oddvintagechap]

U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is "likely" to try to block the deal with an antitrust lawsuit.

GG. Jimmy is about to get a raise.

If Xbox wasn't talking smack and announcing they were planning to go for more publishers and hyping up exclusivity… they would have been fine.

The way Sony approached Bungie is entirely different how Microsoft handled ZeniMax.

 

[DForce]

So its the governments job to protect Sony customers? Why does Sony get government protection to their market share? Sony consumers aren't the entirety of consumers.

Again, this has nothing to do with the conversation. Go back and read.

 

[Pelta88]

If Xbox wasn't talking smack and announcing they were planning to go for more publishers and hyping up exclusivity… they would have been fine.

If this deal sinks, ultimately, it's Phil Spencer's needless PR that sinks it.

Phil lorded Bethesda exclusives not because they had to, but because they wanted to keep the XB core happy with good PR...

Good PR that was needed because they were failing to deliver great games and needed to keep their, rightfully complaining, core supporters happy.

 

[gothmog]

U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is "likely" to try to block the deal with an antitrust lawsuit.

GG. Jimmy is about to get a raise.

If Xbox wasn't talking smack and announcing they were planning to go for more publishers and hyping up exclusivity… they would have been fine.

The way Sony approached Bungie is entirely different how Microsoft handled ZeniMax.

Well the problem for the most part is that Microsoft in particular doesn't know how to not be Microsoft.

 

[Eddie-Griffin]

They estimated too much. This partly to blame for their first party output. That explains the target drop for gamepass. The potential target numbers were high and unrealistic according to their 1st party output.

No the reason why they missed the target is because they weren't expecting supply constrains to last as long as they did. We have threads on this stuff months ago.

 

[GhostOfTsu]

Watch Hoegs video for his response to the "does not permit PS plus on xbox"
There is a reason that this Sony response has been labled as "absurd".

I don't need to watch the garbage videos he does for his rat fanbase. The new hero in these threads

When Bethesda was sold it was said Sony just had to accept GP on PlayStation if they wanted Beth games. Same thing after Activision. There were tons of articles saying Evil Sony was blocking GP on PlayStation.

Not in a million years people would think Sony was offering PS+ to MS behind the scenes but Xbox would deny that value for their customers. Good guy Phil.

Not a peep from his fanbase. They're more interested being outrage at every small news about Sony in their revenge plot.

 

[BennyBlanco]

I keep telling them to just wear a hat, but no, let's pretend to be one of those weirdo I love all consoles gamer

Most people on this forum are 30+ and $500 isn't a huge purchase that makes you lose your mind justifying that you made the right choice over the other console.

 

[Crispy Gamer]

This is part of the reason I'm sticking firm with my belief that the deal is basically dead. The FTC is going after Meta retroactively for the Instagram and WhatsApp purchases, so I have a hard time thinking they would stay out of this one. This is exactly the type of purchase the FTC is looking to block. Making two giants into an even bigger giant does not help competition no matter what the two companies say.

Maybe they can go back and look at Disney as well. The consolidation of Marvel, Star Wars, Pixar, and Disney has arguably done more damage to the movie industry than Covid ever did. Disney basically offers terms to the theaters and they can either accept or lose access to the biggest money makers. Add in streaming and they can basically run an accept our terms or we put our movies day one on streaming gambit.

This pretty much sums everything up right here part of me thinks it'll go through anyway because money talks but on second thought we have too many recent examples as you've stated on why the FTC might try to make an example out of this proposed merger. They've made it clear they're not stopping and MS hates losing so they'll continue to swallow up the industry until they're number 1 and for the life of me I can't see why anyone thinks that's good if this was Sony purchasing Activision these same people would have a damn fit, how about stop being fans and be against consolidation as a whole instead of twisting together these weird arguments trying to defend a trillion dollar company smh.

 

[Menzies]

People who use PS, are consumers. If they lose COD, they are getting harmed by this deal. Even if the contract lasts 10 year.

Eh, disagree. I think it's fair and reasonable for the regulators to make Microsoft honest and protect the consumers who have invested in material hardware now I.e. a PS5.

I certainly think it's very arguable that this should or needs to extend to future products, which consumers make a decision on at the beginning of every generation. To argue it's harmful for entrenched consumers rights to be forever entitled doesn't sound compelling to me. Consumers should not be thought of as Sony or Xbox with regards to future products that don't yet exist.

 

[adamsapple]

People who use PS, are consumers. If they lose COD, they are getting harmed by this deal. Even if the contract lasts 10 year.

We can go back around and say how taking established franchises which have had multiple entries on Xbox, like Final Fantasy, off from that console also harms those consumers.

 

[Pelta88]

We can go back around and say how taking established franchises which have had multiple entries on Xbox, like Final Fantasy, off from that console also harms those consumers.

PlayStation leverage their instal base during negotiations. Andrew House confirmed this early in the PS4 generation. After 2012/2013 and onwards XB became a USA/UK console. Whose fault is that?

10/11 years later XB is still a USA and diminishing UK console. Falling mindshare and still zero momentum outside of those regions. Whose fault is that? Publishers obviously prefer their IP gets more reach and seem eager to sign those PS marketing/exclusive deals despite Microsoft's deep pockets.

 

[feynoob]

We can go back around and say how taking established franchises which have had multiple entries on Xbox, like Final Fantasy, off from that console also harms those consumers.

That is not the same as owning the same franchise. Plus didn't MS get their revenge by buying bethesda?

Any way COD is bigger than all those franchises. Selling 10+m every year shows how big that game, and how many consumers would lose.