Support NeoGAF

[feynoob]

The same one where FTC is filing suit?

I can't convince you this one, if you keep acting like that.
Let's end this here. We can come back to it, after this deals fate.

 

[MasterCornholio]

MLB the show. It’s a PlayStation studios game.

So is that the reason? Just trying to understand why there’s so much doubt maybe I missed something that contradicts there statement.

Bungie is going to be weird. I mean they are owned by Sony but I don't think their games will have playstation studios on them in the Xbox version. I'm guessing an SIE logo at the most.

 

[Drewpee]

What makes you think they'll be unable to be sold.

Maybe they don't get 95 dollars per share, but they'll still find a buyer if they want to.

If Amazon wants to buy Activision, regulators aren't going to stop them. Even Meta is another possibility.

Why wouldn't they stop Amazon or Meta?

 

[Mibu no ookami]

With PS+ extra and premium? Are you sure? They have expiring licenses.

I'm not referring to those games, I'm referring to the PS+ monthly games.

 

[Drewpee]

Another company is gonna buy them. But they won't get that $95 share again.

This is their golden chance to make a big profit. Or else, whoever buys them next won't pay that much.

Everything I've read about the reason to deny Microsoft would apply to other companies wouldn't it? Maybe a company like Amazon would be more willing to keep the industry status quo?

 

[Mibu no ookami]

Why wouldn't they stop Amazon or Meta?

Amazon and Meta don't have the same position in gaming as Microsoft and thus wouldn't have the ability to leverage Activision the same way Microsoft would be able to.

They don't have a console of their own and it wouldn't be in their direct interest to wall off Call of Duty without significant brand damage.

 

[Drewpee]

Amazon and Meta don't have the same position in gaming as Microsoft and thus wouldn't have the ability to leverage Activision the same way Microsoft would be able to.

They don't have a console of their own and it wouldn't be in their direct interest to wall off Call of Duty without significant brand damage.

So what would be their interest in buying a company like Activision?

Let's say Meta wanted to grow their VR division so they buy Activision with that goal in mind. Do you think they'd allow their VR games to be released on other VR headsets?

Maybe Amazon wants to grow their streaming service. Do you think they'd let their games be released on Gamepass or PS+?

There is not a company out there that would buy Activision with the goal of keeping them as they are.

 

[DarkMage619]

Did I say you celebrated the Gold price increase or did I say you defended Microsoft for it?

The original point was that you’re an Xbox fan, you were the one denying it and saying you’re a gAmInG fAN (laughable). Just embrace it lad, no one will judge you if you drop the pathetic pretence.

If I didn't celebrate it why try and single me out as if I was the only person who made a statement about the price hike. I prefer to label myself. I made a reasonable response to a move MS made that, unless I am mistaken, was reversed very quickly.

I have played and owned almost every game console that has been released from Neo Geo to the Dreamcast. I also have a gaming PC. I owned every single PlayStation that was released. That means I'm not a PlayStation fan? Hell I like board games too. I don't think saying that I purely an Xbox fan covers my interests seeing how reductive that is. I never said I don't have preferences and I prefer to get a good value so any company that does that I prefer. Pretty simple.

No, you weren't paying attention and now you're making excuses for it. You keep saying, "The acquisition isn't illegal" when that's NOT what we were talking about. I replied to your comment about a statement YOU made and it had NOTHING to do with the FTC's approval of the deal fo if it was illegal or not, but you keep bringing it p as if it's relevant.

I'm talking about an acquisition in an acquisition thread and I'm not paying attention? Haha OK buddy.

Read your comment again because it's still you.


You said Minecraft AND its spin-offs. You should have said Minecraft spin-offs. People use Minecraft as "proof" yet ignore what MS is doing with Elder Scrolls.

You said Minecraft is a standalone. I corrected you to include all the other multiple Minecraft games coming out and that it isn't just the single game.

MS is under no obligation to release ANY of their titles on PlayStation or any other non Xbox platform. What is MS doing with Elder Scrolls? Show me where MS has promised all of their titles to other consoles? Entitlement runs deep in some people.

Let's take a look at your hypocrisy.

All that searching when my position was clear as day in this very thread.

No game is guaranteed on any platform. Sometimes you have to buy a platform to play a specific game. That has been true as long as there have been video games. It sucks for people who refuse to look elsewhere but that is business after all.

It's business. Sometimes business can suck but it doesn't change that it's a fair and legal way to conduct it. In the end no game is promised on any platform. Thems the breaks.

No hypocrisy I never said MS getting a timed exclusive is good and Sony getting one is bad. I don't like timed exclusives at all. Find a post of me cheering timed exclusives and you'll have something then.

The reason why I replied to you in the first place was because of your hypocrisy. You go on rants about how Street Fighter V and Final Fantasy deals were bad for non-PlayStation gamers, but completely ignore what Microsoft is doing to the franchises they're acquiring.

I know you're going to say, "They bought the publishers so they're entitled to do whatever they want." The same can be applied to third party deals. They made a deal with the publisher.

No. I'm going to say you don't need to buy an Xbox to play Xbox games. Just like you pointed out how Street Fighter 5 is on PC right? Problem solved! Oh also CoD will continue to be on PlayStation for years to come so you have even less to complain about. Oh! And if Sony had a fully functioning browser on PS5 you could stream Xbox games on PlayStation too.

People can see what you're doing and it's best not to deny it at this point. LOL.

Pointing out how this acquisition isn't illegal and explaining to you that Minecraft isn't just one game? Guilty as charged.

 

[feynoob]

Everything I've read about the reason to deny Microsoft would apply to other companies wouldn't it? Maybe a company like Amazon would be more willing to keep the industry status quo?

Nope. The problem here is Sony vs MS, in short Xbox vs PS.
Those companies don't have have those issues. Just like when Elon bought Twitter. He didn't have any business in social media (like reddit, youtube, or Instagram).

 

[jumpship]

Mlb is the reason why that game is there. Sony has nothing to do with it, since they don't own the license. Mlb does. And it's also on Switch this year.

I was asked if Sony first party had ever made a game for Xbox. Sony still agreed to go multiplatform with MLB if they were so opposed to supporting competing platforms they would have forfeit the licence and have the studio work on something else.

 

[Drewpee]

Nope. The problem here is Sony vs MS, in short Xbox vs PS.
Those companies don't have have those issues. Just like when Elon bought Twitter. He didn't have any business in social media (like reddit, youtube, or Instagram).

Are you also assuming that those companies would keep the industry as it is today? Do you think it'd make a difference if they decided to lock off part of the company for their benefit?

 

[feynoob]

I was asked if Sony first party had ever made a game for Xbox. Sony still agreed to go multiplatform with MLB if they were so opposed to supporting competing platforms they would have forfeit the licence and have the studio work on something else.

But the thing is, MLb isn't Sony 1st party game. It's a licensed game owned by mlb, It was exclusive to Sony, but not anymore. Think of it like yakuza series, but Sony studios make that game.

Sony only owns the studio that makes the game.

 

[feynoob]

Are you also assuming that those companies would keep the industry as it is today? Do you think it'd make a difference if they decided to lock off part of the company for their benefit?

It means nothing to regulators. They dont own a console in gaming industry. It would be a fast approval.

 

[jumpship]

Bungie is going to be weird. I mean they are owned by Sony but I don't think their games will have playstation studios on them in the Xbox version. I'm guessing an SIE logo at the most.

Agreed. Come to think of it. Both the MLB and Bungie situations are very similar. Both company’s wanted multiplatform games . Both times Sony agreed.

 

[MasterCornholio]

Agreed. Come to think of it. Both the MLB and Bungie situations are very similar. Both company’s wanted multiplatform games . Both times Sony agreed.

It's definitely a little bit different with Bungie. But I always believed it was a concession they made so the acquisition wouldn't have any issues.

 

[feynoob]

If I didn't celebrate it why try and single me out as if I was the only person who made a statement about the price hike. I prefer to label myself. I made a reasonable response to a move MS made that, unless I am mistaken, was reversed very quickly.

I have played and owned almost every game console that has been released from Neo Geo to the Dreamcast. I also have a gaming PC. I owned every single PlayStation that was released. That means I'm not a PlayStation fan? Hell I like board games too. I don't think saying that I purely an Xbox fan covers my interests seeing how reductive that is. I never said I don't have preferences and I prefer to get a good value so any company that does that I prefer. Pretty simple.

I'm talking about an acquisition in an acquisition thread and I'm not paying attention? Haha OK buddy.

You said Minecraft is a standalone. I corrected you to include all the other multiple Minecraft games coming out and that it isn't just the single game.

MS is under no obligation to release ANY of their titles on PlayStation or any other non Xbox platform. What is MS doing with Elder Scrolls? Show me where MS has promised all of their titles to other consoles? Entitlement runs deep in some people.

All that searching when my position was clear as day in this very thread.

It's business. Sometimes business can suck but it doesn't change that it's a fair and legal way to conduct it. In the end no game is promised on any platform. Thems the breaks.

No hypocrisy I never said MS getting a timed exclusive is good and Sony getting one is bad. I don't like timed exclusives at all. Find a post of me cheering timed exclusives and you'll have something then.

No. I'm going to say you don't need to buy an Xbox to play Xbox games. Just like you pointed out how Street Fighter 5 is on PC right? Problem solved! Oh also CoD will continue to be on PlayStation for years to come so you have even less to complain about. Oh! And if Sony had a fully functioning browser on PS5 you could stream Xbox games on PlayStation too.

Pointing out how this acquisition isn't illegal and explaining to you that Minecraft isn't just one game? Guilty as charged.

You need to understand that spending $68b on a publisher isn't a fair thing or being a competitor.
It's outright a bully move. That money can buy several gaming publishers. EA, take 2, Ubisoft, and Capcom.

We shouldn't normalize these stuff, and call it necessary for competition.

I dont care which brand you support.

 

[jumpship]

But the thing is, MLb isn't Sony 1st party game. It's a licensed game owned by mlb, It was exclusive to Sony, but not anymore. Think of it like yakuza series, but Sony studios make that game.

Sony only owns the studio that makes the game.

You’re agreeing with what I said. And I said if Sony were opposed to multiplatform releases they could’ve dropped the license and have the studio make another game.

 

[MasterCornholio]

You’re agreeing with what I said. And I said if Sony were opposed to multiplatform releases they could’ve dropped the license and have the studio make another game.

What I will say is that the gamepass release was definitely not their idea.

 

[feynoob]

What I will say is that the gamepass release was definitely not their idea.

It was never, considering how anti gamepass they are.
Mlb took that money bag, and MS run tons of ads with it.

It give us a couple of nice meme and few chuckles though

 

[MasterCornholio]

It was never, considering how anti gamepass they are.
Mlb took that money bag, and MS run tons of ads with it.

It give us a couple of nice meme and few chuckles though

I don't think its just an anti gamepass thing. They don't want to release 1st party games day one on a subscription service. Not theirs and definitely not their competitors.

 

[Drewpee]

It means nothing to regulators. They dont own a console in gaming industry. It would be a fast approval.

The argument against Microsoft hasn't been related to console sales, atleast as far as I've seen. Regulators seem worried about competition being restricted overall.

 

[feynoob]

I don't think its just an anti gamepass thing. They don't want to release 1st party games day one on a subscription service. Not theirs and definitely not their competitors.

Best word you looking for is day1 sub service.

 

[feynoob]

The argument against Microsoft hasn't been related to console sales, atleast as far as I've seen. Regulators seem worried about competition being restricted overall.

It's about COD, which affects consoles. Throw that away and this deal would pass super fast.

 

[MasterCornholio]

Best word you looking for is day1 sub service.

I'm correct about that because it didn't release day one on Playstation plus. The MLB has no control over what Sony owns.

 

[Pelta88]

Two questions:

What happens if Microsoft is forced to back out of the acquisition? Activision was looking to be sold and its not like regulators can force them to stay in business.

IF Microsoft is forced to cut COD from the deal, who will own/support the IP and who will be required to fund them? This route is highly unlikely (Microsoft would probably just kill deal) but I am curious about how the process works.

Topher pretty much nailed it but I'll add one extra bit of info...

Microsoft would have to pay Activision 2 - 3 Billion if the deal falls through as part of the agreement deal both parties signed, to begin talks.

https://wccftech.com/microsoft-to-p...f-activision-blizzard-deal-doesnt-go-through/

 

[Drewpee]

It's about COD, which affects consoles. Throw that away and this deal would pass super fast.

Microsoft has offered a ten year contract to Sony and Phil said COD would be on PlayStation as long as PlayStation exists. If the deal is still rejected I'm not sure what else another company might be able to offer.

 

[feynoob]

Microsoft has offered a ten year contract to Sony and Phil said COD would be on PlayStation as long as PlayStation exists. If the deal is still rejected I'm not sure what else another company might be able to offer.

Tell that to Sony. They dont won't that. They want this deal dead.

 

[anthony2690]

 

[Mibu no ookami]

So what would be their interest in buying a company like Activision?

Let's say Meta wanted to grow their VR division so they buy Activision with that goal in mind. Do you think they'd allow their VR games to be released on other VR headsets?

Maybe Amazon wants to grow their streaming service. Do you think they'd let their games be released on Gamepass or PS+?

There is not a company out there that would buy Activision with the goal of keeping them as they are.

Their interest in buying a company like Activision would be to get their foot into the door of gaming.

Really depends on what company you're talking about, but they all have their own interests.

If Meta buys Call of Duty, I think they keep the games multiplatform, but VR only being on the Oculus store.

Amazon wants to get into gaming, Call of Duty advances that. I think they would have CoD be on Luna, but they'd maintain the status quo as well. Not PS+ or GamePass though.

Whether it is Apple, Meta, or Amazon, I could see the status quo largely being upheld unless they specifically want to put out a console, but that's farfetched for any of them with only Activision.

 

[Banjo64]

It's about COD, which affects consoles. Throw that away and this deal would pass super fast.

I think CoD is a red herring. The deal is definitely twin pillared for Microsoft’s obvious gain in CoD and King - however the potential for data harvesting/tailoring content, combined with their infrastructure and potential to strong-arm existing players/prevent future entrants just makes the entire package pretty unappealing at a time where people are sick to the back teeth of mega corps. I personally hope it’s killed stone dead at this point. People are focusing on CoD/Sony but it’s much more than that, they are just grabbing the headlines and clicks because it’s drama, whereas there’s not much drama talking about how MS could gain an unfair advantage by knowing your mobile gaming/web browsing and console gaming habits.

 

[CatLady]

Here:

Source:
https://www.bungie.net/en/News/Article/50989

They could not have made it any clearer.

That doesn't specify which platforms Bungie games will be on in the future. That is far, far vaguer than anything Phil has said about CoD. Phil has offered a contract for CoD for 10 years on PlayStation. Please show me where that statement guarantees Bungie games will be on Xbox.

 

[feynoob]

I think CoD is a red herring. The deal is definitely twin pillared for Microsoft’s obvious gain in CoD and King - however the potential for data harvesting/tailoring content, combined with their infrastructure and potential to strong-arm existing players/prevent future entrants just makes the entire package pretty unappealing at a time where people are sick to the back teeth of mega corps. I personally hope it’s killed stone dead at this point. People are focusing on CoD/Sony but it’s much more than that, they are just grabbing the headlines and clicks because it’s drama, whereas there’s not much drama talking about how MS could gain an unfair advantage by knowing your mobile gaming/web browsing and console gaming habits.

Your point is most bizarre thing I have read from this post.
MS has enough data. They don't need your COD info, when you are essentially using windows computer, office, teams and their other products. The data they currently have is crazy.
You should be more worried about these.

 

[freefornow]

Both times Sony agreed.

With Bungie, remaining multiplatform was a Bungie requirment of the deal. Sony had to agree for the deal to go through.

 

[CatLady]

Gears hopefully! I would love a next-gen showcase surprise trailer that'll blow everyone away like that Hellblade 2 trailer, yeah they better not skip it

That would be SOOOOO awesome. I'm dying to see what The Coalition will do with Gears using UE5. Hivebusters was one of the best-looking games of this or last gen. I think Gears 6 is going to be insane.

 

[Banjo64]

Your point is most bizarre thing I have read from this post.
MS has enough data. They don't need your COD info, when you are essentially using windows computer, office, teams and their other products. The data they currently have is crazy.
You should be more worried about these.

Your just listing PC stuff, which is what they’re good at. This is them trying to get their tendrils in to every aspect of your life.

 

[Three]

That doesn't specify which platforms Bungie games will be on in the future. That is far, far vaguer than anything Phil has said about CoD. Phil has offered a contract for CoD for 10 years on PlayStation. Please show me where that statement guarantees Bungie games will be on Xbox.

So I guess xbox isn't a place you play games. They say extend to "anywhere people play games". That includes xbox. Bungie self publish independently even as a subsidiary. They have their own goals of maximising their own game publishing business. It's part of the deal.

 

[Topher]

With Bungie, remaining multiplatform was a Bungie requirment of the deal. Sony had to agree for the deal to go through.

No one knows that to be true.

 

[adamsapple]

Xbox camps vs PS camps.

Do we really need to do this shit until June?

 

[MasterCornholio]

With Bungie, remaining multiplatform was a Bungie requirment of the deal. Sony had to agree for the deal to go through.

It's also speculated to be a concession so regulators wouldn't complain about it.

 

[Banjo64]

Your point is most bizarre thing I have read from this post.

And I take issue with that unless you’ve blocked SenjutsuSage

 

[MasterCornholio]

And I take issue with that unless you’ve blocked SenjutsuSage

 

[jumpship]

With Bungie, remaining multiplatform was a Bungie requirment of the deal. Sony had to agree for the deal to go through.

Yep Sony agreed to Bungies terms to stay multiplatform. If Sony says no negotiations instantly stops there. Reinforcing the fact Sony are okay to release multiplatform games on Xbox.

Which goes back to my question why some Xbox fans would be surprised to see Xbox releases from Bungie.

 

[feynoob]

And I take issue with that unless you’ve blocked SenjutsuSage

His points are genie words. It's hard to comprehend it.
Only DarkMage619 can come close to that.

Your points are human level. We can understand them

 

[MasterCornholio]

Yep Sony agreed to Bungies terms to stay multiplatform. If Sony says no negotiations instantly stops there. Reinforcing the fact Sony are okay to release multiplatform games on Xbox.

Which goes back to my question why some Xbox fans would be surprised to see Xbox releases from Bungie.

Sony values the aid that Bungie can provide over Bungie games being exclusive. But then again if they exclude Xbox they would lose a lot of revenue from Bungies GaaS titles.

 

[Menzies]

So I guess xbox isn't a place you play games. They say extend to "anywhere people play games". That includes xbox. Bungie self publish independently even as a subsidiary. They have their own goals of maximising their own game publishing business. It's part of the deal.

From what I understand it’s not available on the Switch though, and rumours suggest it may come to the platform via streaming only(?)

If the Bungie commitment can side step native releases then that’s not anywhere near comparable.

 

[Menzies]

I think CoD is a red herring. The deal is definitely twin pillared for Microsoft’s obvious gain in CoD and King - however the potential for data harvesting/tailoring content, combined with their infrastructure and potential to strong-arm existing players/prevent future entrants just makes the entire package pretty unappealing at a time where people are sick to the back teeth of mega corps. I personally hope it’s killed stone dead at this point. People are focusing on CoD/Sony but it’s much more than that, they are just grabbing the headlines and clicks because it’s drama, whereas there’s not much drama talking about how MS could gain an unfair advantage by knowing your mobile gaming/web browsing and console gaming habits.

I’d like to get an APB for one of these genuine “new entrants”, been MIA for the past 20+ years, yet still presumed at large by the CMA.

Unless you’re referring to Google and Amazon, who have invested and committed into gaming all the way up to their big toes. They have the resources and ability to compete subsequent this deal.

 

[Banjo64]

I’d like to get an APB for one of these genuine “new entrants”, been MIA for the past 20+ years, yet still presumed at large by the CMA.

Unless you’re referring to Google and Amazon, who have invested and committed into gaming all the way up to their big toes. They have the resources and ability to compete subsequent this deal.

I don’t have a crystal ball sorry, can’t tell you who it would be. Maybe SEGA could give it another crack. Maybe Atari. We may never see the Commodore 128 if Microsoft buy Activision.

 

[CatLady]

Microsoft has offered a ten year contract to Sony and Phil said COD would be on PlayStation as long as PlayStation exists. If the deal is still rejected I'm not sure what else another company might be able to offer.

In Sony's response they've said NOTHING is acceptable or adequate and CMA simply has to reject the deal entirely. I don't know what another company could offer that would satisfy them and another company might not be willing to give them a 10-year contract, let alone a forever contract and with all the other stipulations they are demanding.

 

[CatLady]

It's also speculated to be a concession so regulators wouldn't complain about it.

I think that's very possible and could be likely to change after A/B/K is settled one way or another.

 

[MasterCornholio]

I think that's very possible and could be likely to change after A/B/K is settled one way or another.

If its a concession with regulators it probably won't.