Support NeoGAF

[MarkMe2525]

I'm not sure I see the loss of context. If your belief was that they wouldn't allow their IPs on xbox why not just say that?

Why frame it as if it was disingenuous because they had nothing to offer as a service on another device except multiplayer, deals and a couple of games? That an equivalent didn't exist.

You don't see the loss of context because my original post originated in another thread, with a different headline, referencing a specific article. Reasons why PS Now PlayStation Plus Extra/ Premium are not offered on Xbox are irrelevant to my original point, thats why I "didnt just say that".

I specifically brought up PS+ because that is what the article, referenced in the other thread, stated. If it would have referenced PlayStation Plus Extra or Premium or PS Now, I would have addressed those.

Regardless, I made myself clear earlier and there really hasn't been any reason to continue on with this pointless conversation full of misrepresentation and out of context quotes. I stated my opinion, if you disagree, that's perfectly fine with me. If you can find the original article, that was referenced in the other thread, and point out a mistake a made, please do so.

 

[Swift_Star]

That maybe so. But that doesn't answer the real question here does it?

Doesn't matter. It's fun either way.

 

[DarkMage619]

I don't care if people troll. It's the low effort stuff

I said last week that this was not about Sony at this point. I'm glad people are finally realizing this.

Well Sony is the number one company complaining. It is new that despite the protestations it wasn't about MS taking CoD from PlayStation gamers it appears to just be that Sony doesn't like it and that is hardly a reason to deny the deal especially with other parties that benefit from it. Why does Sony's interests matter the most. Market leaders don't need protection.

The fairness is about fairness to the consumers that benefit most when the balance of power to choose is held by them and not trillion-dollar companies. The regulators in the UK are as much an extension of the public view and government view - including the wisdom within the Lords - to reasonably assess things without reducing it to who can provided the best legal argument. Just look at how telecoms regulation works in the UK to see that more often than not our regulators get things more right than wrong.

Being morally right for the market trumps any legally bent argument IMO, following along the maxim of "the law is an ass!".

This has nothing to do with unfairness or morality. That is not the standard acquisitions are made. There is no law stating that big companies are not allowed to make big purchases. Was there anything stopping any other party from making a bid? Did MS lie, cheat, or steal to make this acquisition? You think so? Prove it in court. That is how civilized societies function. I'm certain you would not want to be jailed based off of someones feelings and not you actually breaking the law. THAT would be unfair.

About unfairness. What about the unfairness of Activision employees working for a guy who hasn't had their best interests in mind for quite a while. Activision was a mess with all sorts of legal issues and I didn't see any other entity doing anything about it. MS also happened to accept the idea of unions in gaming for the first time. What other platform holder accepted that? Maybe this deal is more than what people here are arguing over.

I don't care who is making the purchase, legality is what should determine the allowance of a sale not the irrational feelings of certain video game fans. MS is not a monopoly in gaming and no consumers are harmed by this transaction. That is what actually matters when it comes to acquiring a company.

Sony through their actions has proven that their opposition has nothing to do with their viability as a company or their ability to compete. It appears that since they could not purchase Activision themselves they are hoping to just block it altogether using regulators to do what they could not. We'll see if that strategy works but not being entirely honest isn't a great way forward.

 

[bitbydeath]

Did MS lie, cheat, or steal to make this acquisition? You think so? Prove it in court.

Nvidias acquisition of ARM fell through for the same reasons Sony and others have presented about MS and Activision.

NVIDIA got blocked because there was a possibility that they'd make arm either exclusive or use it to price gouge the competition.

 

[R3claimer117]

Nvidias acquisition of ARM fell through for the same reasons Sony and others have presented about MS and Activision.

NVIDIA got blocked because there was a possibility that they'd make arm either exclusive or use it to price gouge the competition.

Lmao in what world is Microsoft buying of activision the same as arm and nvidia ? Like come on now like if you're not going to even try this is ludicrous.

 

[MarkMe2525]

Nvidias acquisition of ARM fell through for the same reasons Sony and others have presented about MS and Activision.

NVIDIA got blocked because there was a possibility that they'd make arm either exclusive or use it to price gouge the competition.

Arm is the backbone of almost all mobile computing platforms. CoD is not this to the video game industry. It is not the same reason as this is a false equivalence.

Neofire Not triggered, just speaking facts. Did this trigger you by chance?

 

[Neofire]

Nvidias acquisition of ARM fell through for the same reasons Sony and others have presented about MS and Activision.

NVIDIA got blocked because there was a possibility that they'd make arm either exclusive or use it to price gouge the competition.

I agree with this analogy in some ways. I see that the rebuttals always point out only CoD when ABK has so many IPs that they make money off of as well but I guess people can stay delusional that MS is trying to spend 70B(Billion with a B)just for CoD lol.

 

[Topher]

Nvidias acquisition of ARM fell through for the same reasons Sony and others have presented about MS and Activision.

NVIDIA got blocked because there was a possibility that they'd make arm either exclusive or use it to price gouge the competition.

That was a much different scenario to what is happening with Microsoft and Activision. Arm's impact in being acquired is a truly global issue. Much bigger deal than video games.

 

[bitbydeath]

Lmao in what world is Microsoft buying of activision the same as arm and nvidia ? Like come on now like if you're not going to even try this is ludicrous.

Arm is the backbone of almost all mobile computing platforms. CoD is not this to the video game industry. It is not the same reason as this is a false equivalence.

Neofire Not triggered, just speaking facts. Did this trigger you by chance?

I agree with this analogy in some ways. I see that the rebuttals always point out only CoD when ABK has so many IPs that they make money off of as well but I guess people can stay delusional that MS is trying to spend 70B(Billion with a B)just for CoD lol.

That was a much different scenario to what is happening with Microsoft and Activision. Arm's impact in being acquired is a truly global issue. Much bigger deal than video games.

I was pointing out how it worked.
You can claim there is or isn't a strong enough case for it, but that's still how it works.

 

[feynoob]

Nvidias acquisition of ARM fell through for the same reasons Sony and others have presented about MS and Activision.

Not the same. ARM was basically steam. Now imagine MS buying steam. That is what ARM is to manufacturer, just like how steam is to PC. ARM chip was vital to alot of electronic devices.

NVIDIA got blocked because there was a possibility that they'd make arm either exclusive or use it to price gouge the competition.

Correct. Imagine a world, which only 1 company controls majority of chips. That is a bad deal for everyone.

The deal was ultimately doomed because it concerned access to chip designs used in everything from cell phones to data centers, said Alan Pelz-Sharpe, founder of analyst firm Deep Analysis. He said there was also concern Nvidia could restrict access to those designs.

The deal, which would have blown apart the balance of power in the microprocessor industry, already attracted intense scrutiny from regulators both in the U.S. and abroad. Industry heavyweights ranging from Qualcomm (QCOM) to Google (GOOG, GOOGL) also came out against the move, arguing it would consolidate too much power in Nvidia's hands.

Regulators in the U.K were looking into the deal for potential national security concerns — Arm is based in Cambridge — and the move still needed to pass muster in both the European Union and China. It was a long shot from the start.

 

[bitbydeath]

Not the same. ARM was basically steam. Now imagine MS buying steam. That is what ARM is to manufacturer, just like how steam is to PC. ARM chip was vital to alot of electronic devices.

Correct. Imagine a world, which only 1 company controls majority of chips. That is a bad deal for everyone.

Read my post above.

 

[MarkMe2525]

I was pointing out how it worked.
You can claim there is or isn't a strong enough case for it, but that's still how it works.

I got ya. Admittedly, you were playing with fire with that analogy, but I get what you mean.

 

[feynoob]

Read my post above.

I was pointing out how it worked.
You can claim there is or isn't a strong enough case for it, but that's still how it works.

Your claim wont work, Since CMA disagrees with you here.
Activision doesnt have big market share in the gaming sphere. Only notable IP on console is COD (Can tilt the balance, but not like ARM).
CMA is ready for concession with MS. Not out right block it.

On other hand,
Here is ARM market share

Huge difference.

 

[bitbydeath]

Your claim wont work, Since CMA disagrees with you here.
Activision doesnt have big market share in the gaming sphere. Only notable IP on console is COD (Can tilt the balance, but not like ARM).
CMA is ready for concession with MS. Not out right block it.

On other hand,
Here is ARM market share

Huge difference.

I don't think you're understanding what I wrote. It doesn't matter what YOU or what YOU think CMA would/wouldn't do, that's still a viable criticism.

 

[freefornow]

Well Sony is the number one company complaining.

Speaking of which, is there a list of the other respondants who have filed their "objections"?

 

[ReBurn]

Nvidias acquisition of ARM fell through for the same reasons Sony and others have presented about MS and Activision.

NVIDIA got blocked because there was a possibility that they'd make arm either exclusive or use it to price gouge the competition.

Nvidia's acquisition of ARM fell through for completely different reasons. Multiple chipmakers are making and selling chips based on ARM design. It would have given one chipmaker control over how its rivals design and build ARM-based chips.

Microsoft buying Activision does not materially change or give Microsoft control over how other companies design or build video games. They don't control how other companies create and distribute MMO's, mobile games, military shooters, or any other games. The distribution channels don't change much from what they are now aside from there's one less publisher out there and game pass potentially gets more games.

If the assumption here is that CoD has the same impact as ARM then I'm sorry, but that's just not true. Sony losing CoD doesn't stop them from being able to design, build, or distribute video games. Nvidia owning ARM could have prevented many companies from doing business at all.

 

[feynoob]

I don't think you're understanding what I wrote. It doesn't matter what YOU or what YOU think CMA would/wouldn't do, that's still a viable criticism.

The difference is, your criticism doesnt make a sense.
As I stated, only COD is big notable of Activision IP. Other than that, they dont offer that much to Consoles.
Warzone: Free
Overwatch 2: Free
Diablo, not a console swing. Just normal IP like regular one.

COD tilts the balance due to a yearly release. Take that away, and activision becomes like everyone. There is a limit to how much yearly the game can sustain, before burning down.

So consoles wise, not a game a changer aside of COD. And this can be fixed by a concession. IF MS offers (10 years), and not take the game away, CMA would approve it. Granted MS meets their other 2 concerns, which is cloud and Sub service.

 

[bitbydeath]

Nvidia's acquisition of ARM fell through for completely different reasons. Multiple chipmakers are making and selling chips based on ARM design. It would have given one chipmaker control over how its rivals design and build ARM-based chips.

Microsoft buying Activision does not materially change or give Microsoft control over how other companies design or build video games. They don't control how other companies create and distribute MMO's, mobile games, military shooters, or any other games. The distribution channels don't change much from what they are now aside from there's one less publisher out there and game pass potentially gets more games.

If the assumption here is that CoD has the same impact as ARM then I'm sorry, but that's just not true. Sony losing CoD doesn't stop them from being able to design, build, or distribute video games. Nvidia owning ARM could have prevented many companies from doing business at all.

You're missing the point.
The scales are different but it's the same argument.

 

[bitbydeath]

The difference is, your criticism doesnt make a sense.
As I stated, only COD is big notable of Activision IP. Other than that, they dont offer that much to Consoles.
Warzone: Free
Overwatch 2: Free
Diablo, not a console swing. Just normal IP like regular one.

COD tilts the balance due to a yearly release. Take that away, and activision becomes like everyone. There is a limit to how much yearly the game can sustain, before burning down.

So consoles wise, not a game a changer aside of COD. And this can be fixed by a concession. IF MS offers (10 years), and not take the game away, CMA would approve it. Granted MS meets their other 2 concerns, which is cloud and Sub service.

I'm not going to argue any of that.
The point is the tactic can be used to draw out concessions or get acquisitions blocked.
The rest is neither here nor there.

 

[feynoob]

I'm not going to argue any of that.
The point is the tactic can be used to draw out concessions or get acquisitions blocked.
The rest is neither here nor there.

CMA already did that.

Sub service and cloud gaming.

 

[bitbydeath]

CMA already did that.

Sub service and cloud gaming.

I was responding to someone who thought it was more about if MS didn't cross their t's and dot their i's.

 

[ReBurn]

You're missing the point.
The scales are different but it's the same argument.

It's not the same argument at all. It's not even close to the same scenario.

Nvidia owning ARM could have put companies like Apple and Ampere out of business. Microsoft owning CoD gives Sony a haircut when the marketing deal expires and they can't print console boxes with Call of Duty on them any more.

 

[bitbydeath]

It's not the same argument at all. It's not even close to the same scenario.

Nvidia owning ARM could have put companies like Apple and Ampere out of business. Microsoft owning CoD gives Sony a haircut when the marketing deal expires and they can't print console boxes with Call of Duty on them any more.

It is the same argument, again you're looking at scale. The argument is the same.

 

[ReBurn]

It is the same argument, again you're looking at scale. The argument is the same.

How is it the same? How does Microsoft control Sony's entire future, or that of any of their competitors, by purchasing Activision? Where is the potential to prevent Sony from being able to make any more video games?

 

[bitbydeath]

How is it the same? How does Microsoft control Sony's entire future, or that of any of their competitors, by purchasing Activision? Where is the potential to prevent Sony from being able to make any more video games?

That's been their argument, and not just Sony but any new companies trying to break into the console business wouldn't be able to compete.

 

[ReBurn]

That's been their argument, and not just Sony but any new companies trying to break into the console business wouldn't be able to compete.

This acquisition doesn't prevent new companies from trying to break into the console market. A new entrant would have to contend with all of the companies already there. How would it be easier with Sony at #1 and Microsoft at #3 than with Sony at #1 and Microsoft at #2?

Intellivision Amico is going to fail just as hard regardless of this acquisition.

 

[bitbydeath]

This acquisition doesn't prevent new companies from trying to break into the console market. A new entrant would have to contend with all of the companies already there. How would it be easier with Sony at #1 and Microsoft at #3 than with Sony at #1 and Microsoft at #2?

Intellivision Amico is going to fail just as hard regardless of this acquisition.

I'm not going to argue any of the specifics, that's rabbit hole territory.

 

[ReBurn]

I'm not going to argue any of the specifics, that's rabbit hole territory.

The specifics are what makes the difference. You can't argue the specifics because there aren't any.

The ARM deal has no parallels with this deal. It would have allowed one company to have direct influence over how every one of their rivals design and build ARM-based microprocessors. Sony potentially loses out some third party games in an industry built on buying exclusivity.

 

[gothmog]

This acquisition doesn't prevent new companies from trying to break into the console market. A new entrant would have to contend with all of the companies already there. How would it be easier with Sony at #1 and Microsoft at #3 than with Sony at #1 and Microsoft at #2?

Intellivision Amico is going to fail just as hard regardless of this acquisition.

Having to negotiate with Microsoft for what used to be third party games on your new console might keep you out of the market. Or, MS could use your need to compete to force GamePass onto your console. Think Apple's AppStore level walled garden but device agnostic. Microsoft has been dreaming of having that for years.

 

[DarkMage619]

Having to negotiate with Microsoft for what used to be third party games on your new console might keep you out of the market. Or, MS could use your need to compete to force GamePass onto your console. Think Apple's AppStore level walled garden but device agnostic. Microsoft has been dreaming of having that for years.

You realize there will still be third party games even if MS acquires Activision right? Game pass also wasn't the first or only game subscription service. This doesn't seem like a realistic concern.

This acquisition doesn't prevent new companies from trying to break into the console market. A new entrant would have to contend with all of the companies already there. How would it be easier with Sony at #1 and Microsoft at #3 than with Sony at #1 and Microsoft at #2?

Intellivision Amico is going to fail just as hard regardless of this acquisition.

Looks like Luna also may be on the way out and it certainly isn't because MS is trying to buy Activision. People are just throwing anything against the wall to see what sticks.

 

[bitbydeath]

The specifics are what makes the difference. You can't argue the specifics because there aren't any.

The ARM deal has no parallels with this deal. It would have allowed one company to have direct influence over how every one of their rivals design and build ARM-based microprocessors. Sony potentially loses out some third party games in an industry built on buying exclusivity.

You can disagree with what's been argued, but that's what is being argued and has been proven to have been taken very seriously in the past. I'm not going to bother with discussing who's right/wrong.

 

[yurinka]

Very true its not explicitly spelled out that Sony offered PS+ to Xbox on (insert date and time here) but I can imagine some talks have happened for MS to have prohibited it from appearing on Xbox

Honestly in the end though

Sony never said that they offered PS+ to Xbox or something like that. What they said is that MS doesn't allow it.

Doesn't make sense to think that Sony asked MS to put PS+ there when Sony doesn't publish the PS Studios games on Xbox and doesn't intend to do so. In fact, if they would want to bring it to other platform they'd bring it to PC, a way bigger market than Xbox, where they already have published games and where they don't need to ask permission or pay the 30% to anyone.

 

[yurinka]

Which is exactly why I said Playstation Tiers, because it has barely existed. What you wanted Microsoft to put PS+ 2 monthly free games and online play for Playstations on Xbox? It doesn't make sense unless it was more like Game Pass which they eventually tried to create.

It's the opposite: Game Pass was released later copying what Sony had done years before: first a game sub for a few monthly games and later a multiplatform all you can eat subscription with hundreds of games and cloud gaming.

And I think Xbox is a too small market to get the interest for Sony to put their game sub there. They make way more money with game subs than MS focusing only on PS. If they expand their game sub to other platforms would be in much bigger platforms, like mobile or PC.

 

[feynoob]

It's the opposite: Game Pass was released later copying what Sony had done years before: first a game sub for a few monthly games and later a multiplatform all you can eat subscription with hundreds of games and cloud gaming.

Gamepass wasn't a copy from Sony.
It was going to be a rent model, before they change it to gamepass, that is now.

And I think Xbox is a too small market to get the interest for Sony to put their game sub there. They make way more money with game subs than MS focusing only on PS. If they expand their game sub to other platforms would be in much bigger platforms, like mobile or PC.

Sony won't even do that. They never went after pc, until their studio beg them. That is how we got gow on pc, and the rest is history.
Sony is somewhat like Nintendo. They won't share their games with anyone. Especially Xbox.

 

[Warablo]

It's the opposite: Game Pass was released later copying what Sony had done years before: first a game sub for a few monthly games and later a multiplatform all you can eat subscription with hundreds of games and cloud gaming.

And I think Xbox is a too small market to get the interest for Sony to put their game sub there. They make way more money with game subs than MS focusing only on PS. If they expand their game sub to other platforms would be in much bigger platforms, like mobile or PC.

PS Now was their solution for backwards compatible initially and streaming only, PS+ was invented because they saw Xbox make a ton of free money with Xbox Live Gold and needed some type of service for revenue that wasn't "stellar" online. Later adopting needing it for online play like Xbox Live Gold in the coming generation.

 

[onesvenus]

If Microsoft didn't confirm the numbers, then it is hard to rule out that some of those players might have been part of some heavy network load testing using AI prior to launch and don't indicate real purchase numbers.

Assuming you are serious here. Should we make up the number of GoW sales that are from scalpers and resellers? Those don't indicate real purchase numbers either

 

[onesvenus]

It hit 1.5m playerbase. Once the game was live on gamepass, it went to 2.75m on the launch day. then the rest is history.
It never hit 2m before gamepass.

I never said it reached 2M but thanks for correcting the original poster and yourself by pointing that in fact it was north of 1M.

 

[yurinka]

PS Now was their solution for backwards compatible initially and streaming only, PS+ was invented because they saw Xbox make a ton of free money with Xbox Live Gold and needed some type of service for revenue that wasn't "stellar" online. Later adopting needing it for online play like Xbox Live Gold in the coming generation.

No, according to what they said when announcing it, the original vision of PS Now was to have in the long term hundreds of games from all PlayStation generation playable in the cloud in console, handheld, PC, mobile and tvs. Starting to stream PS3 and to do it in PS4 was just the start. They also mentioned there (and also patented) to have cloud demos of their games, something that MS also ended implementing before after Sony announced and patented it.

PS+ started as a game subscription where you got games to download from different PlayStations, discounts and full game trials. They did it for several years before MS released Games with Gold. When PS started they didn't include online play there, it was free for PS, the paid online (for non F2P games) wasn't added until PS4. When that PS4 generation started was also when MS started to include games.

PS+ was released in 2010, 3 years before Games with Gold debuted in 2013, the year when PlayStation Now was announced (it was released months later, in January 2014) as an all-you-can-eat (cloud gaming) subscription with hundreds of games. PS Now added downloadable games in 2018. Game Pass was released in 2017 as (download only) subscription of hundreds of games and got cloud gaming in 2020, 6 years after PS Now.

Same goes with motion gaming. Sony first shown publicly the Eyetoy camera and Move Controller prototype in the year 2000. Eyetoy was released in 2003 and Kinect was released in 2010. Same with Cross-Buy: Sony released it on 2012 and MS announced their own version Play Anywhere in 2016.

 

[Balducci30]

god the back and forth with this deal is so dumb. Microsoft really should spend that 70 billion elsewhere - I don't get why they're fighting for it to go through in any way. I can't imagine they won't bail soon if the pushback continues

 

[DenchDeckard]

Nvidias acquisition of ARM fell through for the same reasons Sony and others have presented about MS and Activision.

NVIDIA got blocked because there was a possibility that they'd make arm either exclusive or use it to price gouge the competition.

Please, tell me you know the difference here.

 

[Menzies]

Please, tell me you know the difference here.

Now, now let's not get into specifics

 

[bitbydeath]

Please, tell me you know the difference here.

Please, tell me you understand how it's the same thing.

 

[Three]

Speaking of which, is there a list of the other respondants who have filed their "objections"?

They are anonymous but I believe some cloud gaming providers have.

 

[Three]

Please, tell me you know the difference here.

"Did Nvidia, lie, cheat, or steal to make this acquisition? You think so? Prove it in court."

Clearly that's not what this is about. Like the nvidia deal it's about lessening of competition through IP control that others rely on. Whether it's as impactful or not is not what's being discussed.

 

[DenchDeckard]

"Did Nvidia, lie, cheat, or steal to make this acquisition? You think so? Prove it in court."

Clearly that's not what this is about. Like the nvidia deal it's about lessening of competition through IP control that others rely on. Whether it's as impactful or not is not what's being discussed.

I'm saying. Arm makes chips for everyone, pretty much the only manufacturer of these chips.

To even try and find similarities with that deal and this is insanity.

 

[The_Mike]

Please, tell me you know the difference here.

You are arguing with a person who believes Windows is a wallet garden.

 

[DenchDeckard]

You are arguing with a person who believes Windows is a wallet garden.

I'm not even going to try and entertain it actually. These peeps are high as fook and drunk on the kool aid lol

 

[bitbydeath]

I'm saying. Arm makes chips for everyone, pretty much the only manufacturer of these chips.

To even try and find similarities with that deal and this is insanity.

Activision makes COD for everyone, pretty much the only publisher of these games.

It really isn't that difficult to see the similarities, it's right there in the statements.

Whether you agree or not about its importance is irrelevant. It's not for us to decide.

 

[bitbydeath]

You are arguing with a person who believes Windows is a wallet garden.

Wallet garden?

 

[Three]

I'm saying. Arm makes chips for everyone, pretty much the only manufacturer of these chips.

To even try and find similarities with that deal and this is insanity.

ARM doesn't make the chips. They licence the design to other companies. Nvidia's argument was that they would continue to license it to other companies after the deal.

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/202...-says-arm-will-keep-a-neutral-business-model/

Sound familiar to you? As I said nobody is suggesting that the deal has the same impact or not because "this is just gaming" or whatever. That's for the regulators but the argument is the same and not about MS or Nvidia "lying, cheating or stealing".