Support NeoGAF

[R3claimer117]

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.

Lol you still carrying on with this take? Sony literally had spider man and mlb as an exclusive last generation. Activision was also the only maker of Spider-Man games for everyone. When it went exclusive it sold like 35 million plus on PlayStation yet Microsoft who didn't have that or a baseball game continued to exist. Even with Sony outselling them almost 3:1 they continue to exist. Sony losing cod will also continue to exist and they'll never be in that 3:1 hole like Microsoft regardless if they have or don't have call of duty. There would have been literally no competition if nvidia bought arm who designs Mobile chips for literally everyone that's a different scale then one game title don't be facetious.

 

[ReBurn]

"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.

The Nvidia deal wouldn't have lessened competition. It would have given Nvidia direct influence over every other company that creates chips based on ARM and would have set up a business environment where Nvidia could eliminate competition by restricting or denying licenses.

Unless you legitimately believe that the acquisition of Activision by Microsoft could result in Sony and Nintendo being forced to make video games the way Microsoft dictates, or to buy a license from Microsoft to even be able to make video games, then there aren't any parallels to be drawn here.

 

[Three]

The Nvidia deal wouldn't have lessened competition.

Where are you getting that crazy idea from?

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/11/nvi...ight-back-as-cma-considers-blocking-deal.html

 

[Godot25]

If I understood correctly, Microsoft offered Sony 10-year COD deal to get them on board of this deal and stop being whiny bitches, but Sony stayed silent/refused that 10 year deal, so now Microsoft is taking that 10-year deal proposal to the regulators (at least European Commission according to Reuters), right?

By that they can paint themselves in good light and can point to hypocrisy of Sony. Because Sony arguments to get this deal blocked is based almost entirely around potential exclusivity of Call of Duty. And Microsoft then can say "look, we offered them Call of Duty until at least 2035, and they refused, so they are bullshiting you."

It's pretty clear, that Sony was using "we will loose Call of Duty" argument as a vessel. But their real goal is to get this deal blocked, because they are afraid of Call of Duty in Game Pass. That's why they probably refused that 10-year deal. Because they are still smelling chance to block it.

 

[ReBurn]

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 actually make chips for everyone. ARM works with companies to design chips based on ARM specifications or they license ARM to companies to base their own chips on. Apple silicon is based on ARM and manufactured by Apple under license from ARM.

If Nvidia owned ARM they could restrict companies that rely on ARM architecture from designing or manufacturing new chips by limiting implementation of or withholding parts of the design specification, or by making licensing so expensive that other companies can't afford to make their own chips.

Activision doesn't have nearly the influence in the video game industry that ARM has in the semiconductor industry. Video game companies don't live or die based upon whether Activision releases Call of Duty on their platform. If that were the case Nintendo would be dead right now. Microsoft making CoD more expensive for PlayStation wouldn't make it impossible for Sony to make their own video games.

People comparing this deal to the ARM deal are indulging in hyperbole of the most absurd nature.

 

[ReBurn]

Where are you getting that crazy idea from?

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/11/nvi...ight-back-as-cma-considers-blocking-deal.html

The sentence you didn't quote explains where I got that idea from. Please read it.

 

[Three]

The sentence you didn't quote explains where I got that idea from. Please read it.

It would have reduced competition by restricting or degrading access to ARM IPs. You just fail to see the parallel even if you think it is more damaging.

"Our analysis shows that the acquisition of Arm by Nvidia could lead to restricted or degraded access to Arm's IP, with distortive effects in many markets where semiconductors are used," she added.

In their submission, Nvidia and Arm attempted to downplay the assertion that the deal could cut off competitors from key Arm technology.

"The theory does not hold up to scrutiny," they wrote. "Trying to foreclose Arm licensees would immediately reduce Arm's licensing revenue, immediately damaging Nvidia's investment. No economically rational, publicly traded entity would embrace such a self-defeating strategy."

 

[gothmog]

If I understood correctly, Microsoft offered Sony 10-year COD deal to get them on board of this deal and stop being whiny bitches, but Sony stayed silent/refused that 10 year deal, so now Microsoft is taking that 10-year deal proposal to the regulators (at least European Commission according to Reuters), right?

By that they can paint themselves in good light and can point to hypocrisy of Sony. Because Sony arguments to get this deal blocked is based almost entirely around potential exclusivity of Call of Duty. And Microsoft then can say "look, we offered them Call of Duty until at least 2035, and they refused, so they are bullshiting you."

It's pretty clear, that Sony was using "we will loose Call of Duty" argument as a vessel. But their real goal is to get this deal blocked, because they are afraid of Call of Duty in Game Pass. That's why they probably refused that 10-year deal. Because they are still smelling chance to block it.

Sony responded as was asked by the regulators and told a worst case scenario backed by data. What else were they supposed to do?

It's obvious that Microsoft knew Sony would have an issue with it. Doesn't take a genius to know that. That's why they offered three and now ten years.

 

[DarkMage619]

It would have reduced competition by restricting or degrading access to ARM IPs. You just fail to see the parallel even if you think it is more damaging.

"Our analysis shows that the acquisition of Arm by Nvidia could lead to restricted or degraded access to Arm's IP, with distortive effects in many markets where semiconductors are used," she added.

In their submission, Nvidia and Arm attempted to downplay the assertion that the deal could cut off competitors from key Arm technology.

"The theory does not hold up to scrutiny," they wrote. "Trying to foreclose Arm licensees would immediately reduce Arm's licensing revenue, immediately damaging Nvidia's investment. No economically rational, publicly traded entity would embrace such a self-defeating strategy."

No one is disputing the Nvidia/ARM deal had industry wide implications to any company that relied on their chip designs, which was almost everyone. What we ARE disputing is that deal is in any way related to MS buying a game publisher. It is not even in the same stratosphere of significance and to relate them comes across more of a bad faith comparison than a legitimate counterpoint. Again if Sony felt that CoD was a 'input' to their presence in video games they would have accepted MS 10 year offer. They instead moved the goal posts and made new and even less reasonable demands. It is a game they are playing I hope the regulators see it for what it is.

 

[Godot25]

Sony responded as was asked by the regulators and told a worst case scenario backed by data. What else were they supposed to do?

It's obvious that Microsoft knew Sony would have an issue with it. Doesn't take a genius to know that. That's why they offered three and now ten years.

From what I saw documents (mainly from CMA), Sony's main argument was: "We will loose Call of Duty, and by that millions of players and that will drive us out of business" (I'm using hyperbole).

But if Sony refused even 10-year deal, Microsoft can point on this with regulators and say: "Why are you against this deal now, when you will get Call of Duty games?"

 

[Topher]

If I understood correctly, Microsoft offered Sony 10-year COD deal to get them on board of this deal and stop being whiny bitches, but Sony stayed silent/refused that 10 year deal, so now Microsoft is taking that 10-year deal proposal to the regulators (at least European Commission according to Reuters), right?

By that they can paint themselves in good light and can point to hypocrisy of Sony. Because Sony arguments to get this deal blocked is based almost entirely around potential exclusivity of Call of Duty. And Microsoft then can say "look, we offered them Call of Duty until at least 2035, and they refused, so they are bullshiting you."

It's pretty clear, that Sony was using "we will loose Call of Duty" argument as a vessel. But their real goal is to get this deal blocked, because they are afraid of Call of Duty in Game Pass. That's why they probably refused that 10-year deal. Because they are still smelling chance to block it.

It is obvious Sony wants to block this deal. I don't think there is anything hypocritical about that. If we are going to call out bullshit then it is just as easy to point to Phil Spencer's public words committing to PlayStation indefinitely and yet behind the scenes there is a 10 year time limit. Plenty of bullshit to go around if you ask me.

 

[R3claimer117]

If I understood correctly, Microsoft offered Sony 10-year COD deal to get them on board of this deal and stop being whiny bitches, but Sony stayed silent/refused that 10 year deal, so now Microsoft is taking that 10-year deal proposal to the regulators (at least European Commission according to Reuters), right?

By that they can paint themselves in good light and can point to hypocrisy of Sony. Because Sony arguments to get this deal blocked is based almost entirely around potential exclusivity of Call of Duty. And Microsoft then can say "look, we offered them Call of Duty until at least 2035, and they refused, so they are bullshiting you."

It's pretty clear, that Sony was using "we will loose Call of Duty" argument as a vessel. But their real goal is to get this deal blocked, because they are afraid of Call of Duty in Game Pass. That's why they probably refused that 10-year deal. Because they are still smelling chance to block it.

Yeah but by declining that offer and going a scorched earth take on the deal to outright block it. It's a big gambit both ways if Sony persuaded them and this is blocked( highly unlikely) they win and continue as usual. If Microsoft wins and gets the deal approved. With Sony refusing the deal regulators can than ask for 4 maybe 5 years. Which is where Microsoft wanted to be in the beginning anyways. Still all this talk is about call of duty I don't think Microsoft cares cause they'll make more money regardless. But if there's a high player migration to game pass( something Sony is really concerned about) due to call of duty being there and the 70 barrier of entry on PlayStation. Eventually you hit a point where if majority of cod players are in the Xbox eco system to Microsoft it won't matter it be just getting extra money from the PlayStation loyalist for the term they reach with regulators. I still think things will be different with these two companies post acquisition.

 

[Godot25]

It is obvious Sony wants to block this deal. I don't think there is anything hypocritical about that. If we are going to call out bullshit then it is just as easy to point to Phil Spencer's public words committing to PlayStation indefinitely and yet behind the scenes there is a 10 year time limit. Plenty of bullshit to go around if you ask me.

Of course. Both sides are doing everything they can to get what they want.

But it kinda is. I mean, if Sony is afraid of COD on Game Pass, and they knew that Microsoft won't pull Call of Duty from PlayStation (with or without deal), they actually misled a regulators. And now it can blow into their faces. Because if their entire "spiel" in front of regulators is about "COD will be Xbox exclusive" but they are still against this deal after they got 10-year deal of COD on PlayStation, isn't that hypocritical? For me it is. And I doubt this will go unnoticed by CMA/EU and FTC.

 

[Godot25]

Yeah but by declining that offer and going a scorched earth take on the deal to outright block it. It's a big gambit both ways if Sony persuaded them and this is blocked( highly unlikely) they win and continue as usual. If Microsoft wins and gets the deal approved. With Sony refusing the deal regulators can than ask for 4 maybe 5 years. Which is where Microsoft wanted to be in the beginning anyways. Still all this talk is about call of duty I don't think Microsoft cares cause they'll make more money regardless. But if there's a high player migration to game pass( something Sony is really concerned about) due to call of duty being there and the 70 barrier of entry on PlayStation. Eventually you hit a point where if majority of cod players are in the Xbox eco system to Microsoft it won't matter it be just getting extra money from the PlayStation loyalist for the term they reach with regulators. I still think things will be different with these two companies post acquisition.

I also wonder, what will happen if Sony manages to get this deal blocked. I imagine that many ActiBlizz exces will be furious at Sony for that and that could sour their relationship in future (I read somewhere that one ActiBlizz excec promised scorched earth to Sony if they block this deal). And shareholders will be even more mad, because if this deal gets blocked, stock price of ActiBlizz will go way down. And of course there is an issue of Kotick. Schreier said that many Blizzard employees are in waiting mode and if Kotick will stay, they will leave.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

I also wonder, what will happen if Sony manages to get this deal blocked. I imagine that many ActiBlizz exces will be furious at Sony for that and that could sour their relationship in future (I read somewhere that one ActiBlizz excec promised scorched earth to Sony if they block this deal). And shareholders will be even more mad, because if this deal gets blocked, stock price of ActiBlizz will go way down. And of course there is an issue of Kotick. Schreier said that many Blizzard employees are in waiting mode and if Kotick will stay, they will leave.

if this deal gets blocked (it will not) is not going to be thanks to Sony.

 

[Topher]

Of course. Both sides are doing everything they can to get what they want.

But it kinda is. I mean, if Sony is afraid of COD on Game Pass, and they knew that Microsoft won't pull Call of Duty from PlayStation (with or without deal), they actually misled a regulators. And now it can blow into their faces. Because if their entire "spiel" in front of regulators is about "COD will be Xbox exclusive" but they are still against this deal after they got 10-year deal of COD on PlayStation, isn't that hypocritical? For me it is. And I doubt this will go unnoticed by CMA/EU and FTC.

No more misleading than Phil Spencer's comments that do not jive with a 10 year deal. Regulators have plenty of bullshit to sift through.

 

[Pelta88]

I'm surprised that people think Microsoft moving from a 3 year to 10 year deal, means that should be the end of the discussion. That's not how regulatory boards located outside of Serbia operate. If Sony and the other companies opposed to the deal (Rumoured to be google/amazon) are able to make a compelling argument that this hurts their respective economies, then Microsoft concessions, even an offer of perpetuity, become invalid.

Microsoft have been downgrading the viability of Gamepass and Cloud since January and I don't think some understand the significance. Preferring instead to focus on how long Microsoft promises to keep an IP on a platform it's already guaranteed to ship on.

All in all, this is great research for anyone looking at investing.

 

[feynoob]

Any regulators, please drop some news.

 

[ToTTenTranz]

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.

The reason for the acquisition block in Nvidia's case was the potential for harming the market, which is indeed part of the motives being presented here. The scale and impact are just different, but the principle is the same.
The FTC didn't have to prove that Nvidia was going to harm the market like some have suggested here (lol). If any regulator had to prove future actions of private companies then all sales would always be permitted.

Have Sony shouted about how their exclusives like ratchet, horizon, gran turismo, last of us remake, uncharted....etc etc are "generating money" or does that mean they aren't and aren't sustainable?

Sometimes they do publish revenue numbers of successful releases, yes. Even if they didn't, they usually publish total sales numbers from which the revenue can be estimated with fairly good accuracy.

And they also tell us exactly how much money they're making with each type of product or live service, instead of shuffling those with completely different products (like GamePass + Windows) to hide the real numbers and making vague claims like "it's sustainable".

Come on guys, this is getting ridiculous. I know you want to have your "ahá!" moment but at least do a quick google search before you try these.

Microsoft spending $$$ in attempt to gain more even market share in console market and Sony's leveraging its market share to get cheaper exclusive deals are not different approaches.

Of course they're different approaches. Timed exclusive deals or exclusive deals for one game are a completely different approach to buying an entire publisher that blocks all its franchises from ever going into the competing platform.

 

[gothmog]

From what I saw documents (mainly from CMA), Sony's main argument was: "We will loose Call of Duty, and by that millions of players and that will drive us out of business" (I'm using hyperbole).

But if Sony refused even 10-year deal, Microsoft can point on this with regulators and say: "Why are you against this deal now, when you will get Call of Duty games?"

The hyperbole is the problem. Microsoft got all up in arms about Sony when most of the investigations seem to be focusing on the market effects of Microsoft acquiring a publisher this large. The offer does little to address those concerns. Many mergers use divestiture of certain assets in order to address anti-competitive concerns. I would not be surprised if the proposed remedies by someone like the FTC is to allow MS to acquire King and maybe Blizzard but to spin out Activision/COD into its own company. People in here can stomp their feet about it but divestiture is recommended because it a) can be easily enforced and b) typically works as a remedy.

 

[ReBurn]

I'm surprised that people think Microsoft moving from a 3 year to 10 year deal, means that should be the end of the discussion. That's not how regulatory boards located outside of Serbia operate. If Sony and the other companies opposed to the deal (Rumoured to be google/amazon) are able to make a compelling argument that this hurts their respective economies, then Microsoft concessions, even an offer of perpetuity, become invalid.

Microsoft have been downgrading the viability of Gamepass and Cloud since January and I don't think some understand the significance. Preferring instead to focus on how long Microsoft promises to keep an IP on a platform it's already guaranteed to ship on.

All in all, this is great research for anyone looking at investing.

I don't know that anyone has said moving to a 10-year offer for Call od Duty should be the end of the discussion, only that Microsoft should stop discussing it with Sony.

Sony has demonstrated that they are inflexible and just want the deal blocked. So Microsoft is taking the offer to address Sony's chief complaint, that Sony rejected multiple iterations of, to regulators to see whether they think it's reasonable.

 

[xHunter]

From what I saw documents (mainly from CMA), Sony's main argument was: "We will loose Call of Duty, and by that millions of players and that will drive us out of business" (I'm using hyperbole).

But if Sony refused even 10-year deal, Microsoft can point on this with regulators and say: "Why are you against this deal now, when you will get Call of Duty games?"

The CMA documents was submitted almost 2 weeks before MS even made the 10 year offer, so they went by what was know, which was the 3 year deal. They havent refused the new deal yet. Atleast not officially.

 

[Godot25]

The hyperbole is the problem. Microsoft got all up in arms about Sony when most of the investigations seem to be focusing on the market effects of Microsoft acquiring a publisher this large. The offer does little to address those concerns. Many mergers use divestiture of certain assets in order to address anti-competitive concerns. I would not be surprised if the proposed remedies by someone like the FTC is to allow MS to acquire King and maybe Blizzard but to spin out Activision/COD into its own company. People in here can stomp their feet about it but divestiture is recommended because it a) can be easily enforced and b) typically works as a remedy.

Yeah. That's smart idea.. Spun off Activision, so if any Call of Duty underperformes, whole company is fucked

 

[gothmog]

Yeah. That's smart idea.. Spun off Activision, so if any Call of Duty underperformes, whole company is fucked

Please. A underperforming COD title will still be one of the top selling games of the year. Vanguard apparently sucked but was still the top seller of 2021 in the US.

 

[feynoob]

Many mergers use divestiture of certain assets in order to address anti-competitive concerns. I would not be surprised if the proposed remedies by someone like the FTC is to allow MS to acquire King and maybe Blizzard but to spin out Activision/COD into its own company. People in here can stomp their feet about it but divestiture is recommended because it a) can be easily enforced and b) typically works as a remedy

Won't happen. Since that would effectively kill this deal, and MS would have 65b on their bank.

 

[gothmog]

Won't happen. Since that would effectively kill this deal, and MS would have 65b on their bank.

The requirement for divestiture absolutely could happen. This is part of the reason I still think the deal is dead. FTC is going to want to look tough and as much as MS has said COD is not the main reason for the deal we all know there's no deal without it.

 

[Pelta88]

I don't know that anyone has said moving to a 10-year offer for Call od Duty should be the end of the discussion, only that Microsoft should stop discussing it with Sony.

Sony has demonstrated that they are inflexible and just want the deal blocked. So Microsoft is taking the offer to address Sony's chief complaint, that Sony rejected multiple iterations of, to regulators to see whether they think it's reasonable.

I don't disagree. 10 years is a good offer.

My point is that the contract/offer isn't significant to the overall trajectory of this deal. In the bigger scheme it has no bearing at all to regulators. Even the up tick in ATVI stock price that that news brought has been reversed. The process of due diligence that the CMA and EU regulators are conducting remains the same.

 

[DenchDeckard]

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".

You're not looking at the big picture. There are so many big shooterson the planet now. Destiny, fortnite, apex legends, battlefield, valorant, overwatch 2.

Arm were pretty much the only chip designer serving so many customers. It's no where near the same as MS and Activision and I'm not even going to entertain the conversation with people who can't see that.

 

[feynoob]

The requirement for divestiture absolutely could happen. This is part of the reason I still think the deal is dead. FTC is going to want to look tough and as much as MS has said COD is not the main reason for the deal we all know there's no deal without it.

It won't happen. Activision doesn't own 1% of the market.

 

[DenchDeckard]

ARM doesn't actually make chips for everyone. ARM works with companies to design chips based on ARM specifications or they license ARM to companies to base their own chips on. Apple silicon is based on ARM and manufactured by Apple under license from ARM.

If Nvidia owned ARM they could restrict companies that rely on ARM architecture from designing or manufacturing new chips by limiting implementation of or withholding parts of the design specification, or by making licensing so expensive that other companies can't afford to make their own chips.

Activision doesn't have nearly the influence in the video game industry that ARM has in the semiconductor industry. Video game companies don't live or die based upon whether Activision releases Call of Duty on their platform. If that were the case Nintendo would be dead right now. Microsoft making CoD more expensive for PlayStation wouldn't make it impossible for Sony to make their own video games.

People comparing this deal to the ARM deal are indulging in hyperbole of the most absurd nature.

Thank you so much for explaining this so well.

 

[Three]

No one is disputing the Nvidia/ARM deal had industry wide implications to any company that relied on their chip designs, which was almost everyone. What we ARE disputing is that deal is in any way related to MS buying a game publisher. It is not even in the same stratosphere of significance and to relate them comes across more of a bad faith comparison than a legitimate counterpoint. Again if Sony felt that CoD was a 'input' to their presence in video games they would have accepted MS 10 year offer. They instead moved the goal posts and made new and even less reasonable demands. It is a game they are playing I hope the regulators see it for what it is.

It's related in the fact that the argument is the same. ie access to Activision IPs being restricted or degraded to lower competition. The only person arguing in bad faith is you trying to suggest if MS isn't "lying, cheating or stealing" it is fine. If you want to dispute the impact of the lessening of competition then discuss that.

You're not looking at the big picture. There are so many big shooterson the planet now. Destiny, fortnite, apex legends, battlefield, valorant, overwatch 2.

I'm looking at the big picture fine. You're just not listening. Again ,"Whether it's as impactful or not is not what's being discussed" that's for the regulators to assess. I've and bitbydeath only said that it has nothing to do with "lying, cheating or stealing" and the case is similar in that they are looking at lessening of competition through restricted access to valuable IPs.

 

[gothmog]

ARM doesn't actually make chips for everyone. ARM works with companies to design chips based on ARM specifications or they license ARM to companies to base their own chips on. Apple silicon is based on ARM and manufactured by Apple under license from ARM.

If Nvidia owned ARM they could restrict companies that rely on ARM architecture from designing or manufacturing new chips by limiting implementation of or withholding parts of the design specification, or by making licensing so expensive that other companies can't afford to make their own chips.

Activision doesn't have nearly the influence in the video game industry that ARM has in the semiconductor industry. Video game companies don't live or die based upon whether Activision releases Call of Duty on their platform. If that were the case Nintendo would be dead right now. Microsoft making CoD more expensive for PlayStation wouldn't make it impossible for Sony to make their own video games.

People comparing this deal to the ARM deal are indulging in hyperbole of the most absurd nature.

Sounds about right. The only thing I would say you could make some broad comparisons to was that it was a deal with a lot of drama involved. There was a whole grassroots effort by the co-founder to make sure the company was not bought by an American company and even some talk about trying to find a UK based buyer. National security concerns. A large list of concessions that did not sway the regulators. Ultimately Nvidia gave up rather than fight it out.

 

[DarkMage619]

The requirement for divestiture absolutely could happen. This is part of the reason I still think the deal is dead. FTC is going to want to look tough and as much as MS has said COD is not the main reason for the deal we all know there's no deal without it.

How does divestiture make any sense? Did MS become a bigger player in gaming that I am unaware of? MS would not be a monopoly after the acquisition so a divestiture wouldn't address any of that. Would a Activision minus a major money maker like King even be viable?

It's related in the fact that the argument is the same. ie access to Activision IPs being restricted or degraded to lower competition. The only person arguing in bad faith is you trying to suggest if MS isn't "lying, cheating or stealing" it is fine. If you want to dispute the impact of the lessening of competition then discuss that.

If you had been following any context my statement about lying and cheating related to the 'unfair' accusation hurled at MS over this deal. Unless cheating was involved there is nothing unfair about this deal at all. Show how the deal breaks the law. That is what should matter. Show the monopoly, show the consumer harm.

The argument about ARM is not the same because NVIDIA's place in the video card market is nothing like MS's place in video games and ARM's reach in chip design is nothing like Activision's place in video games. There is no evidence of ANY of MS's acquisitions has 'degraded' competition. Since MS continues to be in 3rd place maybe we should argue these deals have HELPED their competition then.

It is a bad faith argument to say on one hand MS is third in gaming yet at the same time degrading competition. Doing that from third place is not creditable at all. Just as Sony's claims that losing CoD would be some massive detriment to their ability to make video games and that console prices would go up if MS acquires Activision.

 

[Balducci30]

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".

I don't have a horse in this race but how is this comparable? One is hardware for the product - you would essentially be paying Nvidia in order to release your actual product - the other is software that is not necessary for the product to function? Or am I missing something

 

[feynoob]

I don't have a dog in this race but how is this comparable? One is hardware for the product - you would essentially be paying Nvidia in order to release your actual product - the other is software that is not necessary for the product to function? Or am I missing something

It's not comparable.
It's nonsense example

 

[Three]

Show the monopoly, show the consumer harm.

The preliminary CMA documents already addressed where its concerns are. Try reading them to see where they would be investigating in phase 2 to see the impact of the harm to consoles, multigame subscriptions and cloud gaming. It may conclude it is not impactful but that's not for you to decide and you've put up absolutely no arguments why there would or wouldn't be harm. Just your usual arguing in bad faith.

The argument about ARM is not the same because NVIDIA's place in the video card market is nothing like MS's place in video games and ARM's reach in chip design is nothing like Activision's place in video games.

Really? Based on what? Did you even follow that acquisition? Did you read nvidia's responses to the regulators? The ARM deal wasn't about video cards but processors.

"One of the main concerns raised against Nvidia's Arm deal is that it would be damaging to competition in chipmaking and design. What is referred to as the "ability to foreclose competition" in a recent Nvidia and Arm document published to the UK Government website."


Nvidia: "The Decision disparages Intel, AMD, and hundreds of RISC-V supporters as forever unable to compete with Arm," the argument reads.
"No industry observer can seriously contend that Intel, AMD, and Arm's other competitors are so incapable that they cannot even compete with Arm. Intel and AMD are the industry leaders, not also-rans. Nvidia has chosen x86 for its DGX and its supercomputers for good reason. Intel and AMD's CPUs are not going anywhere, and they will compete with Arm for the foreseeable future."


I don't think AMD and Intel even raised any concerns. It was MS and the other tech giants. You think they would have foreclosed?

There is no evidence of ANY of MS's acquisitions has 'degraded' competition. Since MS continues to be in 3rd place maybe we should argue these deals have HELPED their competition then.

It is a bad faith argument to say on one hand MS is third in gaming yet at the same time degrading competition.

You can be in "third" in something very specific and still degrade competition. Nvidia is also 'third' compared to AMD and Intel. Could Nvidia argue that Intel and AMD are way ahead, that it wants to compete, and that it would improve competition? Didn't work.

The CMA and EU regulators saw that nvidia could restrict access to IPs that other companies rely on and concluded that this acquisition lowers competition.

 

[Three]

I don't have a horse in this race but how is this comparable? One is hardware for the product - you would essentially be paying Nvidia in order to release your actual product - the other is software that is not necessary for the product to function? Or am I missing something

Wasn't even comparing but the hardware for a product has alternatives too like RISC-V so you can still create functioning hardware but because ARM was so widely used it was obvious there would be significant cost and risk of foreclosure to companies who rely on that ARM IP to create alternatives. Those companies could in theory create designs for new products without ARM, and Nvidia was adamant it would still licence ARM IP post acquisition anyway but whether that competing alternative IP would have the same popularity/support was enough to show significant lessening of competition.

 

[Balducci30]

Wasn't even comparing but the hardware for a product has alternatives too like RISC-V so you can still create functioning hardware but because ARM was so widely used it was obvious there would be significant cost and risk of foreclosure to companies who rely on that ARM IP to create alternatives. Those companies could in theory create designs for new products without ARM, and Nvidia was adamant it would still licence ARM IP post acquisition anyway but whether that competing alternative IP would have the same popularity/support was enough to show significant lessening of competition.

So to build their physical product they would have to either license from nvidia or use a new company? Because they will never be able to get around having to build chips for their product one way or another right? Like it literally effects their ability to physically build the product in one way or another. Or am I off base?Admittedly I do not know how the hardware side really works here.

But to me that feels entirely different than a third party publisher of software becoming exclusive to one console - not saying that should happen. But there's no required specific game software that makes a console functional, or even sellable. I guess to me the difference between internal hardware and external software here is the biggest thing

 

[Thirty7ven]

Why should Sony take the deal now that MS is sweating?

A ten year deal changes nothing about MS buying the market wholesale after 20 years of half baked efforts, Xbox fanboys myopia aside.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

Why should Sony take the deal now that MS is sweating?

A ten year deal changes nothing about MS buying the market wholesale after 20 years of half baked efforts.

Why shouldn't they?

 

[feynoob]

Why should Sony take the deal now that MS is sweating?

A ten year deal changes nothing about MS buying the market wholesale after 20 years of half baked efforts, Xbox fanboys myopia aside.

If they don't, then they won't get anything from the deal.

Sony is going to risk this deal, on a chance of blocking it (very slim).

 

[Thirty7ven]

Why shouldn't they?

Because it's poison, it's an endorsement of the deal and changes nothing for Sony. What you think MS is going to take away Warzone 2 from PlayStation or something? It's fools gold.

Sony has to remain of the stance that this deal is bad for the market because hello it actually is.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

Because it's poison, it's an endorsement of the deal and changes nothing for Sony. What you think MS is going to take away Warzone 2 from PlayStation or something? It's fools gold.

Sony has to remain of the stance that this deal is bad for the market because hello it actually is.

Lol ok.

 

[Thirty7ven]

If they don't, then they won't get anything from the deal.

Sony is going to risk this deal, on a chance of blocking it (very slim).

If MS is scrambling to offer a better deal every week that goes by then that means regulators are looking to enforce concessions. Let regulators enforce.

 

[Godot25]

Please. A underperforming COD title will still be one of the top selling games of the year. Vanguard apparently sucked but was still the top seller of 2021 in the US.

Yeah sure.

I thought that one of the responsibilities of regulators is looking also into future.

And yes, Vanguard was a top seller. But it was also a game that was made by around 3k people. So return of investment is not at 5 million copies sold

So you really want to tell me that they would order to split Acti Blizz up, so Activision is carved out? Company that is standing on one leg (Call of Duty?) Yes, Call of Duty is popular now, but there is no guarantee that it will be the case in few years. It's just really stupid idea.

And especially now, when Microsoft offered regulators 10 years of COD on PlayStation. There is literally no reason to do it.

 

[feynoob]

If MS is scrambling to offer a better deal every week that goes by then that means regulators are looking to enforce concessions. Let regulators enforce.

MS isnt scrambling here, because of Sony or CMA.
They don't want any trouble with FTC.
Unlike CMA and EU, FTC can potential lock MS in legal issues. And one of those outcomes is 10 years no purchase without FTC.

MS doesn't want that route, so they are going a head with this deal, and wrap it fast as possible.

 

[adamsapple]

Why should Sony take the deal now that MS is sweating?

A ten year deal changes nothing about MS buying the market wholesale after 20 years of half baked efforts, Xbox fanboys myopia aside.

It doesn't matter what Sony thinks. MS are offering concessions to the regulators. If the regulators approve the deal, Sony's opinion is irrelevant.

 

[Three]

So to build their physical product they would have to either license from nvidia or use a new company? Because they will never be able to get around having to build chips for their product one way or another right? Like it literally effects their ability to physically build the product in one way or another. Or am I off base?Admittedly I do not know how the hardware side really works here.

They can physically build a product with competing IP. RISC-V is open source and requires no license fee so they wouldn't have had to go to any company with that alternative. However if they wanted to use the popular ARM IPs specifically, they would have had to try and license it through a competitor, nvidia. Same with software. You can try and build an alternative IP to COD for your service or console but if you want the popular COD IP specifically you would have to go through a competing console, subscription or cloud provider. It's licensing an IP whether it is software or hardware and there are competing alternatives which are not as ubiquitous.

But to me that feels entirely different than a third party publisher of software becoming exclusive to one console - not saying that should happen. But there's no required specific game software that makes a console functional, or even sellable. I guess to me the difference between internal hardware and external software here is the biggest thing

There is no ARM IP that makes an SoC 'functional'. There are competing SoC designs that do not use ARM IP at all. They are not as ubiquitous like ARM is though.

 

[feynoob]

Because it's poison, it's an endorsement of the deal and changes nothing for Sony. What you think MS is going to take away Warzone 2 from PlayStation or something? It's fools gold.

Sony has to remain of the stance that this deal is bad for the market because hello it actually is.

The deal isn't bad for the market. Activision doesn't really have a market, outside of COD IP on consoles, as the rest of their games are like every studios.

Most of Activision business are from PC and mobile, where Activision market is very small

So overall market, it's not poison.

If COD is dead, Activision is nothing.

 

[Godot25]

Because it's poison, it's an endorsement of the deal and changes nothing for Sony. What you think MS is going to take away Warzone 2 from PlayStation or something? It's fools gold.

Sony has to remain of the stance that this deal is bad for the market because hello it actually is.

Deal is bad for Sony ≠ Deal is bad for market

Especially when Call of Duty stays multiplatform (which it obviously will)

If we accepting the fact that Call of Duty will stay multiplatform, what exactly is bad about this deal for the market? Fact that you will have access to COD games as part of subscription (ie. cheaper than they can access COD now)? Fact that Microsoft can finally allow clusterfuck of Call of Duty support studios to maybe do something other than Call of Duty? Or fact that Microsoft can finally get rid of Kotick and all shit that was happening inside Activision and Blizzard? Or maybe Microsoft can finally "unfuck" Blizzard that got slowly but surely absorbed by Kotick?