Microsoft / Activision Deal Approval Watch |OT| (MS/ABK close)

Do you believe the deal will be approved?

  • Yes, will be approved without changes.

    Votes: 221 24.9%

  • Yes, will be approved but with structural changes to ABK.

    Votes: 102 11.5%

  • Yes, will be approved but only with behavioral concessions.

    Votes: 262 29.6%

  • No, will not be approved.

    Votes: 301 34.0%
  • Total voters
    886
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
CatLady said:
I think it's probably better for MS if Sony doesn't sign now.

For one it's now obvious Sony is disingenuous and unreasonable in their arguments and demands, and two if it passes without Sony signing anything Xbox can dictate the terms of any contract after the deal passes and won't be required to deal with any of Sony's frivolous and unreasonable demands.
Click to expand...
They're argument is wanting Activision to remain third party and independent. The same argument would happen with sides swapped if roles were reversed.

Both have had disingenuous takes of childish clown world lawyer disconnects hoping to trick the regulators.
 
Ass of Can Whooping said:
The 10-year contract guarantees COD on PlayStation

It is not a requirement TO release COD on PlayStation.
Click to expand...
the naked gun facepalm GIF


Are you stupid.

MS would have to stop releasing the game for those period, which would be a fucking loss for them.

Any time COD is being made, it would hit Xbox and all the platforms that signed the contract.

MS would be stupid not to release COD at all during these periods.
 
Last edited:
Ass of Can Whooping said:
The 10-year contract guarantees COD on PlayStation

It is not a requirement TO release COD on PlayStation.
Click to expand...

Yes, but without the guarantee MS has no obligation to release CoD outside of the current marketing agreement.

They very well may, but there won't be the guarantee of it.
 
feynoob said:
the naked gun facepalm GIF


Are you stupid.

MS would have to stop releasing the game for those period, which would a fucking loss for them.

Any time COD is being made, it would hit Xbox and all the platforms that signed the contract.

MS would be stupid not to release COD at all during these periods.
Click to expand...

You're a fucking idiot.

Read what the contract is about. It's about commitment . Do we need to do a Google definition on the word commitment before you actually start processing what's going on?
 
Ass of Can Whooping said:
You're a fucking idiot.

Read what the contract is about. It's about commitment . Do we need to do a Google definition on the word commitment before you actually start processing what's going on?
Click to expand...
No you don't understand shit.

Your points is utterly stupid.

There is a fucking 10 years in the contract.

That is 10 game max yearly, or 5 games max every 2 year.

Every time the game is being made during this period, it would hit all platforms.

What you are suggesting is just crazy.
 
Ass of Can Whooping Ass of Can Whooping is saying that MS is not going to alienate the largest revenue and profit provider this game does, all because of a PR commitment contract announcement with Steam and Nintendo, the former (Steam) they were already putting games on without the prior PR commitment, lol.

Especially after a $70billy purchase.
 
Last edited:
feynoob said:
No you don't understand shit.

Your points is utterly stupid.

There is a fucking 10 years in the contract.

That is 10 game max yearly, or 5 games max every 2 year.

Every time the game is being made during this period, it would hit all platforms.

What you are suggesting is just crazy.
Click to expand...

Read. Before. You. Reply

Sony, does not need to sign the contract Microsoft is offering to release COD on PS. That is completely seperate.

Is that clear enough for you, garfield?
 
Last edited:
adamsapple said:
Yeah, but this prevents Sony from coming off like right dicks being the only opposition to what seems to be getting unanimous praise/approval.

Burning bridges and all.
Click to expand...
Or, this makes it look like a hollow PR stunt and meaningless in the grand scheme of things if they're going to continue to release games as is.
 
Last edited:
There are no contracts to sign because MSFT does not own ATVI, yet.

Microsoft are throwing shit at the wall and hoping something sticks with the regulators. 3 year offers, expanded to offers of 10 years don't scream confidence to me. But it's an interesting shift in the discussion. Many... And I'm calling no names here... Started out with the stance of...

"Microsoft doesn't have to offer Sony anything." only to shift to "10 Years is a great deal."

Which is entertainment in and of itself.
 
Last edited:
feynoob said:
They need to. MS would own the IP, after the deal is approved.
There needs to be a contract.
Click to expand...
No they dont. The only "contract" that would exist would be the Sony publishing contract. And that one is a pretty standard one that Activision already signed/submitted whatever. You dont need a 10 year contract. Otherwise why didnt they do this for Minecraft?
 
Last edited:
Pelta88 said:
There are no contracts to sign because MSFT does not own ATVI, yet.

Microsoft are throwing shit at the wall and hoping something sticks with the regulators. 3 year offers, expanded to offers of 10 years don't scream confidence to me. But it's an interesting shift in the discussion. Many... And I'm calling no names here... Started out with the stance of

"Microsoft doesn't have to offer Sony anything." only to shift to "10 Years is a great deal."

Which is entertainment in and of itself.
Click to expand...

They still don't *have* to offer anything. But they said right at the start of the acquisition that they intend to keep the CoD games on PS and bring them to Nintendo platforms.

They're doing exactly what they started off with.

🤷‍♂️
 
Ass of Can Whooping said:
You're a fucking idiot.

Read what the contract is about. It's about commitment . Do we need to do a Google definition on the word commitment before you actually start processing what's going on?
Click to expand...

feynoob said:
No you don't understand shit.

Your points is utterly stupid.

There is a fucking 10 years in the contract.

That is 10 game max yearly, or 5 games max every 2 year.

Every time the game is being made during this period, it would hit all platforms.

What you are suggesting is just crazy.
Click to expand...
Both of you are too hung up on semantics right now. Can we get back to what really matters please? And that is the horrifying notion that people genuinely think COD (base game) is suitable for Switch or Cloud. And these people apparently include the intended purchaser of the IP. So somehow we have gone from 120 FPS currently, to the next one will be so advanced they are skipping a new edition in 2023, all the way back to it will somehow run via cloud or Switch. Sounds like a planned neutering of the biggest game on the planet to me.
 
NickFire said:
Both of you are too hung up on semantics right now. Can we get back to what really matters please? And that is the horrifying notion that people genuinely think COD (base game) is suitable for Switch or Cloud. And these people apparently include the intended purchaser of the IP. So somehow we have gone from 120 FPS currently, to the next one will be so advanced they are skipping a new edition in 2023, all the way back to it will somehow run via cloud or Switch. Sounds like a planned neutering of the biggest game on the planet to me.
Click to expand...
Cloud is plenty good enough for the most competitive twitchy shooter bang bangs on the console. Totes! We promise!

for the brand
 
NickFire said:
Both of you are too hung up on semantics right now. Can we get back to what really matters please? And that is the horrifying notion that people genuinely think COD (base game) is suitable for Switch or Cloud. And these people apparently include the intended purchaser of the IP. So somehow we have gone from 120 FPS currently, to the next one will be so advanced they are skipping a new edition in 2023, all the way back to it will somehow run via cloud or Switch. Sounds like a planned neutering of the biggest game on the planet to me.
Click to expand...

The cloud thing is nothing but fanboy drivel right now. There is 0 mention of Cloud based CoD games from anyone officially.

This is the only thing they've said officially and it sounds like they intend to do native development.

When asked if the Switch had enough technical specifications to run Call of Duty smoothly, Spencer said, "Minecraft and Call of Duty are different games. But from how you get games onto Nintendo, how you run a development team that is targeting multiple platforms, that's experience we have."
Click to expand...

And keep in mind, at no point did they say "Switch". This could very well be targeting specifically the next Nintendo hardware.
 
xHunter said:
No they dont. The only "contract" that would exist would be the Sony publishing contract. And that one is a pretty standard one that Activision already signed/submitted whatever. You dont need a 10 year contract. Otherwise why didnt they do this for Minecraft?
Click to expand...
COD isnt minecraft.

Minecraft main audience are kids. MS doesnt need a limited contract for that.

10 year is an entire generation of console and half. Plus they wont pull the game, as there could be extra extension.
 
NickFire said:
Both of you are too hung up on semantics right now. Can we get back to what really matters please? And that is the horrifying notion that people genuinely think COD (base game) is suitable for Switch or Cloud. And these people apparently include the intended purchaser of the IP. So somehow we have gone from 120 FPS currently, to the next one will be so advanced they are skipping a new edition in 2023, all the way back to it will somehow run via cloud or Switch. Sounds like a planned neutering of the biggest game on the planet to me.
Click to expand...

Wasn't arguing semantics lol. The clown somehow believes Sony has to sign the contract otherwise Microsoft can't release COD on PS

Obviously cloud gaming for COD is disgusting and should be a criminal offence, with ManaByte being the first on the chopping block for supporting it.
 
Last edited:
Ass of Can Whooping said:
It's a deal solely on commitment. That's it.
Click to expand...
From an outside perspective perhaps, but again if I were in MS shoes I'd definitely be adding some carrot to the commitment based on an early in principle agreement that would not be offered afterwards.
It's the idea of risk / reward. Do Sony take a potentially preferable deal now and make the ride smoother for MS or gamble on holding out on the hope the acquisition won't go through and potentially lose millions as a result. They've already expressed how important COD is too them financially as a business, and 10 years is a long time and a lot of money, even talking small percentages.
 
NickFire said:
Both of you are too hung up on semantics right now. Can we get back to what really matters please? And that is the horrifying notion that people genuinely think COD (base game) is suitable for Switch or Cloud. And these people apparently include the intended purchaser of the IP. So somehow we have gone from 120 FPS currently, to the next one will be so advanced they are skipping a new edition in 2023, all the way back to it will somehow run via cloud or Switch. Sounds like a planned neutering of the biggest game on the planet to me.
Click to expand...
Daddy always wins


R.6a811e9d6803cb1782ee164fb9a72633
 
feynoob said:
Why dont you say this shit then.

We wouldnt have went all circle on this shit. Please be clear next time..

Can we go back to being friends?
Best Friends Hug GIF
Click to expand...

My clarity was fine. You were wrong.

1st, apologise for being wrong

2nd, apologise for blaming me, ya little shit

Then we can go back to being friends.
 
Last edited:
Hero of Spielberg said:
From an outside perspective perhaps, but again if I were in MS shoes I'd definitely be adding some carrot to the commitment based on an early in principle agreement that would not be offered afterwards.
It's the idea of risk / reward. Do Sony take a potentially preferable deal now and make the ride smoother for MS or gamble on holding out on the hope the acquisition won't go through and potentially lose millions as a result. They've already expressed how important COD is too them financially as a business, and 10 years is a long time and a lot of money, even talking small percentages.
Click to expand...

MS can't take off COD from PS5 because that would create a shit storm by what, half the COD userbase? MS shareholders would probably not even allow it.

The whole "Ms might not give Sony anything" is just green fanboy material for bedtime stories.

Only low iq fanboys ever thought this play was about the next few years. It's about the future of the industry.
 
Thirty7ven said:
MS can't take off COD from PS5 because that would create a shit storm by what, half the COD userbase? MS shareholders would probably not even allow it.

The whole "Ms might not give Sony anything" is just green fanboy material for bedtime stories.

Only low iq fanboys ever thought this play was about the next few years. It's about the future of the industry.
Click to expand...

Where did I say anything about MS taking COD off PS?
 
NickFire said:
Both of you are too hung up on semantics right now. Can we get back to what really matters please? And that is the horrifying notion that people genuinely think COD (base game) is suitable for Switch or Cloud. And these people apparently include the intended purchaser of the IP. So somehow we have gone from 120 FPS currently, to the next one will be so advanced they are skipping a new edition in 2023, all the way back to it will somehow run via cloud or Switch. Sounds like a planned neutering of the biggest game on the planet to me.
Click to expand...
Apex works on switch too
not good but works...
 
adamsapple said:
It's like folks are just dead fucking set on denying there could possibly be new Nintendo hardware in the next 12 to 18 months 🤔
Click to expand...
Nobody was denying that. Show us the goofy kids denying that. People were laughing at the "streaming is great" rebuttals, however.
 
Last edited:
Ass of Can Whooping said:
Wasn't arguing semantics lol. The clown somehow believes Sony has to sign the contract otherwise Microsoft can't release COD on PS
Click to expand...
His arguments are utter nonsense. I'm like WTF is he even trying to say. I suppose Sony could refuse to allow Xbox to release on PlayStation, but I somehow don't see that happening.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

MS/ABK is advertising games that don't exist for data collection
46
2K
POKEYCLYDE replied
My apologies to Ubisoft, Sony, Activision, EA, MS etc. for making a big deal out of $70 games
2 3 4
156
6K
MDSLKTR replied
Microsoft, Activision Deny Report Regarding Financial Performance
Business Hardware  2 3
131
11K
Jaybe replied
What happened to all the people that were cheering over that MS Activision acquisition?
Drama  5 6 7 8 9
414
18K
GateofD replied
Microsoft has Closed the Activision Blizzard King Deal
22 23 24 25 26
1K
99K
MasterCornholio replied
Top Bottom