sainraja
Member
Was that said by the poster you are quoting?
Microsoft / Activision Deal Approval Watch |OT| (MS/ABK close)
- Status
Ass of Can Whooping
Member
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Yep. Business will go on per usual, whether a PR commitment is signed or not. Unless MS and Sony don't like money anymore.
NickFire
Member
Do we think that Switch 2 will be comparable to S, X and PS5 though? Not for nothing, but wasn't the point of the 2 year rumor that they were going all in on new gen with the next full release?Or make the Switch 2
Anyway, I'm not trying to poo poo the next Switch (or whatever it ends up being) before its released. For all I know it could be on par with Series X.
HeisenbergFX4
Member
No I don't think it will match current consoles, well not the Series X or PS5 anyhow
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
It doesn't have to meet Series X or PS5 specs to be eligible for continued CoD support. If its close to Series S, that at least guarantees that it won't need much in the way of technological compromises.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
The newest Tegra "leaks" have the chip at just about 4TF. But, Nintendo is known not to use the latest and greatest, especially with how expensive nVidia is. So time will tell.
xHunter
Member
Dude. You dont need a "we are committed to 3, 5 or 10 year for this title" contract to publish a game on any of the storefronts. If Sony doesnt sign the 10 year deal, Microsoft can still publish their games on Playstation.
NickFire
Member
I know, and that's why I listed S, X and PS5. I find it tough to believe it will be comparable to S right now, but I'm open minded to it. And if they are comparable, then it probably won't hinder the better versions. But if they are not comparable, then I hope Phil is holding cards close to his chest that gives him an out down the road. I'd rather play a couple more iterations of the game at full (console) potential than 10 more years of cross gen COD.
Cheezewizz
Banned
Oops
Last edited:
splattered
Member
I wish Nintendo would go all in on power for their next system and just look to the cloud/streaming for their version of gaming on the go like Microsoft and Sony are now.
ChuckeRearmed
Member
Even Steam Deck is nowhere near Series S specs despite being pricey, Switch Pro won't be at the same level for sure.
akimbo009
Gold Member
They can, but they likely wouldn't. It's still an agreement, and MS would agree to revenue sharing terms with PS. Which I think by default is 30% - or something like that. Bringing COD to the table, they'd want a more favorable agreement most likely. Either way, Sony and MS would have to enter an agreement with a revenue split both agree to - and those agreement are likely time bound or number of release bound.
Nothing forces any publisher to have to publish somewhere. In this case, it's part of the litigation here, but it's a unique situation but unless someone forces MS publish on PS with unfavorable terms (which is unlikely) then they can just say no stating their revenues are offset with Nintendo/Steam/etc.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
See. "Wasn't necessary for us..."
From the valve guy I guess
In short. Businesses like money and this was purely a regulation PR move.
Last edited:
feynoob
Banned
Making it public was a PR hit. Especially, when they were going to have a meeting with Lina khan.
CatLady
Selfishly plays on Xbox Purr-ies X
Oh, I think most of us expect Game Pass prices to increase CoD or not. To me it's quite underpriced right now and I was surprised it wasn't the first think Xbox raised the price.
As
Topher
has said I'm hopeful MS/Xbox Rewards don't go away but even if they do, I'm covered for over 2 years and I'm willing to pay whatever for Game Pass unless the price gets really, really ridiculous.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
It also serves as a psychology game where they fool some people into thinking since Sony isn't signing a "PR commitment," some gamers will assume no more CoD on PS.
freefornow
Member
akimbo009
Gold Member
Yeah, and that's why they negotiate the revenue share line. Steam is flat, but a contract is definitely signed. I don't know why you keep saying it's not the case.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
From the valve guy I guess
"Phil and the games team at Microsoft have always followed through on what they told us they would do so we trust their intentions"
HerpDerpstreit
Member
Sony is kind of painted into a corner with this 10 year agreement, PR stunt or not.
If they agree to it, that action could be perceived as they are no longer opposed to the purchase of ABK.
If they don't sign it, then it can be viewed as "you are the only ones with an issue here so...."
If they agree to it, that action could be perceived as they are no longer opposed to the purchase of ABK.
If they don't sign it, then it can be viewed as "you are the only ones with an issue here so...."
bxrz
Member
Great endorsement for Microsoft by Valve in that 2nd paragraph
From the valve guy I guess
1. He trusts Microsoft/Phil
2. The financial incentive to keep CoD on all platforms, including but not limited to Steam, is big enough to make it very unlikely for Microsoft to drop support to any major platform
Hero of Spielberg
Member
I think some people want to believe in a 'no lose' scenario for Sony.
NickFire
Member
Someone should tweet (or whatever) back:"Phil and the games team at Microsoft have always followed through on what they told us they would do so we trust their intentions"
https://www.videogameschronicle.com...starfield-the-most-played-bethesda-game-ever/
Last edited:
feynoob
Banned
How wrong is that?Someone should tweet (or whatever) back:
https://www.videogameschronicle.com...starfield-the-most-played-bethesda-game-ever/
With gamepass, that should be the easiest thing to do.
feynoob
Banned
Any time a game is brought to a system, there would be a contract (payment cut, etc).
No company would agree to bring games to their system for free, with no contract.
Ass of Can Whooping
Member
As far as whether Sony is actually penalized for not signing this 10 year contract when the deal goes through, no there isn't
Last edited:
Pelta88
Member
"Microsoft's $69 billion acquisition of Activision is an unlawful merger that will undermine the vitality of an important sector of the American economy and consolidate the video game industry into a small group of firms who control walled gardens of content, data, and advertising," said Sarah Miller, Executive Director of the American Economic Liberties Project.
If there's one word Microsoft doesn't want to hear with regards to this acquisition, it's Monopolize. It tends to get regulators all worked up...
If there's one word Microsoft doesn't want to hear with regards to this acquisition, it's Monopolize. It tends to get regulators all worked up...
Last edited:
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
It's very rarely if ever publicly announced. This is all a PR move to do so. That is all I have been saying.
"Microsoft's $69 billion acquisition of Activision is an unlawful merger that will undermine the vitality of an important sector of the American economy and consolidate the video game industry into a small group of firms who control walled gardens of content, data, and advertising," said Sarah Miller, Executive Director of the American Economic Liberties Project.
[/URL]
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
This "commitment" is not that. They have their separate revenue sharing store cut contracts, hence why Valve said it was "unnecessary" for them. They already have their contracts in place.
Ass of Can Whooping
Member
"Microsoft's $69 billion acquisition of Activision is an unlawful merger that will undermine the vitality of an important sector of the American economy and consolidate the video game industry into a small group of firms who control walled gardens of content, data, and advertising," said Sarah Miller, Executive Director of the American Economic Liberties Project.
If there's one word Microsoft doesn't want to hear with regards to this acquisition, it's Monopolize. It tends to get regulators all worked up...
Welcome to the Family, Sarah Miller
twilo99
Member
How much do you think it will be?
Pelta88
Member
I'm from the UK and I know who they are lol They're a credited think tank /lobbying group. Their blurb reads...
"The American Economic Liberties Project is an American non-profit organization that advocates corporate accountability legislation and aggressive enforcement of antitrust regulations."
Cited by everyone from Bloomberg to the BBC.
Last edited:
feynoob
Banned
I am not talking about that.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
I'm elaborating because some still don't get why this was done, lol. PR
GHG
Gold Member
"Microsoft's $69 billion acquisition of Activision is an unlawful merger that will undermine the vitality of an important sector of the American economy and consolidate the video game industry into a small group of firms who control walled gardens of content, data, and advertising," said Sarah Miller, Executive Director of the American Economic Liberties Project.
[/URL]
If there's one word Microsoft doesn't want to hear with regards to this acquisition, it's Monopolize. It tends to get regulators all worked up...
akimbo009
Gold Member
It's both.
Ass of Can Whooping
Member
For the revenue share? No it wasn't
Last edited:
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
I tell you what. What they did, did work on some.
GHG
Gold Member
GHG
Gold Member
Not really. The FTC are now powerless to the market power that the likes of Google and Apple have (especially considering how entrenched they are both politically and with the SEC). It's too late and will prove to be more difficult to get a handle on them now than it would have been to prevent them from happening in the first place.
Of course they do, and that's exactly why it's a problem.
Last edited:
- Status