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.
adamsapple said:
I'm surprised you're still hung on this, I quoted Phil's direct response to that FUD in the first post.

[/URL]




I said the below in jest but holy shit I had no idea it'll be this prophetic...
Click to expand...
Like I said, Phil is a known liar.
KXHrk1R.jpg
 
Topher said:
Nah....bullshit, dude. You don't get to say I'm holding Phil Spencer to a one time statement with "zero context" and then say I'm "splitting hairs" when I point out that you are flatly wrong.

Regardless, I'd say if this whole thing ends up with Call of Duty not being on PlayStation then this will reflect poorly on both Phil Spencer and Jim Ryan.
Click to expand...
First of all, I can literally do whatever I want to do so lets start there. Second, I didn't mean to imply he only said it once, it was a figure of speech and I understand why you took it to mean what you took it to mean.

That said, I don't think it would reflect poorly on Phil Spencer, at least outside of PS. If he makes a fair offer and Sony doesn't take it, how is that Phil's fault? I'm sure he would love to keep CoD of PlayStation, because, well, money. But if Sony doesn't want to play ball what is he supposed to do, just release it anyway?
 
feynoob said:
Both are teengers who are fighting like kids.
Click to expand...

Snoop Dogg Yes GIF


bentanchorbolt said:
I didn't mean to imply he only said it once, it was a figure of speech and I understand why you took it to mean what you took it to mean.
Click to expand...

Fair enough.

That said, I don't think it would reflect poorly on Phil Spencer, at least outside of PS. If he makes a fair offer and Sony doesn't take it, how is that Phil's fault? I'm sure he would love to keep CoD of PlayStation, because, well, money. But if Sony doesn't want to play ball what is he supposed to do, just release it anyway?
Click to expand...
Ozzy Onya A2Z said:
Can't say I agree with the Phil part if that eventuated.
Click to expand...

If Phil Spencer reneges on everything he has publicly said then yes, he will face a PR nightmare. adamsapple adamsapple even agrees with me on this.
 
Last edited:
Topher said:
If Phil Spencer reneges on everything he has publicly said then yes, he will face a PR nightmare. adamsapple adamsapple even agrees with me on this.
Click to expand...

Of course, you don't say all that you've said and then recant it the moment the deal goes through. It will be a PR nightmare, their reputation will tank not just in gamers, but among publishers and developers as well.

I legitimately think Phil is genuine about the things he says. The realities of development don't always align with what he wants but he's a sincere dude for the most part.
 
Ass of Can Whooping said:
Yes? That's what they've committed to.
Click to expand...
I don't know. You make the concept of releasing games on a platform so simplistic. This is MS we are talking about, a company with 18x the market cap of Sony, who in this scenario now owns the best selling franchise of all-time. You really think they are going to come to the table the same was as some indie developer, just hoping for the chance to release their game on the PlayStation? Of course they are going to negotiate versus just blindly releasing the game.
 
Topher said:
If Phil Spencer reneges on everything he has publicly said then yes, he will face a PR nightmare. adamsapple adamsapple even agrees with me on this.
Click to expand...
Why do people think they want to reneg? They want to collab and compromise with regulation and industry for approval. It's plainly obvious in corporate motive, unions/staff enabling, partnerships, PR etc.

I'd call them out too if they reneg. I don't expect a 100% follow through, things change or alter and that's how contracts/business works. By and large they should be held to what they say, same goes for Sony. "For the Players" my ass. Nintendo and Steam seem to be pretty reliable and consistent with their word, perhaps I'm misinformed?
 
Topher said:
If Phil Spencer reneges on everything he has publicly said then yes, he will face a PR nightmare. adamsapple adamsapple even agrees with me on this.
Click to expand...
I agree with you to an extent but there is a difference between him having said that in bad faith versus it falling through due to failed negotiations. Like I said to the other fella earlier:
bentanchorbolt said:
This is MS we are talking about, a company with 18x the market cap of Sony, who in this scenario now owns the best selling franchise of all-time. You really think they are going to come to the table the same was as some indie developer, just hoping for the chance to release their game on the PlayStation? Of course they are going to negotiate versus just blindly releasing the game.
Click to expand...
I'm not saying it needs to be some one-sided deal where MS walks away with a sack of gold and Sony doesn't get shit, but the two have to agree and if they can't, well I just can't imagine that being Phil's fault unless he specifically offers them a bad deal, which if he does then its on him.
 
bentanchorbolt said:
I don't know. You make the concept of releasing games on a platform so simplistic. This is MS we are talking about, a company with 18x the market cap of Sony, who in this scenario now owns the best selling franchise of all-time. You really think they are going to come to the table the same was as some indie developer, just hoping for the chance to release their game on the PlayStation? Of course they are going to negotiate versus just blindly releasing the game.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is that simple. They continue to publish COD on PlayStation under the same terms every other developer or publisher agrees to when they publish games on PlayStation. The same terms Microsoft has already agreed to by continuing to support games like Fallout 76 or Elder Scrolls Online, or Minecraft.
 
Last edited:
I'd love to see a public court stream of this all playing out, best reality tv show going currently. Maybe Netflix will pick this up for a short season run or that show on Paramount about corporate shizz.
 
Last edited:
Topher said:
Snoop Dogg Yes GIF




Fair enough.




If Phil Spencer reneges on everything he has publicly said then yes, he will face a PR nightmare. adamsapple adamsapple even agrees with me on this.
Click to expand...
That's really up to Sony and Phil is holding a "I'll keep you straight" Ace card on Jim. Another words Jim don't get to dictate all the terms of a deal. Something Sony's just going to have to learn to adjust to if this deal goes thru. Nintendo and Steam appear to be quite happy Sony isn't locking up COD!
 
Last edited:
Ass of Can Whooping said:
Yes, I am sure about that. Because when you sign the GDPA you are not giving Sony exclusive rights to market your game, which is the agreement they have with Activision, because it's a seperate agreement entirely.
Click to expand...

Actually there are advertising promotion clauses... but terms of use and service are an agreement - and I assure you that the boiler plate agreement in the GDPA (marketing included) for COD/Activision is not in use and the partnership has a excessively complex legal agreement. What MS has said is "we'll keep that, and make it go for another 10 years". Obviously they won't promote Sony as the "console of choice", but the rest has been publicly stated... Except Sony has outright REJECTED that.

You keep going around in circles, and I am not sure you know what you're talking about anymore since your conclusions are overly simplistic. If Sony doesn't come to terms with MS over COD - and MS become inflexible - then it simply won't publish because it wouldn't be in MS's best interest to do so.

You're basically in denial that MS has agency on where they can or can't publish their games and Sony can dictate all terms. Just delusional.
 
akimbo009 said:
Actually there are advertising promotion clauses... but terms of use and service are an agreement - and I assure you that the boiler plate agreement in the GDPA (marketing included) for COD/Activision is not in use and the partnership has a excessively complex legal agreement. What MS has said is "we'll keep that, and make it go for another 10 years". Obviously they won't promote Sony as the "console of choice", but the rest has been publicly stated... Except Sony has outright REJECTED that.

You keep going around in circles, and I am not sure you know what you're talking about anymore since your conclusions are overly simplistic. If Sony doesn't come to terms with MS over COD - and MS become inflexible - then it simply won't publish because it wouldn't be in MS's best interest to do so.

You're basically in denial that MS has agency on where they can or can't publish their games and Sony can dictate all terms. Just delusional.
Click to expand...

Talking to retards here.

How do you think Minecraft Dungeons and Minecraft Legends are getting published on PS?
 
Ass of Can Whooping said:
Talking to retards here.

How do you think Minecraft Dungeons and Minecraft Legends are getting published on PS?
Click to expand...

They sign an agreement, and come to terms that MS agrees to based on the size of those products. Clearly COD gives them a shit ton of leverage to change those terms.

Pretty simple. And they can also say what is good enough for Minecraft Dungeons isn't good enough for COD. That's how negotiations work when you have a company like Sony who is thirsty as fuck for COD.
 
Loxus said:
Which ended up being all lies and you know it.
Click to expand...

None of that stuff was a lie, dude. You might think they are exaggerated or overhyped, but neither of those things are uncommon in the gaming industry.

Wulfer said:
That's really up to Sony and Phil is hold a "I'll keep you straight" Ace card on Jim. Another words Jim don't get to dictate all the terms of a deal. Something Sony just going to learn to adjust to if this deal goes thru. Nintendo and Steam appear to be quite happy Sony isn't locking up COD!
Click to expand...

If that were the case then Microsoft could have just said "take it or leave it" months ago, but......here we are.
 
Last edited:
Loxus said:
What's in it for you if this deal goes through?
Click to expand...
Nothing. I will just play fifa and gow ragnorak on my ps5.
Loxus said:
Do you get some kind of check?
Click to expand...
I wish, I still dont have the new xbox consoles. I just use xcloud for their next gen games.
Loxus said:
You've been defending Phil for the whole day, ignoring others point of view.
Click to expand...
Your rage against him, is letting you call other people his defender.
He is a PR man. He is close to a politician with a silver tongue, which twists his words.

Look at his quotes. All are very crafty PR.
 
akimbo009 said:
They sign an agreement, and come to terms that MS agrees to based on the size of those products. Clearly COD gives them a shit ton of leverage to change those terms.

Pretty simple. And they can also say what is good enough for Minecraft Dungeons isn't good enough for COD. That's how negotiations work when you have a company like Sony who is thirsty as fuck for COD.
Click to expand...

LMAO

What terms are you trying to imply Microsoft is expecting from Sony? Microsoft has already agreed to continue releasing COD on PS. They've done this over national TV for fuck sake. It doesn't matter what Sony says or how many times they spit their dummy out. All Microsoft needs to do is publish COD on PlayStation like they do with any other game, and that's that. There are no additional agreements that need to be made.
 
Last edited:
Ass of Can Whooping said:
LMAO

What terms are you trying to imply Microsoft is expecting from Sony? Microsoft has already agreed to continue releasing COD on PS. They've done this over national TV for fuck sake. It doesn't matter what Sony says or how many times they spit their dummy out. All Microsoft needs to do is publish COD on PlayStation like they do with any other game, and that's that. There are no additional agreements that need to be made.
Click to expand...

You have no idea about business.

I am not going to sell the hottest product on your platform for the same cut as some indie developer is trying to break into the market. That's just not how any of this works. No only that stupid on the face of it, but you - the platform holder - actually make more money with less of the % of the revenue generated long-term with a product that sells more than sells less. So in the case of COD, you'd be more than willing to take a smaller cut than a product that sells less. Conversely, if i am selling a product that I know you not only will benefit for the direct sale of that product but also has pull through (e.g. makes your product more attractive, and helps sell your other games or devices) then I have leverage to push for a more favorable contract with economics that benefit me slightly more but we both end up winning.

No one would just accept the same terms across the board. It's absolutely a stupid position you're arguing for and no one runs their business like that.
 


Hoeg's latest video. Lots of great analysis about various things the parties have said. Pretty clear this deal benefits lots of parties and potentially even Sony if they actually cared.
 
Sanepar said:
I have my subscription active until dec/2024. Use on pc and series X. But i believe next year ultimate will rise for $25-30 easily after the deal. Someone will pay $70bn and it will be us.
Click to expand...

Game Pass is making almost $4 billion per year in its current state. It's likely to make over $4 billion this calendar year alone. With the subscribers gained this year, it'll make even more next year. The reason you think it needs to be $25-30 for ultimate is that you're incorrectly looking at the cost of the AAA titles and not understand how the financials work. Game Pass' business model is about using the power of attraction of a low monthly price with guaranteed day one first-party AAA games with a mix of smaller and AAA 3rd party games (some of which are day one), that keep coming at no additional cost to bring in millions of subscribers. The bigger the number of total subscribers grow, the more Game Pass being at its existing price works.

Game Pass just on console last year made $2.9 billion. Find me a first party title that does $2.9 billion in a single year. There isn't one. Whereas some people are focusing on how much did each first party game sell on its own, nobody is looking at what Game Pass aims to do, which is to get those first party games to make a whole lot more money together than they ever could by themselves on a yearly basis. Game Pass only works with lots of subscribers. As Phil said, it's profitable. Game Pass with the number of subscribers it has is practically paying for itself and bringing in more revenue than first party games have ever brought for xbox.

Game Pass's business model is more concerned with how much money all first party games with some 3rd party mixed in can make for Xbox in a year. It's literally another way of selling first party games, they just turned into a monthly subscription service. Game Pass is a big part of the reason Xbox has set revenue records recently.
 
akimbo009 said:
You have no idea about business.

I am not going to sell the hottest product on your platform for the same cut as some indie developer is trying to break into the market. That's just not how any of this works. No only that stupid on the face of it, but you - the platform holder - actually make more money with less of the % of the revenue generated long-term with a product that sells more than sells less. So in the case of COD, you'd be more than willing to take a smaller cut than a product that sells less. Conversely, if i am selling a product that I know you not only will benefit for the direct sale of that product but also has pull through (e.g. makes your product more attractive, and helps sell your other games or devices) then I have leverage to push for a more favorable contract with economics that benefit me slightly more but we both end up winning.

No one would just accept the same terms across the board. It's absolutely a stupid position you're arguing for and no one runs their business like that.
Click to expand...

Which gaming company are you the CEO of again?
 
DarkMage619 said:


Hoeg's latest video. Lots of great analysis about various things the parties have said. Pretty clear this deal benefits lots of parties and potentially even Sony if they actually cared.
Click to expand...


That's the issue -- Sony doesn't care if it benefits them, they simply just want to stop it from benefitting Microsoft more. That's all it boils down to. Game Pass will become much more mainstream if Call of Duty and all Activision Blizzard titles become associated with it. Sony does not want that. They also from a competitive standpoint, don't want Microsoft getting access to all the studios, talent, tech and manpower at Activision Blizzard.

When you have something as powerful as Call of Duty on your side, you can help shape the future of games development. Are there things Xbox hardware is specially designed for? Call of Duty being used as a testbed for how good it is could get other developers to want to adopt it. Sony actually suggested that very thing as one of their fears when they mentioned that Microsoft would use COD and Activision Blizzard games to increase the interoperability with Xbox hardware.
 
Topher said:
None of that stuff was a lie, dude. You might think they are exaggerated or overhyped, but neither of those things are uncommon in the gaming industry.



If that were the case then Microsoft could have just said "take it or leave it" months ago, but......here we are.
Click to expand...
Yea, but a smart business CEO doesn't operate in absolutes. This isn't a Star Wars movie its a very large business!
 
SenjutsuSage said:
Game Pass is making almost $4 billion per year in its current state. It's likely to make over $4 billion this calendar year alone. With the subscribers gained this year, it'll make even more next year. The reason you think it needs to be $25-30 for ultimate is that you're incorrectly looking at the cost of the AAA titles and not understand how the financials work. Game Pass' business model is about using the power of attraction of a low monthly price with guaranteed day one first-party AAA games with a mix of smaller and AAA 3rd party games (some of which are day one), that keep coming at no additional cost to bring in millions of subscribers. The bigger the number of total subscribers grow, the more Game Pass being at its existing price works.

Game Pass just on console last year made $2.9 billion. Find me a first party title that does $2.9 billion in a single year. There isn't one. Whereas some people are focusing on how much did each first party game sell on its own, nobody is looking at what Game Pass aims to do, which is to get those first party games to make a whole lot more money together than they ever could by themselves on a yearly basis. Game Pass only works with lots of subscribers. As Phil said, it's profitable. Game Pass with the number of subscribers it has is practically paying for itself and bringing in more revenue than first party games have ever brought for xbox.

Game Pass's business model is more concerned with how much money all first party games with some 3rd party mixed in can make for Xbox in a year. It's literally another way of selling first party games, they just turned into a monthly subscription service. Game Pass is a big part of the reason Xbox has set revenue records recently.
Click to expand...
I agree with most of what you say there regarding GP revenues as RRP subs etc.

I disagree with single titles doing $3Bil a year, there's heaps mate -
etc
 
Last edited:
akimbo009 said:
You have no idea about business.

I am not going to sell the hottest product on your platform for the same cut as some indie developer is trying to break into the market. That's just not how any of this works. No only that stupid on the face of it, but you - the platform holder - actually make more money with less of the % of the revenue generated long-term with a product that sells more than sells less. So in the case of COD, you'd be more than willing to take a smaller cut than a product that sells less. Conversely, if i am selling a product that I know you not only will benefit for the direct sale of that product but also has pull through (e.g. makes your product more attractive, and helps sell your other games or devices) then I have leverage to push for a more favorable contract with economics that benefit me slightly more but we both end up winning.

No one would just accept the same terms across the board. It's absolutely a stupid position you're arguing for and no one runs their business like that.
Click to expand...

:messenger_tears_of_joy:

Actually stop and think for a second. Have you heard anything about any conditions Microsoft is imposing on Sony throughout this entire shit show to keep COD on PS?

Think reallllly hard why we haven't.
 
Ass of Can Whooping said:
:messenger_tears_of_joy:

Actually stop and think for a second. Have you heard anything about any conditions Microsoft is imposing on Sony throughout this entire shit show to keep COD on PS?

Think reallllly hard why we haven't.
Click to expand...
Sony is asking the same treatment, which they enjoyed during their marketing campaign, and dont want MS to experience those moment.

Everyone knows by this point.
 
akimbo009 said:
None of the contract details have been shared. So you don't know but definitely not going to be shared.
Click to expand...

Some would have you believe when MS suggest 'hammering out an agreement' they mean walking into a room with the Sony execs and sliding a piece of paper across the table that says '10' on it and Sony shake their head and MS have to keep increasing the number until Sony nod.
 
akimbo009 said:
None of the contract details have been shared. So you don't know but definitely not going to be shared.
Click to expand...

Yes, they would be shared. Sony's lawyers would rake them over the coals for it. Jim Ryan publicly talked about the three-year deal first. If Microsoft was stupid enough to add these stipulations to something they've already public committed to that shit is going straight into public domain
 
Last edited:
Topher said:
So neither side is doing any dictating. Exactly my point.
Click to expand...
Well that's not true if Jim continues with this absurd idea that this deal is going to be blocked because Sony don't like it. Phil just grew the COD base with two new solid 10 year agreements and Activision/Blizzard approved of the move. Gabe doesn't even want a printed agreement between the two companies. Nintendo, well just got handed a major ACE for it's platform. Who lost in all this? Well Sony loses if they don't want to share but, hey Blockbuster didn't lead forever did they? Jim is having to adjust to a new Microsoft, its a Microsoft Sony really never wanted to face a market they have to share.
 
Last edited:
adamsapple said:
That's a nice image macro but it has fuck-all relevance to the point at hand, just like your last few posts.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that image is just PR hype and personal subjective opinions on the outcomes. Shit happens in the industry, even if I'm on the side of get your own ducks in order before buying up more troubled publishers.
 
Hero of Spielberg said:
Some would have you believe when MS suggest 'hammering out an agreement' they mean walking into a room with the Sony execs and sliding a piece of paper across the table that says '10' on it and Sony shake their head and MS have to keep increasing the number until Sony nod.
Click to expand...

That has fuck all to do with what he's just argued
 
Last edited:
Wulfer said:
Well that's not true if Jim continues with this absurd idea that this deal is going to be blocked because Sony don't like it. Phil just grew the COD base with two new solid 10 year agreements and Activision/Blizzard approved of the move. Gabe's doesn't even want a printed agreement between the two companies. And Nintendo, well just got handed a major ACE for it's platform. Who lost in all this? Well Sony loses if they don't want to share but, hey Blockbuster didn't lead forever did they? Jim is having to adjust to a new Microsoft, its a Microsoft Sony really never wanted to face a market they have to share.
Click to expand...

If You Say So Ok GIF by Bounce
 
Hero of Spielberg said:
He suggested there's more to the deal than the number of years which gets disclosed to the public, I said others suggest otherwise. Seems to have everything to do with what he argued.
Click to expand...

No, he's suggested Microsoft's public promise of keeping COD on PS has conditions that Sony needs to follow, such as decreasing the 30% revenue share, which is the standard across both the PS and Xbox store. Given the fact this hasn't been picked up by Sony's lawyers, it's safe to say it's complete nonsense and he hasn't got a clue what he's talking about
 
Last edited:
Hero of Spielberg said:
Some would have you believe when MS suggest 'hammering out an agreement' they mean walking into a room with the Sony execs and sliding a piece of paper across the table that says '10' on it and Sony shake their head and MS have to keep increasing the number until Sony nod.
Click to expand...

A nudge is as good as a wink to a blind bat...
 
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