Support NeoGAF

[freefornow]

"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.

http://[URL][URL]https://www.econom...osofts-aggressive-push-to-monopolize-gaming/#

[/URL][/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...

Reading their press release pages, trying to find what they have actually acheived as a "Project". Has any decision by the FTC been a result of their "thought bubbles".

I can yell at the clouds (no pun intended) as much as the next person.
After reading the article, my summary is:

Also, have seen this movie several times and only now noticed John Goodman has inadvertant "Mickey Mouse" ears as a result of the bowling ball rack. Can't unsee.

 

[Ozzy Onya A2Z]

Reading their press release pages, trying to find what they have actually acheived as a "Project". Has any decision by the FTC been a result of their "thought bubbles".

I can yell at the clouds (no pun intended) as much as the next person.
After reading the article, my summary is:

Also, have seen this movie several times and only now noticed John Goodman has inadvertant "Mickey Mouse" ears as a result of the bowling ball rack. Can't unsee.

I want two reactions to your post.

I had the same thought when I read what she's an executive director of; American Economic Liberties Project. Sounds like something my kid would do for extra credit in high school during debate class.

 

[Hero of Spielberg]

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

Perhaps it does. How can you be so sure that Sony's lawyers are making public every condition of the proposal they've received? Afterall Jim described the first offer as 'inadquate on many levels' ... perhaps it was just a figure of speech, or perhaps there were additional conditions in the proposal on top of the duration that they thought were 'inadequate'.

Looking at the following quote:

'Last week, Xbox revealed that it had "provided a signed agreement to Sony to guarantee Call of Duty on PlayStation, with feature and content parity, for at least several more years" beyond Sony's existing contract with Activision. Xbox said this offer "goes well beyond typical gaming industry agreements."'

Perhaps as part of offering the guarantee, there was a small trade-off on revenue share? Afterall, MS stated it goes well beyond typical gaming industry agreements, so it stands to reason that they'd expect some concessions.

 

[geary]

Can i go and put my toy on the shelf of Wallmart without signing any contract with them? Can i go and put my game on Sony stores without sogning any contract with them?

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

Can i go and put my toy on the shelf of Wallmart without signing any contract with them? Can i go and put my game on Sony stores without sogning any contract with them?

I think is the other way around.

 

[SenjutsuSage]

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 -

• Fortnite did $9Bil in 2 years
• Pokemon made 1Bil in 2021
• PUBG was $3Bil in 2021
• Candy Crush Saga was $1.2Bil in 2021

etc

I never said single titles don't make that much. I said find me a first party title that does that much in a year, meaning a title belonging to any of the console platform owners.

Pokemon making $1 billion in a year for Nintendo is great, but I was referring to the much higher $2.9 billion I highlighted for Game Pass. But the larger point I was making was though was that even many popular first-party hits that have gone on to sell 15-20 million+ copies, rarely do so at full price. It usually comes over a few years and often with price drops, meaning the revenue picture is dipping quite a bit compared to a service such as Game Pass that never has price drops. There may be promotions here and there, but they'll never last.

This shit is so dumb. The deal won't even close before mid next year and it's a 10 year contract. No doubt a new Nintendo console is coming out in 2023 or 2024 so this whole "bu bu switch can't run COD" discussion is pointless.

And there could easily be terms in the contract that states the 10 years begins upon the first native release. And Microsoft just intends to make the first native release at least within 2-3 years of deal close.

 

[Ozriel]

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.

Lmao. They were set up two years ago. Lol @ you touting them up as an impartial industry mainstay when they're antitrust hawks that are essentially set up to oppose acquisitions like this on reflex.

 

[Ozriel]

Does he really need it spelt out for him?

Microsoft's press release specified 'Nintendo' and not 'Nintendo Switch'. There will be new hardware before end 2024.

 

[Fess]

This shit is so dumb. The deal won't even close before mid next year and it's a 10 year contract. No doubt a new Nintendo console is coming out in 2023 or 2024 so this whole "bu bu switch can't run COD" discussion is pointless.

Exactly, people clearly don't see past their own nose. This is a major get for Nintendo at this point in time, they'll have Call of Duty on their console for their entire next generation and possibly a couple years into their next-next generation too.

 

[gothmog]

Exactly, people clearly don't see past their own nose. This is a major get for Nintendo at this point in time, they'll have Call of Duty on their console for their entire next generation and possibly a couple years into their next-next generation too.

It's dumb across the board. 10 years is a long time and of course there will be new Nintendo hardware, but the dumbest part is hearing people's constant declarations about this being an indicator that new Nintendo hardware must be imminent.

 

[Three]

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.

CoD was on steam already, it's not growing there. He's grown it with 1 agreement and lets see if Nintendo fans even buy it. COD on Wii and Wii U didn't do so great.

 

[akimbo009]

CoD was on steam already, it's not growing there. He's grown it with 1 agreement and lets see if Nintendo fans even buy it. COD on Wii and Wii U didn't do so great.

Sorta. MW2 was a recent addition after years not being on Steam, and pushed to ABKs storefronts. Either way, it's a public commitment, which Valve has appreciated and accepted the form of trust, that COD will now remain going forward. Which is news. I don't think anyone was totally convinced ABK wouldn't just go back to their store fronts.

And how well it sells on various platforms isn't relevant.

 

[Three]

I don't think anyone was totally convinced ABK wouldn't just go back to their store fronts.

And how well it sells on various platforms isn't relevant.

Why would Activison have gone back to their storefront? Obviously they went back to steam already for a reason, because it sells there. Much like MS tried with the windows store exclusives, failed, then went back to steam, they aren't going back.

It's pretty relevant when somebody is saying the agreement "just grew the COD base" . Activision released CoD games on the Wii and even the Wii U. Weirdly they stopped on Switch. Maybe because those versions didn't sell, or maybe they would have gone back to Switch anyway once they realised it wasn't another Wii U situation.

 

[phil_t98]

Understand the difference between a PR and a lie.

Your list is just PR words.

the list is headlines and is any of it not true? its all opinions

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

Perhaps it does. How can you be so sure that Sony's lawyers are making public every condition of the proposal they've received? Afterall Jim described the first offer as 'inadquate on many levels' ... perhaps it was just a figure of speech, or perhaps there were additional conditions in the proposal on top of the duration that they thought were 'inadequate'.

Looking at the following quote:

'Last week, Xbox revealed that it had "provided a signed agreement to Sony to guarantee Call of Duty on PlayStation, with feature and content parity, for at least several more years" beyond Sony's existing contract with Activision. Xbox said this offer "goes well beyond typical gaming industry agreements."'

Perhaps as part of offering the guarantee, there was a small trade-off on revenue share? Afterall, MS stated it goes well beyond typical gaming industry agreements, so it stands to reason that they'd expect some concessions.

Because, as i've already said, both Sony and Microsoft have taken this fight to the public. We would know about these sneaky stipulations because Sony wouldn't be quiet about it. We would have absolutely heard about this during the brazillian case.

 

[Fess]

It's dumb across the board. 10 years is a long time and of course there will be new Nintendo hardware, but the dumbest part is hearing people's constant declarations about this being an indicator that new Nintendo hardware must be imminent.

New Nintendo hardware has been expected for a long time but we don't know when it'll happen and if it's a Switch Pro, a Switch 2 or something entirely different. Being concerned for how they'll get CoD to run on OG Switch seems awfully shortsighted.

 

[Banjo64]

Minecraft is approaching 8 or 9 years since the MS buyout. It's a pretty good indicator MS aren't really pushing exclusivity on big franchises.

Are Doom, TES and Fallout not big franchises? You're absolutely right that Minecraft has started multiplatform, but other games haven't (or don't look to be).

 

[gothmog]

New Nintendo hardware has been expected for a long time but we don't know when it'll happen and if it's a Switch Pro, a Switch 2 or something entirely different. Being concerned for how they'll get CoD to run on OG Switch seems awfully shortsighted.

Right. I think we're saying the same thing. Speculating about what Nintendo is going to do or announce is a lesson in frustration and shattered expectations. They'll port it to whatever makes the most sense.

 

[Assaulty]

Besides, did Phil ever say it was going to be the most recent COD games that would get ported over/launched next to other platforms?

Couldn't it just be COD mobile that could get ported to switch? Always felt like it was a missed opportunity not to

 

[freefornow]

Couldn't it just be COD mobile that could get ported to switch?

I beleive Phil has stated that it wont be the mobile version. Wants to ensure that gamers get a similar experience for their chosen hardware . Or something like that.

EDIT: think I got that wrong. Didnt specifically mention mobile

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."

 

[Menzies]

Are Doom, TES and Fallout not big franchises? You're absolutely right that Minecraft has started multiplatform, but other games haven't (or don't look to be).

And you're absolutely right that those Bethesda games are big franchises. A rather non-insignificant differentiator might be that they are not multiplayer focused titles that live and breathe by their online communities?

Microsoft was not shy is stating that they were lacking in the big named exclusives against the competition. Every successful platform has exclusives that draw consumers. If they don't have these games as exclusives, then maybe their platform isn't as successful, which makes it harder to execute on their vision of growing these online communities, wherever they are.

 

[Oddvintagechap]

Sony brought COD to the switch.

at 720 30fps. bless jimmy boy.

edit: Nintendo just juked Microsoft. Switch Pro is a microLED 1080p screen upgrade. MS spends 3 billion trying to get COD to run on it.

 

[Hero of Spielberg]

Because, as i've already said, both Sony and Microsoft have taken this fight to the public. We would know about these sneaky stipulations because Sony wouldn't be quiet about it. We would have absolutely heard about this during the brazillian case.

They've taken the parts to the public they feel will help the from a PR point of view. To think that includes everything in the offer is naive at best.

Further, why would they be any more likely to divulge information in the Brazil case? You think these guys don't have NDA's in place?

 

[feynoob]

the list is headlines and is any of it not true? its all opinions

"Xbox had a great in 2022".

We can interpret this in 2 ways.

Xbox consoles sold great in 2022, breaking their sold consoles, despite shortages.

Or

2022 was a bad year for Xbox, due to their 1st party output.

Both sentences are right, and neither is wrong.

This is how PR works.

 

[feynoob]

Sony brought COD to the switch.

at 720 30fps. bless jimmy boy.

edit: Nintendo just juked Microsoft. Switch Pro is a microLED 1080p screen upgrade. MS spends 3 billion trying to get COD to run on it.

Jim is trying to stop switch getting COD, because they are dominating Japan. He doesn't want to give Nintendo more power.

 

[GHG]

Jim is trying to stop switch getting COD, because they are dominating Japan. He doesn't want to give Nintendo more power.

Now this is a clown take.

 

[Oddvintagechap]

Jim is trying to stop switch getting COD, because they are dominating Japan. He doesn't want to give Nintendo more power.

I doubt there a significant part of the market that debates between buying a switch or PS5.

 

[feynoob]

Besides, did Phil ever say it was going to be the most recent COD games that would get ported over/launched next to other platforms?

Couldn't it just be COD mobile that could get ported to switch? Always felt like it was a missed opportunity not to

Nope. It's same as Xbox and Steam version.

 

[feynoob]

Now this is a clown take.

Pretty much sums up this entire deal. Clown takes everywhere.

I doubt there a significant part of the market that debates between buying a switch or PS5.

See above.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

They've taken the parts to the public they feel will help the from a PR point of view. To think that includes everything in the offer is naive at best.

And stipulatons like that would be an easy win when MS entire premise is that nothing changes for PlayStation. To think otherwise isn't naivity. It's just stupidity.

Further, why would they be any more likely to divulge information in the Brazil case? You think these guys don't have NDA's in place?

Lmao what NDA? Microsoft has come to Sony with an agreement and said no. They're under no obligation to withhold it just like Jim was under no obligation when he told the public that MS came to them with a three year agreement

 

[Hero of Spielberg]

And stipulatons like that would be an easy win when MS entire premise is that nothing changes for PlayStation. To think otherwise isn't naivity. It's just stupidity.



Lmao what NDA? Microsoft has come to Sony with an agreement and said no. They're under no obligation to withhold it just like Jim was under no obligation when he told the public that MS came to them with a three year agreement

When have MS stated nothing would change for PS?

Also, any half serious contract negotiations I've been involved with have had an NDA signed up front. I'd say this one would call for it. What's your experience been?

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

When have MS stated nothing would change for PS?

Lmao really? Every single time they've come out an publicly said COD would continue to release on PS

Also, any half serious contract negotiations I've been involved with have had an NDA signed up front. I'd say this one would call for it. What's your experience been?

There are no negotiations between Sony and Microsoft. What are you not understanding here? Jim litterally outsted the three year deal to the media and you still want to pretend they're under some NDA about this? They're not interested in serious negotiations.

 

[feynoob]

Every single time they've come out an publicly said COD would continue to release on PS.

But Sony has to agree to it.
If Sony doesn't, then MS won't release it there.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

But Sony has to agree to it.
If Sony doesn't, then MS won't release it there.

No, they dont. We've been through this.

 

[The_Mike]

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?

Things can always get heated when there's strong feelings involved.

 

[feynoob]

No, they dont. We've been through this.

The point is, If Sony wants cod on their device, they have to sign a contract with MS.

MS publicly said they will support PS. But Sony would have to sign a contract with them, in order for MS to fulfil their promise.

MS can't go a head and put COD without a contract on PS.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

The point is, If Sony wants cod on their device, they have to sign a contract with MS.

MS publicly said they will support PS. But Sony would have to sign a contract with them, in order for MS to fulfil their promise.

MS can't go a head and put COD without a contract on PS.

Once again this is completely irrelevent to the on-going dispute.

 

[Hero of Spielberg]

Lmao really? Every single time they've come out an publicly said COD would continue to release on PS.



There are no negotiations between Sony and Microsoft. What are you not understanding here? Jim litterally outsted the three year deal to the media and you still want to pretend they're under an NDA about this?

Continuing to release on PS doesn't mean everything stays the same genius.

No negotiations? Ha! 'Ousting' that it was a 3 year deal does not mean all details of the proposal were made public, be that by choice or be law.

Tbh this is on me, I should have known I was wasting time attempting to 'discuss' this with someone who can't even grasp the idea that there are contract negotiations happening as part of this deal right now.

 

[feynoob]

Once again this is completely irrelevent to the on-going dispute.

The ongoing dispute is that Sony has 2 years left with Activision contract.

It includes marketing rights, and everything from revenue split, to how many years would Activision put their games there, plus contract renewal.

Sony wouldn't have been throwing fits, if Activision agreed to a long term COD on PS, as MS would have to honor that contract.

That is the key point here.

The contract to putting the game on PS is up soon. Sony have to sign a contract. And they won't do it, without a parity with Xbox day1(no extra dlc or content like PS did, when they had the marketing rights).

 

[Godot25]

Like I said, Phil is a known liar.

Jesus. If you want to "prove" that Spencer is a liar, you can't do that by pointing to his PR talk.

Every exec will tell you that next year will be the best ever. Their job as a CEO's is to be hype machines not only in front of public but also in front of shareholders.

Didn't Jimbo said that first year of PS5 would be best first year for PlayStation console ever? Didn't he promised slew of first-party titles, when in reality players got...5? And 2 of them were cross-gen?

Saying that Spencer is liar requires a proof like - "Spencer said that The Elder Scrolls VI/Starfield will be multiplatform after Bethesda purchase and then he announced those games as exclusive." That is a lie. Not that he is promising best E3 for Xbox. Because outside of fact that he needs to do that to generate hype, it is also subjective. One can find presentation great because it caters to his gamers preferences, another can find it boring.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

Tbh this is on me, I should have known I was wasting time attempting to 'discuss' this with someone who can't even grasp the idea that there are contract negotiations happening as part of this deal right now.

There are no negotiations happening. Hence why Brad Smith called them out on twitter saying

Any day
@Sony
wants to sit down and talk, we'll be happy to hammer out a 10-year deal for PlayStation as well.

 

[Loxus]

Jesus. If you want to "prove" that Spencer is a liar, you can't do that by pointing to his PR talk.

Every exec will tell you that next year will be the best ever. Their job as a CEO's is to be hype machines not only in front of public but also in front of shareholders.

Didn't Jimbo said that first year of PS5 would be best first year for PlayStation console ever? Didn't he promised slew of first-party titles, when in reality players got...5? And 2 of them were cross-gen?

Saying that Spencer is liar requires a proof like - "Spencer said that The Elder Scrolls VI/Starfield will be multiplatform after Bethesda purchase and then he announced those games as exclusive." That is a lie. Not that he is promising best E3 for Xbox. Because outside of fact that he needs to do that to generate hype, it is also subjective. One can find presentation great because it caters to his gamers preferences, another can find it boring.

If I was selling you something and I told you these are the best tasting food you will ever eat but it tastes like shit, wasn't that a lie I told?

I swear some of you believe in Phil like he's Jesus.

 

[Pelta88]

Phil is a known liar.
I'm still waiting on all those games he promised us since he became CEO.

 

[Godot25]

The ongoing dispute is that Sony has 2 years left with Activision contract.

It includes marketing rights, and everything from revenue split, to how many years would Activision put their games there, plus contract renewal.

Sony wouldn't have been throwing fits, if Activision agreed to a long term COD on PS, as MS would have to honor that contract.

That is the key point here.

The contract to putting the game on PS is up soon. Sony have to sign a contract. And they won't do it, without a parity with Xbox day1(no extra dlc or content like PS did, when they had the marketing rights).

I wonder if that contract Microsoft proposes to Sony does not include "cancellation" of their current marketing deal that expires in 2025 (or whatever it is ending). If that is the case I'm kinda not surprised that Sony does not want to sign that.

Because let's face it. If current marketing contract between ActiBlizz and Sony remains intact, then Microsoft can't put 2024 Call of Duty game into Game Pass day one because Sony's marketing deal is preventing it from happening. And that's not great for Microsoft, because they need to start working on that "COD Game Pass Day 1" mantra as soon as possible.

 

[feynoob]

I wonder if that contract Microsoft proposes to Sony does not include "cancellation" of their current marketing deal that expires in 2025 (or whatever it is ending). If that is the case I'm kinda not surprised that Sony does not want to sign that.

MS is honoring those. They won't cancel them, as they have to pay fees to do that, and PR damage.

 

[Godot25]

If I was selling you something and I told you these are the best tasting food you will ever eat but it tastes like shit, wasn't that a lie I told?

I swear some of you believe in Phil like he's Jesus.

If you are selling me literal shit and telling me it is steak....that's a lie
If you are selling me "great culinary experience" and I don't find it tasty I was influenced by your PR/advert which led me to not that great of a experience.

Do you consider McDonalds ads where they are showing perfectly looking food as a lie or as an advert/PR?

I'm still waiting for slew of "Spencer's lies." Like actual lies.

 

[feynoob]

If I was selling you something and I told you these are the best tasting food you will ever eat but it tastes like shit, wasn't that a lie I told?

I swear some of you believe in Phil like he's Jesus.

Well there is no saving for you for buddy.

Good luck with your "Phil is a liar crusade".

 

[Godot25]

MS is honoring those. They won't cancel them, as they have to pay fees to do that, and PR damage.

Well. They can be honouring them, so Sony will keep marketing rights. But I can imagine a scenario where Microsoft wants to somehow get new COD games into Game Pass day one asap.

 

[Hero of Spielberg]

There are no negotiations happening. Hence why Brad Smith called them out on twitter saying

Because at the moment they're negotiating via the regulators. That's why Smith is suggesting they meet 1 v 1 to 'hammer it out'.

You really don't get it do you?

 

[feynoob]

Well. They can be honouring them, so Sony will keep marketing rights. But I can imagine a scenario where Microsoft wants to somehow get new COD games into Game Pass day one asap.

It's only 2 games. MS isn't going to burn the bridge for them.

In the mean time, they would have all old COD games on gamepass.

It's reasonable respect from them. Consumers are happy, and Sony is happy with their remaining marketing contract.