Support NeoGAF

[mansoor1980]

Big Phil is in the hot seat, looks like a man under pressure. Do you think Satya is screaming at him right now?

looks like a painfull smile , reminds me of this

 

[feynoob]

Is it far fetched, possibly, could MS do it? Yeah. Life goes in circles though, and when a World of Warcraft subscription costs as much as $15 a month for access to ONE game - how do we know what the long term ambition is?

It's far fetched, because that could also apply to their entire first party games. It's not just COD.

If they acquire enough of the market (and continue acquiring the most popular casual games like CoD) they'd have everyone by the balls.

If they got Activision, they would be in monopoly territory. They won't be able to acquire any big publisher. So that is impossible for MS.

 

[Banjo64]

It's far fetched, because that could also apply to their entire first party games. It's not just COD.

It doesn't apply to their first party though, because CoD sells 20m copies every single year and is the biggest money maker. CoD's core player base will go where CoD goes and will pay what's needed to play the game.

If they got Activision, they would be in monopoly territory. They won't be able to acquire any big publisher. So that is impossible for MS.

They aren't and wouldn't be in monopoly territory (as rightly pointed out though, they can still engage in anti-competitive practice without being a monopoly) - we will have to see the outcome of ABK before labelling anything impossible.

 

[feynoob]

Like I'm sure Microsoft Office used to be a one off fee for unlimited access but now you have to subscribe for a yearly fee?

You still have 1 time payment off, but it's yearly.

You don't need to subscribe to office 365.

 

[feynoob]

It doesn't apply to their first party though, because CoD sells 20m copies every single year and is the biggest money maker. CoD's core player base will go where CoD goes and will pay what's needed to play the game.

It will, as COD is going to be a 1st party game. If they only do a subscription service, and no sale.

They aren't and wouldn't be in monopoly territory (as rightly pointed out though, they can still engage in anti-competitive practice without being a monopoly) - we will have to see the outcome of ABK before labelling anything impossible.

Buying any big publisher after Activision is in the realm of monopoly.

MS will have 2 big publishers. Zenimax and Activision. EA or take 2 would make them a monopoly.

 

[GHG]

You still have 1 time payment off, but it's yearly.

You don't need to subscribe to office 365.

It's still a subscription, just charged annually.

 

[feynoob]

It's still a subscription, just charged annually.

You are being charged license fee.

Still the same bulshit though.

 

[Banjo64]

It will, as COD is going to be a 1st party game. If they only do a subscription service, and no sale.

Buying any big publisher after Activision is in the realm of monopoly.

MS will have 2 big publishers. Zenimax and Activision. EA or take 2 would make them a monopoly.

This is the definition of a monopoly from Google;

A monopoly, as described by Irving Fisher, is a market with the "absence of competition", creating a situation where a specific person or enterprise is the only supplier of a particular thing.

 

[The_Mike]

https://www.pcgamer.com/microsofts-...m_campaign=socialflow&utm_source=facebook.com

"The FTC says Microsoft's treatment of Bethesda games demonstrates that it "can and will withhold content" from Sony."

I'm other words:

" Sony has a long history of money hatting game modes, skins, benefits and content from xbox and pc, turning it into exclusive content, and it would be unfair competition if this happened to playstation.

 

[feynoob]

This is the definition of a monopoly from Google;

A monopoly, as described by Irving Fisher, is a market with the "absence of competition", creating a situation where a specific person or enterprise is the only supplier of a particular thing.

That is what buying EA after this deal would cause.
MS so far will have tons of popular IPs from these publishers.

It's why Take 2, Ubisoft, EA and Activision are called the big 4. Due to them having the most popular IPs.

Imagine a world, where MS owns call of duty, GTA, And elder scrolls.

That is the definition of market with no competition.

 

[Sanepar]

That is what buying EA after this deal would cause.
MS so far will have tons of popular IPs from these publishers.

It's why Take 2, Ubisoft, EA and Activision are called the big 4. Due to them having the most popular IPs.

Imagine a world, where MS owns call of duty, GTA, And elder scrolls.

That is the definition of market with no competition.

Xbox fanboys will never understand this. Just give up guys. They think MS is a saint and will provide all this to them for $15 month.

 

[Banjo64]

That is what buying EA after this deal would cause.
MS so far will have tons of popular IPs from these publishers.

It's why Take 2, Ubisoft, EA and Activision are called the big 4. Due to them having the most popular IPs.

Imagine a world, where MS owns call of duty, GTA, And elder scrolls.

That is the definition of market with no competition.

Whilst I agree that sounds apocalyptic and would be anti competitive and anti consumer (just ABK pushes in to that territory), I'm still not sure on a world where Sony and Nintendo exist you could classify it as a monopoly. Fingers crossed ABK is blocked though and this is the end of the massive consolidations.

 

[StealthGoblin]

I think the deal will close, but I think there'll have to be contractual concessions. As to what they'll be, I assume they'll involve GamePass. Maybe something along the line of Sony having day and date parity with GamePass on PS+ extra for COD games and potentially other ABK games.

 

[bender]

Sony has a long history of money hatting game modes, skins, benefits and content from xbox and pc, turning it into exclusive content, and it would be unfair competition if this happened to playstation.

 

[feynoob]

Whilst I agree that sounds apocalyptic and would be anti competitive and anti consumer (just ABK pushes in to that territory), I'm still not sure on a world where Sony and Nintendo exist you could classify it as a monopoly. Fingers crossed ABK is blocked though and this is the end of the massive consolidations.

Sony will be impacted by this, unlike Nintendo.
Nintendo made their own market, and have the means to sustain themselves.
On other hand, Sony would lose massively.

If MS has anything to do with that, it could classify them as a monopoly company. (Harming competition).

CMA highlights this very well with COD. Taking away the game causes PS to lose significant market. Now add other markets and that is a huge blow to Sony.

 

[feynoob]

Reminder, we will get too many PR news in the future, after FTC situation.

Here is one in action.

 

[Stooky]

Serious question here. Say this acquisition does not go through, did Sony ruin its relationship with Activision in terms of securing future exclusive content or marketing rights for COD and future titles?

Nope, Sony paid extra for that.it's business, Money talks

 

[Ozzy Onya A2Z]

That is what buying EA after this deal would cause.
MS so far will have tons of popular IPs from these publishers.

It's why Take 2, Ubisoft, EA and Activision are called the big 4. Due to them having the most popular IPs.

Imagine a world, where MS owns call of duty, GTA, And elder scrolls.

That is the definition of market with no competition.

So apparently Pac-man, Pikachu, Sonic, Kratos, Alloy, Mario, a random Sim, some time travelling assassin, a baseball player and paint splats on a go kart aren't the reigning Kings? Can't hold their own?

I didn't even list Eastern vs Western icons, PC games as big as Star Citizen or Counter Strike etc.

Also didn't mention mobile games from Apple or Google that are giants.

Just another factually wrong post to serve a bias.

 

[feynoob]

So apparently Pac-man, Pikachu, Sonic, Kratos, Alloy, Mario, a random Sim, some time travelling assassin, a baseball player and paint splats on a go kart aren't the reigning Kings? Can't hold their own?

I didn't even list Eastern vs Western icons, PC games as big as Star Citizen or Counter Strike etc.

Also didn't mention mobile games from Apple or Google that are giants.

Just another factually wrong post to serve a bias.

I guess assassin creed, Tom Clancy's, GTA, fifa, NBA, Madden, battlefield, EA racing are trash then

Got it

 

[bender]

EA's sports franchises aren't a great example as the license holders wouldn't allow for exclusivity and whoever might acquire them would be foolish to attempt that in the first place as those games are merely trojan horses for mtx.

 

[MasterCornholio]

Fuck a squid or fuck Price?

All I'm saying is I'm going full on The Deep

Hot Dolphin!!!

 

[Loxus]

Aye man, did Phil or someone he knows bully you in school ?

You've got a real vendetta going on here

Says the guy with Phil's balls down his throat.

Anyway, if you where following.
My point was Phil is going to make COD exclusive to Xbox when the deal closes, dispirited his statements that COD will remain on PlayStation as long as there's a PlayStation console.

Bethesda for example.
I have no issue with Phil as a CEO, I'm just stating my opinion and he's a liar.

 

[Thirty7ven]

Well if the Sony way is the only way, MS can pay large sums of money to secure 3rd party timed and permanent exclusives. I'm sure no one will have any problems with that.

I understand you're upset but yes MS helping third parties with risky projects is great for the industry.

Look at what happened to From Software, they are huge now exactly because Sony was there help them.

You know at one time Square was in the gutter and Sony went out there and invested a bunch of money on them. They didn't buy them. In fact they sold the shares back to Square Enix later.

When MS, Nintendo and Sony go out there and finance third party either through exclusives or timed exclusives they are effectively helping them get bigger and hopefully helping them make better games.

MS has a problem with that process because they don't like fair competition which is stupid because Gears of War for example was an incredible success. It's a culture thing.

Xbox fans think they need MS buying the market, but you don't. That's not how you became a Xbox fan, don't you get it?

 

[STARSBarry]

"Microsoft decided to make several of Bethesda's titles including Starfield and Redfall Microsoft exclusives despite assurances it had given to European antitrust authorities that it had no incentive to withhold games from rival consoles."

I mean if they have a history of saying they won't do something to an antitrust authority and then doing it anyway when the deal closes, and you are making the same argument to the FTC who are going to base there decision on this promise I think yes perhaps they have a point.

 

[feynoob]

Says the guy with Phil's balls down his throat.

Anyway, if you where following.
My point was Phil is going to make COD exclusive to Xbox when the deal closes, dispirited his statements that COD will remain on PlayStation as long as there's a PlayStation console.

Bethesda for example.
I have no issue with Phil as a CEO, I'm just stating my opinion and he's a liar.

Financially, it's impossible to make the game exclusive to Xbox.

What you are suggesting is insanity.

 

[feynoob]

CWA Statement on the FTC’s Decision to Sue to Block the Microsoft/Activision Deal

By moving to file a lawsuit in administrative court to block Microsoft’s acquisition of Activision Blizzard, the Federal Trade Commission has missed an opportunity to demonstrate that it takes the labor impact of mergers seriously.

cwa-union.org

By moving to file a lawsuit in administrative court to block Microsoft's acquisition of Activision Blizzard, the Federal Trade Commission has missed an opportunity to demonstrate that it takes the labor impact of mergers seriously. Instead, the FTC has once again focused its analysis solely on consumer harms and, in this case, console-market leader Sony's concerns about increased competition.

CWA has for years raised concerns about the effect of mergers on workers and the labor market and we have worked with economists to assess the real risk of monopsony to workers, including in this transaction. Union representation and collective bargaining agreements are the most powerful tools we have to balance power between workers and companies. Collective bargaining is a bulwark against downward pressure on wages from merged employers with increased market power. Contractual protections mean that union workers are more empowered to blow the whistle on dangerous or unethical behavior, which benefits both employees and consumers.

Activision Blizzard is using its already-significant power to resist workers' organizing efforts and clearly does not wish to respect its workers' right to freely and fairly organize a union. That's why CWA sought a remedy that would rein in these tech giants' labor market power – a labor neutrality agreement that enables workers to counteract the increased monopsony inherent in the merger through collective bargaining. After CWA brought our concerns to light, Microsoft agreed to enter into negotiations to show regulators their good faith efforts to address monopsony harms, resulting in a legally binding agreement with CWA.

Workers across the country, including in the video game industry, understand that one of the most effective ways to fight consolidated corporate power is to consolidate their own power by joining together in unions. The status quo for American corporations – particularly the tech sector – is to aggressively resist these efforts, including illegally firing workers and interfering with union elections.

Approving this merger with the labor agreement that we fashioned with Microsoft to protect collective bargaining rights would have sent a game-changing message to corporate America that workers do indeed have a seat at the table and their concerns matter and must be addressed. We believe the FTC's case is not likely to convince a federal judge, particularly as the European Commission may move to approve the deal, and that workers at Activision Blizzard will finally have the opportunity to improve their wages, benefits and working conditions through their union.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

Financially, it's impossible to make the game exclusive to Xbox.

What you are suggesting is insanity.

There's nothing financially impossible about it

 

[feynoob]

There's nothing financially impossible about it

Right.
MS should lose all those COD money.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

Right.
MS should lose all those COD money.

They're losing the PS side of the revenue. Just like they're losing that revenue when Elder Scrolls 6 releases

Seems like they're fine with that sacrifice. It's not an argument on financial possibility.

 

[SaturnSaturn]

There's nothing financially impossible about it

The plan is and always has been day 1 on gamepass, let the others platforms buy the game for 70$.

 

[Banjo64]

I understand you're upset but yes MS helping third parties with risky projects is great for the industry.

Look at what happened to From Software, they are huge now exactly because Sony was there help them.

You know at one time Square was in the gutter and Sony went out there and invested a bunch of money on them. They didn't buy them. In fact they sold the shares back to Square Enix later.

When MS, Nintendo and Sony go out there and finance third party either through exclusives or timed exclusives they are effectively helping them get bigger and hopefully helping them make better games.

MS has a problem with that process because they don't like fair competition which is stupid because Gears of War for example was an incredible success. It's a culture thing.

Xbox fans think they need MS buying the market, but you don't. That's not how you became a Xbox fan, don't you get it?

I disagree that SE or From Software need help (although DeS undisputedly propelled From to new heights). That being said I agree with your sentiment overall.

Game Pass should be a vehicle to enable games to be made by talented devs. Double Fine always struggles for funding, then being acquired is great. Giving Moon a truck load of money to make Ori? Fantastic. Cuphead? Awesome. They should be funding smaller devs to make quality games like Tunic and Tinykin.

They've aquired Obsidian and Zenimax, they've got more than enough studios for Game Pass content - this ABK deal is nothing but MS trying to dominate the market.

 

[Thirty7ven]

The plan is and always has been day 1 on gamepass, let the others platforms buy the game for 70$.

That's just the short term plan. You and the rest who parrot MS's agenda have an opportunity here to learn about the market but you guys are too busy trying to save a buck.

 

[feynoob]

They're losing the PS side of the revenue. Just like they're losing that revenue when Elder Scrolls 6 releases

Seems like they're fine with that sacrifice. It's not an argument on financial possibility.

Pal, COD mw2 made 1b in 10 days.
No sane person is willing to forgo that money, for sake of exclusivity.

ES isn't COD. That franchise takes years to make what COD did in 1 year.

 

[Loxus]

Financially, it's impossible to make the game exclusive to Xbox.

What you are suggesting is insanity.

It's reality.
Microsoft wants more people to join their Xbox ecosystem.
It's long term investment.

10 year deal to keep COD on PlayStation with cut content to slowly draw in consumers.
Your still getting income from sales on PlayStation for 10 years.

Then after the 10 year contract expires, Xbox will then make COD exclusive.

 

[Banjo64]

Right.
MS should lose all those COD money.

They are a trillion dollar company. I'm not saying they'll do one thing or another. However technically they can practically absorb any cost they want to.

 

[Thirty7ven]

Pal, COD mw2 made 1b in 10 days.
No sane person is willing to forgo that money, for sake of exclusivity.

ES isn't COD. That franchise takes years to make what COD did in 1 year.

But it's only the PS side, and it wouldn't be now it would happen gradually until it reached a point where they can turn around and say it again "we will bring these games to platforms where gamepass exists".

Why is it so hard?

 

[quest]

There's nothing financially impossible about it

Sure if you want to lose money. I guarantee if a money hat cost sony 100 million they stop. There is no way to make that back your better off buying the studio at those prices like Microsoft is doing. They way i see it both need to be allowed or neither allowed. To force Microsoft into a choice of lose billions to keep up with Sony's money hats or exit the space is pandering to the overwhelming market leader.

 

[feynoob]

It's reality.
Microsoft wants more people to join their Xbox ecosystem.
It's long term investment.

MS main goal is gamepass. Xbox console is long gone.
So any purchase they make, would be exclusive to gamepass, not Xbox consoles.

10 year deal to keep COD on PlayStation with cut content to slowly draw in consumers.
Your still getting income from sales on PlayStation for 10 years.

Can't argue with this point.

Then after the 10 year contract expires, Xbox will then make COD exclusive

It will depend on the output of COD, and how many gamepass users are out there.
The risk is there though. As MS can make it exclusive, if they have the numbers.

 

[feynoob]

But it's only the PS side, and it wouldn't be now it would happen gradually until it reached a point where they can turn around and say it again "we will bring these games to platforms where gamepass exists".

Why is it so hard?

I understand the implications after 10 years. There is a chance of exclusives.
As long a PS makes those profits, they won't pull the plug out.

MS isn't going to be the same as right now. So who knows.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

Sure if you want to lose money. I guarantee if a money hat cost sony 100 million they stop. There is no way to make that back your better off buying the studio at those prices like Microsoft is doing. They way i see it both need to be allowed or neither allowed. To force Microsoft into a choice of lose billions to keep up with Sony's money hats or exit the space is pandering to the overwhelming market leader.

The fuck are you on about

 

[Thirty7ven]

Sure if you want to lose money. I guarantee if a money hat cost sony 100 million they stop. There is no way to make that back your better off buying the studio at those prices like Microsoft is doing. They way i see it both need to be allowed or neither allowed. To force Microsoft into a choice of lose billions to keep up with Sony's money hats or exit the space is pandering to the overwhelming market leader.

Why are some of you holding on to these dumb arguments goddamn breh. Xbox 360 happened, and Series is selling really well without particularly great software output by MS. Your argument falls flat as soon as it leaves your mouth, is console fanboy drivel and nothing else.

Holla when Sony goes out there and pays to make COD/FIFA/GTAVI exclusive instead of kicking a shit storm over games that don't even hit 10 million in sales.

 

[Warablo]

Were now counting timed exclusives as funding now, this is rich.

 

[feynoob]

But it's only the PS side, and it wouldn't be now it would happen gradually until it reached a point where they can turn around and say it again "we will bring these games to platforms where gamepass exists".

Why is it so hard?

If it's 1 time, 100%. But long term, no.

 

[Thirty7ven]

If it's 1 time, 100%. But long term, no.

MS is interested in their own growth end of story. They have already told you that 1 GP subscriber is worth more to them than selling you copies of their games.

Because Wall Street doesn't speculate on money made, it's about speculative growth and that truck must always be trucking.

 

[feynoob]

MS is interested in their own growth end of story. They have already told you that 1 GP subscriber is worth more to them than selling you copies of their games.

Because Wall Street doesn't speculate on money made, it's about speculative growth and that truck must always be trucking.

Which they need to hit that sweet spot gamepass number.
That the only way, they can absorb those losses.

 

[feynoob]

Sure if you want to lose money. I guarantee if a money hat cost sony 100 million they stop. There is no way to make that back your better off buying the studio at those prices like Microsoft is doing. They way i see it both need to be allowed or neither allowed. To force Microsoft into a choice of lose billions to keep up with Sony's money hats or exit the space is pandering to the overwhelming market leader.

Wth.
You see Ass of Can Whooping
This is why I can't choose a side.

 

[intheinbetween]

I think the deal will close, but I think there'll have to be contractual concessions. As to what they'll be, I assume they'll involve GamePass. Maybe something along the line of Sony having day and date parity with GamePass on PS+ extra for COD games and potentially other ABK games.

How is Sony getting date parity (on Day 1) with Game Pass for CoD on PS+ Extra, who will decide the amount Sony should be paying, or are you implying MS shoud do it for free? and what about exclusive content, does it also have to be available on day 1 for PS platforms? Honestly, that concession doesn't make any sense.

 

[feynoob]

I think the deal will close, but I think there'll have to be contractual concessions. As to what they'll be, I assume they'll involve GamePass. Maybe something along the line of Sony having day and date parity with GamePass on PS+ extra for COD games and potentially other ABK games.

For FTC, it would be covering any hole, which MS can abuse like how Facebook did with their acquisitions.

As for PS+ day1 that is going to cost them tons of money. Plus Sony isn't interested in doing that, as that means they are losing money, compared to game sales, which they get free money.

 

[oldergamer]

Now Sony is saying only children play Switch and wouldn't be interested in COD. They are panicking now with a defense like this

Its a pathetic defense from sony. No switch isnt for children. They do get the lions share of kids but a huge percentage are adults. I have one, so fuck you sony for saying that.

Sony are the reasons sega are out of console making, nintendo having to change thier model, and ms having to change thier business model to survive.

They are the only console maker paying to keep games off other consoles for entire generations. Which helps them years down the line as they kill the market for those games on the competition.

In the ps2 days in north america, if you didnt make exclusive content for sony yop would get denied at concept approval. If you released a game on a co.petitors console first, your game would get blacklisted and pushed to the bottom of the approval queue until you offered something exclusive.

Anyway sony is no better now imo. We cant forget they tried to money hat every third party title at the start of this gen.

 

[Topher]

Now Sony is saying only children play Switch and wouldn't be interested in COD. They are panicking now with a defense like this

Who is MLex? Where's the link?