Swift_Star
Banned
Why aren't you saying this to the green rats? They're the ones that are downplaying everything and reassuring themselves . Have some self awareness ffs.
Microsoft / Activision Deal Approval Watch |OT| (MS/ABK close)
- Status
CatLady
Selfishly plays on Xbox Purr-ies X
I did. That may have been a bit of hyperbole, but they certainly stretched the truth to make an excuse to initiate action against MS when they are on exceedingly weak footing and without any legitimate basis to block the deal.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Well, that part is directly contradicted by the Mlex EU statement so we need more context/info there.
Secondly, there were no prior commitments made regarding Zenimax IP like there have been with CoD right now.
It would be some real Oceans 11 shit for them to find a loophole in that.
I don't doubt that you're 100% sure of what you're saying.
It's just inaccurate, that's all.
Last edited:
Ass of Can Whooping
Member
I don't even understand the point of your throwaway takes. How you can judge the takes on either side when you have even less of an idea what's going on is even more laughable.
Just stick to lurking instead if you have nothing of value to add
Last edited:
Thirty7ven
Banned
But Xbox is already breaking Xbox records without any Bethesda exclusive. According to Phil they sell what they ship. According to what they state there they expect a significant share of sales to be on rival consoles over the life cycle of the generation. Yet they announced exclusives straight away and in fact announced that the deal was about delivering exclusives.
It's too easy this.
Last edited:
Swift_Star
Banned
He's just trying to silence those that are against the merge.
Its all in the links posted but if you insist just go straight to the FTC , pages 4 and 20 specifically in the complaint, not going to quote it all in here.
FTC Seeks to Block Microsoft Corp.’s Acquisition of Activision Blizzard, Inc.
The Federal Trade Commission is seeking to block technology giant Microsoft Corp. from acquiring leading video game developer Activision Blizzard, Inc.
FTC is essentially claiming EU approved the ZeniMax purchased because of MS "assurances" about exclusivity.
EU has stated when asked that this isn't true, the deal was unconditional and wasn't approved based on anything MS said about exclusivity.
FTC embarrassed and debunked.
Last edited:
feynoob
Banned
That is what the ftc is arguing.
MS has that ability to do the same to COD.
Ass of Can Whooping
Member
This is why I asked you for a direct quote, because the FTC never made any such claim.
Swift_Star
Banned
you failed to provide the quotes.
bentanchorbolt
Banned
My comment was directed at everyone. I don't think anyone ITT is qualified to give an informed take on the actual outcome, so its baffling to me how so many people are speaking with such absolute certainty. It's a fun thread, don't get me wrong, but just admit you don't know.
see above
We are almost 260 pages into this thread. Silence is not an option for anyone I don't think.
Anyway, I've said my peace. You guys aren't authorities in here, nobody is, so everything said should be taken with a grain of salt and like I said before, if people who actually worked mergers in the past were reading these comments, I suspect they'd be laughing a great deal. Carry on.
feynoob
Banned
There was never a commitment with Zenimax. MS used this option to justify their exclusives.
Here is the EU take.
Last edited:
DForce
NaughtyDog Defense Force
People know Starfield was planned on being released on PlayStation and they had the power to remove it from the platform.
This "removal" is from the planned PlayStation lineup before the acquisition took place. I'm not going to argue with something that's been documented. You guys need to stop playing dumb on this topic.
Last edited:
Ass of Can Whooping
Member
What's being argued right now are the FTCs comments. You don't need to be an M&A expert to do that.
Again, just go back to lurking
Last edited:
Swift_Star
Banned
Sure, but you only quote the ones against the merger lol
DForce
NaughtyDog Defense Force
Yes, case by case, and allegedly told them they had no plans to remove the games from the platform.
And to the people who aren't paying attention (there are several in this thread) the point is that Microsoft said they have no plans to remove COD from PlayStation means nothing. People are taking that statement as a fact that they will not remove it from PS consoles going forward.
That statement is nothing if it's not written in stone and they are obligated to put it on the platform.
This means their statement about "we want all gamers to play COD than ever before" and "We want CoD to remain on PlayStation" is pure BS.
Last edited:
feynoob
Banned
The game didnt have a PS in mind at that time.
The purchase talk started around 2018-2019, and closed negotiation in 2020 september. There wasnt enough time to make a PS port.
feynoob
Banned
The issue isnt about removing them, but having the ability to not release the game there.
MS had that ability with zenimax, due to EU report.
FTC is basing on that report, as MS has the tools (gamepass), to actually make COD exclusive after the deal, based on that EU report.
bentanchorbolt
Banned
Not really a point of contention worth arguing over IMO. Doesn't make anything I've said any more or less true.
CatLady
Selfishly plays on Xbox Purr-ies X
Had this stupid discussion before and no matter how hard you try to twist it, it does not change the fact that those games were NEVER on PS therefore never removed. I'm sure Ghostwire Tokyo and Deathloop were planned and expected to launch on Xbox & PlayStation, didn't happen. In both cases things change but what doesn't change is Starfield and Redfall were NOT removed from PS because they were NEVER on PS.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Right, exactly.
That's the point. *IF* there were similar prior commitments made with Zeinmax, you would see similar results/guarantees of their games being on PS (and other) consoles for however long.
Last edited:
Swift_Star
Banned
yes, it is. Because it backs up what I've said before.
So, maybe try to look less biased.
DForce
NaughtyDog Defense Force
Sony tried to acquire a time-exclusive deal.
They won't do that unless it was planned to be released on PS.
It's that simple.
If they have the means to make it exclusive, then that means their messaging to the gamers (We don't take CoD from PS gamers) Is crap.
That's the point.
For months they have been telling everyone that they're doing this for gamers when we all know it's a lie. It's for their own benefit, not gamers.
Microsoft is free to do what they want if they acquire Activation, but it's stupid for anyone to say they're doing this to benefit all gamers and that we can trust its word that COD will never leave PS.
feynoob
Banned
The issue isnt that.
The issue is the highlighted part of EU (108). That is the problem. As long as MS has that option, they would do the same to activision.
chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases1/202124/m10001_438_3.pdf
bentanchorbolt
Banned
I'm not all that interested in how people here perceive me. You chose to only see the posts that validate what you said, and I've been on the internet long enough to know trying to change your mind is a waste of both our times.
DForce
NaughtyDog Defense Force
The only person here twisting is you.
Everyone and their daddies know Starfield was planned to be released on PS and they stopped it.
You can trust to twist the meaning of "remove" all you want. The fact of the matter is, it was planned to be released on PS and that changed after the acquisition.
If I asked you if it was planned to be released on PS and your answer is "Yes" then only you're proving my point.
feynoob
Banned
It was nothing but PR.
CMA and EU arent believing their words. And now FTC showed why they dont believe them.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
I get what you're saying. But in that point 108, it says the exclusivity will depend on if they can get a sufficient number of users/console sales.
A finalized statement of approval for THIS case will naturally include the commitments as part of agreement. If it's a part of the requirement for approval, MS won't exactly have a choice in the matter.
It's like how Sony doesn't really have a choice in the matter of developing MLB games on other platforms now since it's been added to their agreement with MLB. Do they want to ? Most assuredly not, but it's something they have to do to retain the MLB license.
feynoob
Banned
The issue again, is MS can decide not to renew the contract, once they have the userbase.
Written contract is only available, until the expired date. After that MS is free to renegotiate, or make it exclusive. And if they have the numbers, it would be exclusive.
bentanchorbolt
Banned
I'd be curious to know at what point they would consider those numbers to be achieved. Given the rip roaring success of CoD, it would seem like Game Pass would be 50x more active subs to make it worthwhile.
CatLady
Selfishly plays on Xbox Purr-ies X
Maybe, maybe not I've never seen anything documenting that claim, but it's irrelevant anyway because it was NEVER on there, had no community and further now that we know there were NO conditions on the Zenimax acquisition, Xbox was under NO obligation to release those games on their competitor's console or even games that were actually on rival consoles prior to the acquisition.
feynoob
Banned
50m-60m gamepass userbase.
That would generate them enough money to not need Nintendo and PS money.
Hero of Spielberg
Member
The statement from the EU looks like they see the FTC case as the political shit-fight it is and they're basically saying 'hey, this is what we did, we're not taking sides here'.
Anyway, if they were to come out and say 'Yes, MS are a pack of lying dicks and can't be trusted to sit the right way on a toilet seat' then you'd have to question why they would even be entertaining any deal involving them such as they currently are.
TBH, it's probably not the best look for MS to have indicated that it wouldn't be worth their while to make anything exclusive as part of the Zenimax deal, but again perhaps it was just sloppy wording in the findings from the EU on a part of the acquisition they felt one way or another probably wouldn't have much consequence on the industry landscape. After all, if exclusivity was the sticking point of the Zenimax deal you'd hope they would have made it part of the legally binding part of the approval rather than just a couple of lines in the research report about how they came to their decision.
Anyway, if they were to come out and say 'Yes, MS are a pack of lying dicks and can't be trusted to sit the right way on a toilet seat' then you'd have to question why they would even be entertaining any deal involving them such as they currently are.
TBH, it's probably not the best look for MS to have indicated that it wouldn't be worth their while to make anything exclusive as part of the Zenimax deal, but again perhaps it was just sloppy wording in the findings from the EU on a part of the acquisition they felt one way or another probably wouldn't have much consequence on the industry landscape. After all, if exclusivity was the sticking point of the Zenimax deal you'd hope they would have made it part of the legally binding part of the approval rather than just a couple of lines in the research report about how they came to their decision.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
I don't think they'll just want to 'settle' with just filling that gap, they'll want to increase revenue, like any business would.
ReBurn
Gold Member
It's the difference between reporting and journalism
bentanchorbolt
Banned
In that case MS is already halfway there, so it might be in the best interest of gamers that regulators get that worked out lol.
Sure but you don't think CoD going exclusive to Xbox and PC would lead to exponential brand growth?
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
It would lead to exponential Xbox growth for sure. But will it cover the entire revenue stream from PS itself ? That will take a while.
bentanchorbolt
Banned
I'm speaking out my ass here, but i don't think MS spent $70b to recoup profit in the short term. I suspect their end goal is to become the Netflix of gaming and get a big head start while they can. Short term losses will mean nothing in a decade or better.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Oh yeah they're definitely in it for the long haul, but I think they'll still be good for at least the 10 year agreement. Anything after that depends on how well any agreements between Sony and MS go.
They're still actively maintaining games like Minecraft, Fallout 76 based on handshake agreements to the best of my understanding.
OsirisBlack
Banned
This is all true except for one glaring omission. "No incentive to keep these games away from other platforms." Immediately keeps games off of competing platforms.
To further simplify it. It's not what you say it's what you do.
I could be wrong but it really seems like the FTC is trying to prevent MS from just buying the video game industry as a whole. More like this is preemptive and based on their history.
Again had they not just bought Zenimax and immediately shut their main competitor out after stating there was no incentive to and had Phil not stated that there were several more acquisitions in the pipeline I do not think they would be facing so much opposition. Based on their history this doesn't look good. Also by history, I am not referring to Xbox I am referring to MS as a whole.
skit_data
Member
Seems kinda stupid of the FTC to base it on claims supposedly made to the EU during the Bethesda deal. They are vague and pretty much incorrect (which is embarassing) but the whole discourse around exclusive games was indeed very wierd compared to this time around because the only official statement on the matter was that exclusivity would apply "on a game per game basis" and so far it has resulted in at least two games going exclusive (three if you count Elder Scrolls 6, which is really the only game that is interesting if they are to base it around MS "taking away established game series" from a competitior). I can see some kind of reason bringing up Starfield though because there's now way in hell that game would launch only on Xbox and PC if they were to have remained an independent publisher.
Well anyway, they're onto something about MS ambiguity during that deal that could be worth pursuing but it also gives the impression that the FTC haven't done their homework in preparation of what will be a pretty serious legal battle.
Well anyway, they're onto something about MS ambiguity during that deal that could be worth pursuing but it also gives the impression that the FTC haven't done their homework in preparation of what will be a pretty serious legal battle.
bentanchorbolt
Banned
At this point, I just want it over with lmao -- and I'm mostly in favor of the deal going through so long as regulators put language in the deal to prevent MS from using 1980/1990s era tactics against the industry, which I don't suspect they will, but all the same. They don't strike me as the same elitist Ive League boys club from back then, for what its worth.
CatLady
Selfishly plays on Xbox Purr-ies X
Maybe the incentive was Sony buying up all Square and other 3rd AAA party multiplats for indefinite to forever periods of time.
One glaring omission on your part. The EU has told us the deal cleared unconditionally and therefore Xbox can do whatever the hell they want with their first party games just like Sony does with their 1st party and a lot of 3rd party they don't even own.
Hero of Spielberg
Member
I'd agree with this to an extent. But I think there's a level of pragmatism when it comes to these things, and business in general.
If MS say, 'it's not in our interest to do this' ... then the EU say 'well, we agree but even if you did we don't think it would matter', then it's hardly the betrayal it's being made out to be if they go ahead and do it anyway.
Saying 'but they lied!' is emotive. MS didn;t break any contract so that's all they've got. Which is why it is the point that the FTC are pushing. It's not a matter of what effect this acquisition would have on gaming or 'gamer's' this is about their perception of the untrustworthy MS becoming too powerful.
OsirisBlack
Banned
One of these is the biggest shooting IP of all time and your example is SE? It's not remotely the same.
Also, you're missing the point they aren't arguing what the EU said. What the EU said has nothing to do with their argument.
DForce
NaughtyDog Defense Force
Was Starfield planned to be released on PS before the acquisition or not?
WeAreVenom8659
Banned
What documents can you provide to back this up?
- Status