Microsoft / Activision Deal Approval Watch |OT| (MS/ABK close)
- Status
bitbydeath
Gold Member
So they can bow out gracefully?
oldergamer
Member
So its just fact driven.
oldergamer
Member
Hold on now mods are deleting my posts and saying I'm "gas lighting" like honestly please explain to me how I'm gas lighting? i don't get the reasoning
oldergamer
Member
How am i gaslighting when you have posts like "59 exclusives too many" from ass of can whooping.
DarkMage619
$MSFT
You should probably DM the mod directly. Posting here will only anger the mods even more.
Ass of Can Whooping
Member
Just have a bit of fun and don't take it so seriously
Topher
Identifies as young
bxrz
Member
Do you think the percentage can change soon? And how soon are you talking?
Banjo64
cumsessed
Tomorrow.
bxrz
Member
Why would it change tomorrow?
Ass of Can Whooping
Member
Because daddys coming home
Banjo64
cumsessed
I just bought another Xbox. Might tilt the scale.
feynoob
Banned
Not to mention PS is 1 gen a head of Xbox.
And most of those are japanese games.
reinking
Gold Member
CatLady
Selfishly plays on Xbox Purr-ies X
That gif is so cute.
Topher
Identifies as young
No reason why it can't change dramatically really quickly. Look at 360 and PS3. If Microsoft hadn't screwed up last gen so badly then things could be much different right now. Now you've got a kickass console and some kickass studios and a great subscription service. Stacking up to be a great competition.
Ezekiel_
Banned
"So you see your honor, Sony has Life of Black Tiger as an exclusive, so it's only fair that we get Call of Duty"
R3claimer117
Member
Today in Brussels there was a European Commission Digital Mergers Workshop.
Annemiek Wilpshaar, the head of the commission department assessing digital mergers, was speaking there and I think that she said a few interesting things (I added "ABK context" to make the references easier to understand):
- They have two types of concerns in digital mergers (for example, like the merger of MS and ABK): 1) protecting the acquirer's position (this happens when the acquirer buys to protect a core market) and 2) leveraging its market power (this happens when the acquirer buys to use its core markets into new markets, expanding its ecosystem and potentially foreclosing rivals; for example, using Azure + Windows to win the cloud gaming market).
- If the acquirer buys data, IP (for example, Call of Duty) or technology to protect its core market by raising barriers to entry or expansion of its rivals (for example, subscription services or cloud gaming), she said that the commission will conduct a "very detailed assessment of to what extent there's a risk to the expansion or entry by innovative rivals".
- If the acquirer already holds a dominant position and there are limited challengers to that position (for example Sony, if Nintendo is not part of the market), they are worried about barriers to entry or expansion in the markets (for example, cloud gaming).
- When the acquirer can leverage its market power in its core markets (for example, Azure and Windows) into new markets (for example, cloud gaming and subscription services) and expand its ecosystem, the commission's analysis focuses on foreclosure.
- They go beyond just price-related partial foreclosure (for example, making ABK games more expensive for Playstation users) and look at more subtle forms of partial foreclosure, like degradation of interoperability (for example, no crossplay for PS) or hampering or denying access to important inputs (for example, no COD on PS).
- The EC is also looking beyond "market-wide foreclosure strategies" and looking at more "targeted" strategies, focusing, for example, only on close competitors (for example, high performance consoles).
- In the end, she said that if a digital platform is simply improving or expanding its product offerings through an acquisition, that's not necessarily bad, as long as there are sufficient counter strategies (for example, remedies, fragmented markets, low marketshare, etc) available for rivals to challenge the platform.
Seems like the EC is actually doing their due diligence and I can see a lot of they issues being remedied. We'll see what happens with the cma hearings this week.
Annemiek Wilpshaar, the head of the commission department assessing digital mergers, was speaking there and I think that she said a few interesting things (I added "ABK context" to make the references easier to understand):
- They have two types of concerns in digital mergers (for example, like the merger of MS and ABK): 1) protecting the acquirer's position (this happens when the acquirer buys to protect a core market) and 2) leveraging its market power (this happens when the acquirer buys to use its core markets into new markets, expanding its ecosystem and potentially foreclosing rivals; for example, using Azure + Windows to win the cloud gaming market).
- If the acquirer buys data, IP (for example, Call of Duty) or technology to protect its core market by raising barriers to entry or expansion of its rivals (for example, subscription services or cloud gaming), she said that the commission will conduct a "very detailed assessment of to what extent there's a risk to the expansion or entry by innovative rivals".
- If the acquirer already holds a dominant position and there are limited challengers to that position (for example Sony, if Nintendo is not part of the market), they are worried about barriers to entry or expansion in the markets (for example, cloud gaming).
- When the acquirer can leverage its market power in its core markets (for example, Azure and Windows) into new markets (for example, cloud gaming and subscription services) and expand its ecosystem, the commission's analysis focuses on foreclosure.
- They go beyond just price-related partial foreclosure (for example, making ABK games more expensive for Playstation users) and look at more subtle forms of partial foreclosure, like degradation of interoperability (for example, no crossplay for PS) or hampering or denying access to important inputs (for example, no COD on PS).
- The EC is also looking beyond "market-wide foreclosure strategies" and looking at more "targeted" strategies, focusing, for example, only on close competitors (for example, high performance consoles).
- In the end, she said that if a digital platform is simply improving or expanding its product offerings through an acquisition, that's not necessarily bad, as long as there are sufficient counter strategies (for example, remedies, fragmented markets, low marketshare, etc) available for rivals to challenge the platform.
Seems like the EC is actually doing their due diligence and I can see a lot of they issues being remedied. We'll see what happens with the cma hearings this week.
OsirisBlack
Banned
This pretty much goes with what many people in here myself included have been saying for the last few days. People are pretending this is just about CoD, it's not. And the FTC didn't sit down with Microsoft because they know that Microsoft offering up one IP for ten years when right after that they will cut them off in perpetuity is a joke. Unlike some here they also know that 10 years is only a small moment in time.
If this deal goes through just prepare for Tencent to swoop in and pick up EA. I cannot believe some of the short-sighted (but mah gamepass) views in this thread.
MarkMe2525
Banned
Indefinitely also means an undefined amount of time. They could buy Activision, pull COD from PS stores the next day and not have to walk back that statement. Though that one statement does not exist in a vacuum, and Phil has made many commitments after that particular statement.
Ozzy Onya A2Z
Member
Tencent and oil money are coming for the gaming industry regardless of Gamepass or this case. Netflix are investing. Google and Amazon both attempted investing in streaming/studios. Apple or Google could push out of mobile. Sont just as likely to buy big in the next 10 years as competition heats up. No need to scapegoat MS.
Last edited:
Topher
Identifies as young
Indefinitely was my word. Spencer said "as long as PlayStation exists". If he pulls COD from PS stores the next day then he is simply a liar. Thankfully, as I have said many times before, I think Phil Spencer is a man of his word. And I think we should hold these guys to their word.
feynoob
Banned
Xbox would lose massively in the long term due to these buyout.
Right now MS can somewhat get those games.
But if tencent buys a lot of studios, and have their own subs, gamepass would not get those games.
OsirisBlack
Banned
If this deal is approved Tencent WILL buy a lot of publishers and studios and there will be a precedent set forth by Microsoft.
Not scapegoating them just pointing to the fact they will be the first ones to ever spend this kind of money on a video game publisher. It WILL open the floodgates which is what the FTC is trying to prevent.
R3claimer117
Member
You don't think other first party publishers have nukes of their own. Shit Sony and Nintendo both black megaton exclusives Microsoft does as well but again Nintendo doesn't really seem interested in acquiring stuff right now. Sony has been buy up studios here and there if this transaction goes through they'll make a big splash as well. Not to mention tencent has a hand in Ubisoft epic from soft and a bunch of other game companies their tentacles are all over the place. The idea that none of these companies can in ten years make something that can compete with call of duty of that call of duty won't be taking over in 10 years by another game in popularity is just shortsighted. Microsoft to me seems like they want this purchase to boost their mobile presence but also they get a bunch of triple A development studios in one swoop to make content. Under Microsoft it's more like most of these studios start working on other games then all working on call of duty under activision.
feynoob
Banned
means nothing, when most people play 3rd party games.
Sony only managed to hit max 20+m on some of their first party games, with their massive console userbase. Exclusives arent what is holding these consumers, but 3rd oparty games for xbox and PS.
If you decrease those games from either console, it would impact the gaming sphere of consoles massively.
freefornow
Member
Please post next weeks lotto numbers.
OsirisBlack
Banned
I know, that you absolutely know, that your post is disingenuous. Laughably so.
freefornow
Member
Laughter is good.
oldergamer
Member
This isn't only about ps5 and XSX
I would if the mod that deleted my post didnt hide thier name
BadBurger
Many “Whelps”! Handle It!
Knowing the typical WoW player, the vast majority are probably not interested in PC Game Pass and definitely not Ultimate - they play WoW and pretty much nothing to little else. There's likely far more PC GP and GP U users who could be enticed to play and spend money in WoW then there are non-Game Pass WoW players who would seek out a combo subscription to save $5 a month.
Airbus Jr
Banned
Gameranx
This Is Why The FTC Blocked Microsoft
Dec 13, 2022 Ryan ParrenoThe FTC may have a point, but they cannot just accept all of Sony's arguments vs the acquisition as given.
FTC has explained in their own administrative complaint blocking the sale of Activision Blizzard King to Microsoft why they did not take the company's word.
In multiple communications to the public and to regulators, Microsoft claimed that their acquisition would be good for competition. With Call of Duty being the key point of contention that Sony and critics have jumped on, Microsoft have also made assertions that they offered Call of Duty to Sony for a decade, and have already made this commitment to Nintendo and Steam. And, that commitment could extend even beyond the ten year period, which Phil Spencer explains is a mere formality.
However, the FTC is looking at another company that Microsoft has already acquired, and their conduct in relation to that. That company is Zenimax, the parent company of both Bethesda Softworks and id Software, two of the industry's most venerable and important game studios.
This is the wording the FTC used to explain their distrust of Microsoft:
"Moreover, Microsoft's past conduct is telling.
Despite statements by Microsoft to European regulators disavowing the incentive to make ZeniMax content exclusive post-close, after the EC cleared the transaction, Microsoft plans for three of the newly acquired titles to become exclusive to icrosoft's Xbox consoles and Xbox Game Pass subscription services.
For example, although previous titles in ZeniMax's franchise were released on PlayStation, Microsoft has confirmed that the upcoming will be available only on Xbox consoles, Windows PCs, and Xbox Game Pass subscription services.
Microsoft has also stated that Starfield and Redfall, two of the highly anticipated new games in development at the time of Microsoft's purchase of ZeniMax, will also become Xbox console and Xbox Game Pass exclusives upon release."
While the FTC does have a point that Microsoft was quick to clamp down on exclusivity for upcoming Bethesda action RPG Starfield, Bethesda head Todd Howard has another perspective on this situation. As Todd pointed out in his interview with Lex Fridman two weeks ago, Xbox was always the lead platform for their open world games, and where they found the most success. In fact, games like The Elder Scrolls 5 Skyrim coming later to consoles like PlayStation and the Nintendo Switch were an afterthought years after they proved their success on Xbox and Windows.
The point here being that the video game studios themselves, including third party studios, will voluntarily make their own games console exclusive, depending on what is best for them and their project. It's true that the needle has moved for gamers to expect most games to be multiplatform, and nearly all console games are expected to come to PC (This has even happened to the Nintendo Switch, with the PC release of their former exclusive Daemon X Machina).
Nonetheless, there are still plenty of projects, like Lost Soul Aside, where the circumstances call for platform exclusivity. The FTC should be taking this into account and not just accepting Sony's argument wholesale that console exclusivity of any one game, even one as big as Call of Duty, will have such a devastating effect on a massive industry, where Call of Duty has many competitors.
The next few months will be interesting to watch, not just for the final outcome of these regulatory actions, but to see what else the game companies and regulators reveal about the industry and themselves along the way.
Source: FTC
This Is Why The FTC Blocked Microsoft - Gameranx
The FTC has revealed that Microsoft's treatment of a game company's IP after their purchased it convinced them they cannot trust Team Xbox.
gameranx.com
Last edited:
feynoob
Banned
Shots fired.
Guess square doesnt like Xbox according to these words.
Bumblebeetuna
Member
Agreed. The benefits for GamePass users are great. Watching people feign ignorance as to how or why gamers wouldn't want this deal to go through is weird, like some of the takes in this thread.
feynoob
Banned
Gaming is more than gamepass.
The_Mike
I cry about SonyGaf from my chair in Redmond, WA
phil_t98
#SonyToo
yeah but the value of gamepass is important to some people and not everybody's budget stretches to be able to buy all the big games. things like COD going day 1 on gamepass or PS+ would be huge for people
feynoob
Banned
That like saying Netflix and Disney should buy more movie publishers, since their services is great for consumers.
It's a shallow thinking, with no thought of the consequences it will bring in the future.
Last edited:
phil_t98
#SonyToo
again it depends on budgets. Netflix don't own third party studios and only licence content for their service and make their own content. do I think its shitty when an outside company pays to keep third party content off Netflix yes I do
feynoob
Banned
Don't go around the topic.
We are talking about purchasing a company to enhance your service, not paying a license fee.
phil_t98
#SonyToo
yeah and have other games companies purchased 3rd parties or payed for 3rd party exclusive content to?
feynoob
Banned
You are not understanding the point are you?
The only one that will benefit from this, is the one that buys the company, not consumers.
phil_t98
#SonyToo
so if a game goes xbox exclusive and a game goes on gmepass it doesn't benefit consumers? how about street fight V?
feynoob
Banned
Consumers is more than Xbox.
And again, this benefits the company who is buying it.
MS has the power, after the deal is done.
They can decide not to put COD on gamepass, due to financial reasons, and there is nothing you can do about it.
They can even shutdown gamepass in the future, which would mean no cheap access to their games.
You as a consumer is under their mercy. You have no choice here.
As for SF5, MS can spend money on other 3rd party games. Nothing stops them from spending their money.
If they can spend $7.5b and $68b, then they can spend $100m to make a 3rd party game exclusive on their console.
phil_t98
#SonyToo
Consumers is more than Xbox.
And again, this benefits the company who is buying it.
MS has the power, after the deal is done.
They can decide not to put COD on gamepass, due to financial reasons, and there is nothing you can do about it.
They can even shutdown gamepass in the future, which would mean no cheap access to their games.
You as a consumer is under their mercy. You have no choice here.
As for SF5, MS can spend money on other 3rd party games. Nothing stops them from spending their money.
If they can spend $7.5b and $68b, then they can spend $100m to make a 3rd party game exclusive on their console.
so its ok if Sony makes a third party game exclusive like street fighter V you saying but when Microsoft see's more value in buying a company its wrong?
saying gamepass could shut down ie like saying Sony could shut downing the future so what's you point.
I mean Sony could of spent the money that they purchased Bungie with in making their own studio to make GAAS instead of buying them
feynoob
Banned
MS spent $7.5b on zenimax. What stops them from doing the same thing as Sony?
With that money, MS can get 75 AAA games timed exclusive on their consoles.
Don't tell me MS are poor and can't do that.
Anything is possible in the future. MS could have a change of leader in their top division and could shutdown their gaming operations.
You can't take everything for granted. Future is unpredictable.
It took Phil and Satya to invest on Xbox. Without them, MS could have sold the division.
Again, this isn't about Sony.
Don't try and derail the topic.
PaintTinJr
Gold Member
That's an interesting counter argument from Todd, I wonder if the discover phase will show documentation and financial payments that contradict his statement.
Gameranx
This Is Why The FTC Blocked Microsoft
Dec 13, 2022 Ryan Parreno
The FTC may have a point, but they cannot just accept all of Sony's arguments vs the acquisition as given.
FTC has explained in their own administrative complaint blocking the sale of Activision Blizzard King to Microsoft why they did not take the company's word.
In multiple communications to the public and to regulators, Microsoft claimed that their acquisition would be good for competition. With Call of Duty being the key point of contention that Sony and critics have jumped on, Microsoft have also made assertions that they offered Call of Duty to Sony for a decade, and have already made this commitment to Nintendo and Steam. And, that commitment could extend even beyond the ten year period, which Phil Spencer explains is a mere formality.
However, the FTC is looking at another company that Microsoft has already acquired, and their conduct in relation to that. That company is Zenimax, the parent company of both Bethesda Softworks and id Software, two of the industry's most venerable and important game studios.
This is the wording the FTC used to explain their distrust of Microsoft:
"Moreover, Microsoft's past conduct is telling.
Despite statements by Microsoft to European regulators disavowing the incentive to make ZeniMax content exclusive post-close, after the EC cleared the transaction, Microsoft plans for three of the newly acquired titles to become exclusive to icrosoft's Xbox consoles and Xbox Game Pass subscription services.
For example, although previous titles in ZeniMax's franchise were released on PlayStation, Microsoft has confirmed that the upcoming will be available only on Xbox consoles, Windows PCs, and Xbox Game Pass subscription services.
Microsoft has also stated that Starfield and Redfall, two of the highly anticipated new games in development at the time of Microsoft's purchase of ZeniMax, will also become Xbox console and Xbox Game Pass exclusives upon release."
While the FTC does have a point that Microsoft was quick to clamp down on exclusivity for upcoming Bethesda action RPG Starfield, Bethesda head Todd Howard has another perspective on this situation. As Todd pointed out in his interview with Lex Fridman two weeks ago, Xbox was always the lead platform for their open world games, and where they found the most success. In fact, games like The Elder Scrolls 5 Skyrim coming later to consoles like PlayStation and the Nintendo Switch were an afterthought years after they proved their success on Xbox and Windows.
The point here being that the video game studios themselves, including third party studios, will voluntarily make their own games console exclusive, depending on what is best for them and their project. It's true that the needle has moved for gamers to expect most games to be multiplatform, and nearly all console games are expected to come to PC (This has even happened to the Nintendo Switch, with the PC release of their former exclusive Daemon X Machina).
Nonetheless, there are still plenty of projects, like Lost Soul Aside, where the circumstances call for platform exclusivity. The FTC should be taking this into account and not just accepting Sony's argument wholesale that console exclusivity of any one game, even one as big as Call of Duty, will have such a devastating effect on a massive industry, where Call of Duty has many competitors.
The next few months will be interesting to watch, not just for the final outcome of these regulatory actions, but to see what else the game companies and regulators reveal about the industry and themselves along the way.
Source: FTC
[/URL]
I mean they put out Skyrim on the weakest selling PlayStation of all time (the PS3) in a day one state that had it run at single digit fps in buggy areas, so they clearly need all the money they can get from selling games multi-platform, and I'm sure the FTC will show Zenimax finances before MSFT buying them, that Elder Scroll, Starfield and Redfall all needed to release on PlayStation to keep them ticking along as a business, and that Xbox buying them exclusively indefinitely to deny PlayStation's huge player base was beyond normal money spent for exclusives.
- Status