Support NeoGAF

[feynoob]

And that is why is going through all of these antitrust procedures around the world.

And it needs to be scrutinized.
We shouldn't be normalizing big tech companies purchases.
There is not stopping to them, if we let them get away with these type of purchases.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

Please explain to us why seizing control of the major third party publisher and making it exclusive to one platform is good for the industry? I'd like to see some data proving that. Can you provide it?

Why should I spend my time with someone that is not going to take me seriously?

 

[Swift_Star]

Both incompetent and desperate... yet a dominating unfair competitor that needs regulation and control to keep the game industry viable. What to believe...

That's exactly why they're desperate. It's what MS do whenever they see themselves backed into a corner. They've done it thousands times before and if left unchecked, they'll keep doing it.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

And it needs to be scrutinized.
We shouldn't be normalizing big tech companies purchases.
There is not stopping to them, if we let them get away with these type of purchases.

That is what these regulators are doing as we speak .

Am I speaking Chinese or what?

 

[Swift_Star]

Why should I spend my time with someone that is not going to take me seriously?

Because you're parroting the deal is good for the industry while never providing reasons as of why it'll be. You've been given enough reasons as to why it's bad. It's time for you to show data and arguments to support the deal will be good.
Cmon we're waiting.

 

[Three]

Because you are looking through your own bias.

The floodgates for more competition, better work conditions, more studios to be created, lower prices, more creativity, different business models?.

I have been following this and related threads..And there is not even a good single argument that proves this deal is bad.

More studios to be created? More creativity? Different business models? Where are you getting all this from?

It means fewer business models as it removes it from other models. Fewer studios created and less creativity because this is an already established IP purchase with established studios. I'm not sure what you're expecting from this purchase.

 

[adamsapple]

Why would Sony sign on to anything when they know the longer this drags on for Microsoft the more difficult it gets?

They aren't signing shit, they will let the regulators decide for them what concessions need to be agreed.

To avoid a Deal or No Deal situation, sign up while the offering is good. Keep rejecting and you put yourself in a tough situation if the regulators approve the deal without any firm commitments signed upon.

 

[akimbo009]

That's exactly why they're desperate. It's what MS do whenever they see themselves backed into a corner. They've done it thousands times before and if left unchecked, they'll keep doing it.

Doing what? Competing? Do have any other similar examples? They didn't buy their way into Azure, for example. What examples do you have that says "they just can't keep getting away with this!!..."?

 

[GHG]

Because like you said, the regulators may not even require half the stuff MS are offering.
If Sony refuse to sign a 10 year agreement MS are offering, and then it goes to the regulators and for whatever reason those regulators say that 3 years is good enough, Sony just shot themselves in the foot.

A number of regulators have passed the deal with no concessions, one is suing but has not said what they would consider acceptable, and others are still deciding.
If you were Sony, would you take Microsoft's deal as it is or hope that the remaining regulators make them offer a better one?

In what world do you think they will go from offering 10 years back down to 3 when it's become clear even 10 years isn't good enough?

Please miss me with "a number of regulators". You guys are clinging to a bunch of developing countries' verdicts in the hope that they actually mean something in the context of this deal - they don't.

If I'm Sony I respond for comment when requested by the regulators, I provide the necessary and requested data and then I sit back and let them do their jobs. It's not between them and Microsoft at this point, it's Microsoft vs the regulators.

To avoid a Deal or No Deal situation, sign up while the offering is good. Keep rejecting and you put yourself in a tough situation if the regulators approve the deal without any firm commitments signed upon.

Yep you guys are living in cloud cuckoo land. CMA and EU phase two and you think this is going through without any signed commitments from Microsoft? Good luck with that.

 

[Swift_Star]

Doing what? Competing? Do have any other similar examples? They didn't buy their way into Azure, for example. What examples do you have that says "they just can't keep getting away with this!!..."?

Competing… yes, by buying an eliminating competition. This has been MS MO since forever…

 

[DeepEnigma]

Doing what? Competing?

It's like a script.

 

[akimbo009]

Competing… yes, by buying an eliminating competition. This has been MS MO since forever…

What elimination is happening here? They are acquiring a company, not shutting them down.

 

[Swift_Star]

What elimination is happening here? They are acquiring a company, not shutting them down.

 

[akimbo009]

So you got nothing. Good to know.

 

[adamsapple]

Yep you guys are living in cloud cuckoo land. CMA and EU phase two and you think this is going through without any signed commitments from Microsoft? Good luck with that.

Sure it may pass with signed commitments, but there's no guarantee they'll be as good as what MS are offering.

 

[Swift_Star]

So you got nothing. Good to know.

Oh, sweetie? There's windows itself, Skype, they tried with Nokia and failed, with zune and field.
There's also office.
There are a plethora of examples.
The real problem is that they're really bad at their job, you see?

 

[feynoob]

That is what these regulators are doing as we speak .

Am I speaking Chinese or what?

No, you are not understanding it.

You are caught up with MS PR how it will benefit the industry, while ignoring the ramifications of allowing a company like MS to acquire Activision.

You are only seeing the good side of the deal. You need to see this from outside perspective and examine the bad side.

My main complain about this deal is MS, a trillion dollar company spending that much money on video game company. If they can do that, then there is no guarantee as to what they would do once they acquire them.

 

[zzill3]

In what world do you think they will go from offering 10 years back down to 3 when it's become clear even 10 years isn't good enough?

Because like you said, it may be the case that 10 years is more than what is needed.

So how about stop offering shit around until they know what's required? They might reflect on all of this and realise they didn't need to even offer Sony what they have at this point. I'm not sure whether all of this is desperation or just basic incompetence.

If they don't even need to offer Sony what they have at the moment (10 years of COD), then they could get away with less when the regulators make their decision.

 

[GHG]

Sure it may pass with signed commitments, but there's no guarantee they'll be as good as what MS are offering.

And if they start bending the knee and doing what Microsoft want they diminish any chance of the deal being blocked entirely. At this stage they have nothing to lose.

And good luck to Microsoft if they think it will look good on them should they withdraw or reduce the terms of any deals they've offered throughout this process. You think the regulators will take kindly to that? If anything it would be a smoking gun that they have been insincere in their intentions. What's being offered now is worst case scenario, if it gets withdrawn they will face an even bigger uphill battle to get this through.

 

[akimbo009]

Oh, sweetie? There's windows itself, Skype, they tried with Nokia and failed, with zune and field.
There's also office.
There's a plethora of examples.
The real problem is that they're really bad at their job, you see?

Office is a failure? Notsureifserious.gif

Again - so bad at their job, yet so dominate. I don't really understand the point you're making here. Are you nervous that they'll run Xbox into the ground or Activision? I actually don't know what you're saying except that they shouldn't acquire companies cause you have feelings.

 

[Swift_Star]

Office is a failure? Notsureifserious.gif

Again - so bad at their job, yet so dominate. I don't really understand the point you're making here. Are you nervous that they'll run Xbox into the ground or Activision? I actually don't know what you're saying except that they shouldn't acquire companies cause you have feelings.

Lmao

 

[akimbo009]

Lmao

At least Ass of Can Whooping is funny when they run out of ideas.

 

[GHG]

This is too funny. You have a bunch of regulators already suggesting Microsoft have been insincere and full of contradictory statements when it comes to their commitments and now people are dreaming about a scenario where Microsoft start withdrawing and/or reducing the terms of offers they've made public?

 

[zzill3]

This is too funny. You have a bunch of regulators already suggesting Microsoft have been insincere and full of contradictory statements when it comes to their commitments and now people are dreaming about a scenario where Microsoft start withdrawing and/or reducing the terms of offers they've made public?

You're the one who suggested that

So how about stop offering shit around until they know what's required? They might reflect on all of this and realise they didn't need to even offer Sony what they have at this point. I'm not sure whether all of this is desperation or just basic incompetence.

 

[GHG]

You're the one who suggested that

Because they've jumped the gun and started blindfiring into oblivion in the hope that Sony will perk up and that will cause the regulators to approve the deal. I talked about it from the perspective of "things that they maybe shouldn't have done in hindsight". Especially considering their behaviour is pretty much an admission of guilt.

Now that they've offered what they've offered (along with their supporting statements/PR) there's no putting the genie back in the bottle. Everything up to this point is the starting point for all future negotiations.

 

[feynoob]

This is too funny. You have a bunch of regulators already suggesting Microsoft have been insincere and full of contradictory statements when it comes to their commitments and now people are dreaming about a scenario where Microsoft start withdrawing and/or reducing the terms of offers they've made public?

Only CMA makes a good argument.
EU is the kid that is copying CMA homework.
And FTC is that weird kid with a grudge.

As for MS

Entire thing is a mess.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

No, you are not understanding it.

You are caught up with MS PR how it will benefit the industry, while ignoring the ramifications of allowing a company like MS to acquire Activision.

You are only seeing the good side of the deal. You need to see this from outside perspective and examine the bad side.

I didn't know the Brazilian regulators and reality were part of MS's PR.

My main complain about this deal is MS, a trillion dollar company spending that much money on video game company. If they can do that, then there is no guarantee as to what they would do once they acquire them.

That is a pretty dumb complaint to have.

 

[feynoob]

I didn't know the Brazilian regulators and reality were part of MS's PR.

Brazil is Brazil.
They only care about their consumers.

That is a pretty dumb complaint to have.

It's much better than most of the complaints.

I don't care about Sony, or whether MS makes COD exclusive. That is not my business.

What pisses me off, is rich companies taking the easy route, by outspending everyone. $68b is almost 60% of Sony entire company. It just unfair advantage with that kind of money.


If MS used $10b for investment, they could have had stellar devs and exclusives. $5b buying small studios like insomniac, and $5b for exclusives and timed exclusive games.

 

[Cheezewizz]

You are missing the point that the market has repeatedly chosen a different winner than Xbox for their 20years in the game - and that they only entice the US and UK markets in large numbers and are lucky if they serve more than one third of the world console gaming market with a product the consumer is prepared to buy.

Downplaying Xbox's sales figures last gen, and trying to extrapolate it out further to try and suggest that they shouldn't be allowed to equally compete doesn't work. Obviously the XB1 sold about half of what the PS4 did, but the 360 obviously outsold the PS3. Of course regulators likely won't consider any of that data in their investigations.

The best interests of consumers are served when multi-platform games are free to sell on platforms - without caveats or pricing disparity - on the hardware the consumers have chosen and that the independent publisher choses, whether that be a Nintendo or Sony console, or an Xbox.

There seems to be quite a bit of cherry picking here. You say "multi-platform games". If we're considering only the consumers interests, then it should just be games period. You also point out that it should be up to where "the independent publisher chooses". If that's the case, then why is that not acceptable here? ABK obviously is choosing to be with Xbox here, so why does your logic suddenly not apply?

Your solution is everyone should forego the consideration of buying less than all platforms - which is a no competition solution I might add - and then rather than convince the weakest link - through the need to compete - to improve, they should just get to buy up the most popular/lucrative games to sell as first party, and then put the pressure on the strongest platforms to provide even more great games.

First of all, it's no one's "solution". It's just the way the market is. That also makes it a competitive market I might add. While you obviously don't see it, you're arguing for there not to be but one console to play on. Which is exactly what the regulators should be looking to prevent. Your "weakest link" theory is also flawed. PS (as well as Xbox though to a far lesser extent) routinely pay to lock up otherwise multiplatform games to their console. There's also nothing wrong with putting pressure on Sony to produce something other than 3rd person singleplayer movie games.

Thinking about it, PlayStation probably would survive and thrive long after ES and CoD are dead IPs, and provide better alternatives, but the point is that it is Xbox that has to give gamers something new that they want to entice them to buy their platform in Nintendo and PlayStation numbers. It really is that simple, and buying Activision is at best bad for CoD players if MSFT kills the franchise, and at worst the means of giving the keys of the kingdom to the weakest platform to starve out the competition like a VHS and Betamax situation, where Betamax couldn't get all the films on the format in time with VHS.

I agree that PS will be around regardless of ES or CoD, though there's nothing to suggest they're capable of providing better alternatives. I also agree that MS needs to give gamers a reason to buy into their platform. Obviously they are currently attempting to do just that, as their increased sales and subscribers show.

And lol at "giving the keys to kingdom to the weakest platform" spiel. That's beyond cringe.

 

[Ronin_7]

Imagine being in such deep shit because the only product that loses you money

 

[Swift_Star]

At least Ass of Can Whooping is funny when they run out of ideas.

I don't waste my time with people that bend reality.

 

[Swift_Star]

Still waiting for explanation as to why taking games away from competing platforms is beneficial to the industry.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

More studios to be created?

Yes

More creativity?

Yes

Different business models?

Yes

Where are you getting all this from.

Reality. There are plenty of examples:

It means fewer business models as it removes it from other models.

No.

Fewer studios created and less creativity because this is an already established IP purchase with established studios. I'm not sure what you're expecting from this purchase.

Your are only focused in Acti-Blizz.

This deal goes beyond them, outside Xbox.

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

Yes


Yes

Yes

Reality. There are plenty of examples:

No.


Your are only focused in Acti-Blizz.

This deal goes beyond them, outside Xbox.

This post is too good.

Cue gif response.

 

[Warablo]

Still waiting for explanation as to why taking games away from competing platforms is beneficial to the industry.

I think the CMA was saying how Game Pass lets a lower barrier of entry to video games and a wider reach to devices in recession times.

 

[Bonsaibäumchen]

Because you are looking through your own bias.

The floodgates for more competition, better work conditions, more studios to be created, lower prices, more creativity, different business models?.

I have been following this and related threads..And there is not even a good single argument that proves this deal is bad.

You are fucking hilarious. I am spending 95% of my gaming time on PC and I am still avoiding all pc gaming subscription services.

Pc gaming is already incredibly cheap and has a lot to offer. I don't see how sub services will provide anything of value for me. I fear its going to be the opposite.

You are as biased in this as anyone else is.
"Because gamepass is good for me so it must be good for everyone else to."

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

You are fucking hilarious. I am spenting 95% of my gaming time on PC and I am still avoiding all pc gaming subscription services.

Pc gaming is already incredibly cheap and has a lot to offer. I don't see how sub services will provide anything of value for me. I fear its going to be the opposite.

Can you fucking point out where did I said something about sub services?

Maybe stop playing games, they are making you dumb.

 

[CatLady]

You are forgetting the revenue dip and ripple impact it will have on Sony as well as others. You are arguing in only one direction and not covering all the context and nuance.

Oh, think of the childr Sony.

 

[Bonsaibäumchen]

Can you fucking point out where did I said something about sub services?

Maybe stop playing games, they are making you dumb.

Okay then how exactly is it helping or benefitting me as a gamer that microsoft is buying these companys?

 

[HoofHearted]

Holy Shit Fuck this thread has gone bananas..

 

[HoofHearted]

Oh, think of the childr Sony.

 

[SSfox]

Who's everyone lol

People that are more interested into concrete stuffs than "Phil said Tome 27 Chapter 127"

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

Okay then how exactly is it helping or benefitting me as a gamer that microsoft is buying these companys?

First

Ae you dumb or just fucking hilarious ?

Because in your own words:

"spenting 95% of my gaming time on PC"

"Pc gaming is already incredibly cheap and has a lot to offer"

"I don't see how sub services will provide anything of value for me'

you answered your own question and expressed your sick obsesion against subscription services (which i didnt even mentioned)


Second:
I don't even know what kind of games you play

Third:

Point being:
MS buys studios/publishers = Key people leaving and then create new studios to make new games that then you could wait until they go on sale.

 

[Bonsaibäumchen]

First

Ae you dumb or just fucking hilarious ?

Because in your own words:

"spenting 95% of my gaming time on PC"

"Pc gaming is already incredibly cheap and has a lot to offer"

"I don't see how sub services will provide anything of value for me'

you answered your own question and expressed your sick obsesion against subscription services (which i didnt even mentioned)


Second:
I don't even know what kind of games you play

Third:


Point being:
MS buys studios/publishers = Key people leaving and then create new studios to make new games that then you could wait until they go on sale.

Okay so you are saying ms buying other companies is good because the people that made good stuff will leave those now by ms owned companies to create new companies.

And these new companies will create good games while MS will keep all the mediocore talents and produce mediocore games?

Also you don't know what types of games I play so you can't tell how I will benefit. But you do know I will benefit from it?!

 

[The_Mike]

Sony buys big publisher, which would mean no gamepass for those publishers.

Isn't it expected for Sony to make the developers they buy exclusive?
I mean they already are, with or without gamepass.

 

[Hendrick's]

It's like a script.

Like you don't have your own.

 

[bitbydeath]

Doing what? Competing? Do have any other similar examples? They didn't buy their way into Azure, for example. What examples do you have that says "they just can't keep getting away with this!!..."?

Ugh, actually they did.
They purchased Groove Networks in 2005 and later rebranded it as Azure.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

Okay so you are saying ms buying other companies is good because the people that made good stuff will leave those now by ms owned companies to create new companies.

And these new companies will create good games while MS will keep all the mediocore talents and produce mediocore games?

Don't try to be all smart, sneaky with me.


Your words:

"....anything of value for me"

"...exactly is it helping or benefitting me as a gamer

The only thing I know about you is that you are a cheap gamer:

"Pc gaming is already incredibly cheap and has a lot to offer"

So, probably MS buying those studios don't even affect you in the first place.

Second, if those acquisitions do affect you...well, your own words:

"...has a lot to offer"

So I bet you are "eating more than good" with all what PC has to offer.

So. The quality topic is irrelevant because is all about you. And only you kno what kind of shit you like or you considered as quality/good.

 

[Cheezewizz]

This is too funny. You have a bunch of regulators already suggesting Microsoft have been insincere and full of contradictory statements when it comes to their commitments and now people are dreaming about a scenario where Microsoft start withdrawing and/or reducing the terms of offers they've made public?

A bunch of regulators?

As far as I know it's only the FTC that's made that claim. And while we don't know how many of the FTC regulators share that view, at best it's 3 seeing as that's how many voted to sue.

So exactly 3 regulators at best and you write that? That laugh of yours is either fake for fear of crying, or you're just that deluded.

 

[freefornow]

with zune

Are you saying Zune was acquired and then shut down? Fairly sure Zune was a partnership with Toshiba, not an acquisition of a pre existing company/product.

Also,

There's also office.

??? Can you tease that out a bit for me please. I guenuinely would like to know more re: failure.