Support NeoGAF

[feynoob]

You gotta take it easy with feynoob he's here mostly to promote resetera members by copy pasting their posts

Why do hard work, when you got someone to do it for you.
I am at work most of the time, so it's hard to get the link for these news article's.
You guys are lucky to be in a nice timezones.

 

[ZehDon]

Thank you for sharing this, I hadn't actually seen Khan's "happy to lose" comments. That paints her as deeply out of touch with the realities of her position and also how laws and regulations are, and should be, passed. I'm not sure how to take that, frankly. The idea that a government agency losing cases should serve as a prompt for law makers to change laws implicitly requires the belief that the agency should literally never lose. There's precedent - the FBI was partially created to address issues of jurisdiction impeding prosecution, for example - but in Khan's scenario, she's hoping that bringing poorly formed and badly argued suits to court should also constitutes grounds for legal reform. That's... kind of insane. Global cross-industrial consolidation is certainly a warranted concern; Amazon, for example, is making sure it's got footholds in as many industries as possible, literally becoming the dystopian megacorp of literature. However, its actually neither illegal nor unethical to diversify one's positions. If Khan wants to change that, she should be running for the appropriate democratically elected government position, where her ideas are subjected to the appropriate process to become law. She should not be trying to use an appointment to an enforcement position to attempt to circumvent that process to re-shape the law to adhere to her beliefs. If making bad cases and arguing them poorly causes legal reform, then the reform will be equally poorly formed, in my opinion.

 

[Pelta88]

People are hung up on Khan's "lose" comments, while skipping the previous and following sentiment that she, as the regulator, believes there is a problem with the acquisition. I guess people are taking from it what they will to suit their own narrative.

If there wasn't a chance that Microsoft could lose this case they would not have embarked on the capitulate and placate tour they've been on since January. Word on the (Wall) Street is that if the CMA and EU regulators also decide to block the deal Microsoft will back away. Which might come as a shock to those choosing to focus on one comment from Khan, without the context of her entire statement.

 

[feynoob]

Word on the (Wall) Street is that if the CMA

decide to block the deal Microsoft will back away.

No need for EU. cMA is enough.

 

[Agent Icebeezy]

People are hung up on Khan's "lose" comments, while skipping the previous and following sentiment that she, as the regulator, believes there is a problem with the acquisition. I guess people are taking from it what they will to suit their own narrative.

If there wasn't a chance that Microsoft could lose this case they would not have embarked on the capitulate and placate tour they've been on since January. Word on the (Wall) Street is that if the CMA and EU regulators also decide to block the deal Microsoft will back away. Which might come as a shock to those choosing to focus on one comment from Khan, without the context of her entire statement.

Nothing to be hung up on. We'd respect her opinion if it were logical. She doesn't give a damn about call of duty, activision, Microsoft, etc. The names on the suits changes but the ideology doesn't. She's on a crusade to change the law to her liking so that means that her actions and visions are much larger than any particular lawsuit. She starts at rejection and then finds whatever flimsy justification to proceed. Meta, Microsoft, etc.. are all the same to her, a way to make a statement. However, this isn't the way to go about it. Wasting tax dollars, company dollars and time, just because you don't have to spend your own money on these things.

Reason and logic matter little to an ideologue. We are seeing that play out here.

 

[yurinka]

You might not have heard but MS promised CoD and had Minecraft ported to the Switch and Nintendo platforms. That looks like Nintendo absolutely will be affected by this acquisition because those games would not have come without MS.

Yes, but before that MS also promised to keep Zenimax and Activision games multiplatform. But after buying Zenimax they apparently magically changed their mind and made Starfield and Redfall exclusive, and in the case of CoD what was offering to Sony instead of keeping CoD there was to keep it there only for 3 years.

So MS commitment in these topics can't be trusted, as mentioned by regulators. Activision didn't release CoD and similar these years at Nintendo, and Nintendo didn't expected it because both know that players prefer to play these type of games on high end consoles or PC instead, as mentioned by them and I think someone else that I don't remember, I think it was CMA or Sony. Because these type of players value visuals, performance and a quality online MP experience. This 'commitment' made by MS about releasing CoD on Nintendo platforms is one clearly made to appeal regulators, it's clear that nobody expect CoD sell a lot at Nintendo.

Minecraft is a different case, because it's a kids friendly game that targets a type of player that fits perfectly with Nintendo's plans so makes totally sense to have it on Switch.

Sony is the only console with VR. Does that mean it is not competing with Nintendo and MS for gamers money and time because of that difference? I wouldn't wouldn't want to make that case in court.

It does mean that Sony doesn't compete with Nintendo and MS in VR. But as regulators and both Sony and MS says, does directly compete with MS on high end game consoles, AAA games market and game subs.

How can MS be both third in console yet only have one competitor? Why would the NPD track Nintendo console and game sales if it is not a competitor in the video game market?

MS claimed they were third in consoles not that they were only in competition with Sony. Nintendo proves a platform holder can compete no matter what other platforms are doing. You can't arbitrarily ignore them because it's inconvenient to a monopoly argument levied at MS.

I, MS, Sony, CMA or the FTC never said Nintendo isn't a competitor in the videogame market. MS is counted when saying MS is third because in that case they are counting consoles.

But this case is not about that, they are investigating the potential negative effects that this acquisition could have in the market, and doesn't affect PC, mobile and Nintendo.

In the case it could have a relevant important negative effect (which I think won't happen) in case of making CoD exclusive it would mainly affect only the high end consoles because they are very similar in their type of hardware, target user and main types of games, something that takes them apart from Switch, PC, mobile and VR. This is why FTC focus on this segment of the gaming market.

It is perfectly compatible with MS claiming they are 3rd in the console market, or that in the general global gaming market Tencent and Sony would continue over MS in terms of total gaming revenue, or that the acquisition wouldn't have basically any impact on the PC, mobile or VR markets.

Gaming has many markets and submarkets, types of games of players. Each company has a different focus or approach, but in this case the direct competitor, the most similar one to MS and the main one that would be affected by the acquisition would be Sony, the other high end console maker. So makes sense to focus the investigation on this segment of the gaming market.

 

[onesvenus]

Yes, but before that MS also promised to keep Zenimax and Activision games multiplatform. But after buying Zenimax they apparently magically changed their mind and made Starfield and Redfall exclusive

Again with this shit? Can you post declarations or an official doc where it says, explicitly, that they won't make any existing or future Zenimax game exclusive?

in the case of CoD what was offering to Sony instead of keeping CoD there was to keep it there only for 3 years

The deal is for 10 years

 

[DarkMage619]

Yes, but before that MS also promised to keep Zenimax and Activision games multiplatform. on high end consoles or PC instead, as mentioned by them and I think someone else that I don't remember, I think it was CMA or Sony. Because these type of players value visuals, performance and a quality online MP experience. This 'commitment' made by MS about releasing CoD on Nintendo platforms is one clearly made to appeal regulators, it's clear that nobody expect CoD sell a lot at Nintendo.

None of this is accurate. MS never 'promised' the EC that all ZeniMax games would be coming to PlayStation. A promise is the agreements MS has with Steam and Nintendo for ten years of CoD. In fact the statements they submitted was that it would be taken on a case by case basis. That's why new versions of Skyrim and that Quake remaster hit PlayStation in addition to all the updates to ESO and FO76. The EC also did not require MS make those games come to PlayStation as part of the approval. It was approved without conditions. You have no idea how well a CoD would sell on Nintendo platforms because it isn't even a option right now.

Minecraft is a different case, because it's a kids friendly game that targets a type of player that fits perfectly with Nintendo's plans so makes totally sense to have it on Switch.

There are tons of adult themed games on the Switch right now. No one would say Bayonetta is a kids game. The Switch has a diverse game library like the Xbox and PlayStation do.

It does mean that Sony doesn't compete with Nintendo and MS in VR. But as regulators and both Sony and MS says, does directly compete with MS on high end game consoles, AAA games market and game subs.

Nintendo has a subscription service and no one would claim that the most anticipated game of 2023, Zelda, is not AAA. MS has never claimed they only compete with Sony on high end consoles. In addition what is the XSS then if MS only competes with high end consoles? No one here thinks that the XSS is high end console and it costs less than the Switch does. The whole point of that system is to go after similar customers that want the Switch; the low end casual market. Seems like MS is competitive with Nintendo just like every other console maker.

I, MS, Sony, CMA or the FTC never said Nintendo isn't a competitor in the videogame market. MS is counted when saying MS is third because in that case they are counting consoles.

But this case is not about that, they are investigating the potential negative effects that this acquisition could have in the market, and doesn't affect PC, mobile and Nintendo.

It is silly to argue that Nintendo is in a market all by itself. The twisted logic to claim Nintendo is a game console but should not be counted defies all the definitions of the video game market historically.

Nintendo should not be in a market alone and separated Sony and MS. The funny thing is even in a market that randomly excludes Nintendo, Sony still has the much bigger brand and market share.

If regulators are truely concerned that MS will harm the video game industry they should define it properly and show how all platform holders are harmed. Also unless laws are broken what is wrong with harming the competition? No one faults Sony or Nintendo for having exclusives yet when MS wants some it's a problem?

You also claim PC and mobile are not affected when Activision has major assets in both those markets. King is one of major reasons why MS wants Activision you can't tell me mobile isn't affected. Especially when MS wants to make a store front on IOS and Android. Obviously PC is also affected because MS wants to put Activision games on Steam something that isn't true today. This deal is way bigger than just Sony and to only look at Sony is part of the reason the FTC's arguments are so weak.

Gaming has many markets and submarkets, types of games of players. Each company has a different focus or approach, but in this case the direct competitor, the most similar one to MS and the main one that would be affected by the acquisition would be Sony, the other high end console maker. So makes sense to focus the investigation on this segment of the gaming market.

The gaming market was never defined the way the FTC has done it. The CMA also defined it differently than as it has always been. You should not define markets too narrowly or else you can make any company a monopoly as the FTC and CMA have done with Nintendo now. If they are concerned about monopolies they should be rushing out to break Nintendo up. They obviously aren't going to do that because they know that it is nonsense. Again even when you exclude Nintendo, Sony is still bigger and it is quite odd to be concerned about the market leader over consumers.

 

[feynoob]

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/bloom...crosoft-wants-to-litigate-the-fix-thats-smart

Microsoft Corp.'s proposed $69 billion purchase of video-game giant Activision-Blizzard Inc. faces a number of competition challenges worldwide, including by the Federal Trade Commission. But the FTC's case against the merger in the US likely isn't the one that will scuttle the deal.

This merger is between a game developer and a game platform—it's a vertical deal—and US courts have proven very reluctant to block vertical deals. But furthermore, Microsoft is preparing to use a strategy that has recently been very successful against US antitrust enforcement actions: litigating the fix.

When merging parties propose a remedy to the alleged competitive threat posed by their deal, and then argue in court that their solution would completely neuter that threat, they can successfully parry an antitrust enforcement action. Merging parties like Microsoft and Activision have recently won antitrust challenges in the US by thus "litigating the fix."

The impacted markets in this merger include dynamic markets that are still in early phases, that are disrupting existing markets, and that are intertwined in a complex way. It was going to be difficult for the FTC to prove harms to these markets, given those features. It may well be much easier for Microsoft to convince the presiding judge that its proposed fix should be enough.

An Olive Branch Rejected?

At Microsoft's annual meeting of shareholders Dec. 13, President Brad Smith said that his company had offered a binding agreement to make Activision's premium game "Call of Duty" available to rivals, including Sony, after the merger.

Such an agreement, called a consent decree, would theoretically have removed (at least for the term of the decree—often a decade) the threat that Microsoft would deny its primary rival in the video game console market (Sony Corp.) access to Activision's games.

"The FTC's case is really based on a market that they've identified that they say has two companies and two products, Sony PlayStation, and Microsoft Xbox," Smith told investors. The company argues that an agreement not to use "Call of Duty" as a cudgel against the dominant game console platform should end FTC concerns about the deal.

What's the Harm?

There are a couple of problems with that "fix," however.

First, it only addresses one aspect of the competitive landscape that concerns antitrust watchdogs.

As the UK's Competition and Markets Authority has explained in its decision to give the merger a full investigation, the market appears to be at a pivotal point. The CMA believes that the video game market may be shifting from dominance by consoles—which were an effective duopoly between Sony and Microsoft—to a potentially splintered and hotly competitive market for online streaming of games.

If the CMA is right, then offering not to harm Sony's console business through the acquisition would neatly side-step the real competitive harm from the transaction: the potential that Microsoft could gain an upper hand in the growing subscription services and cloud gaming markets that would hurt competition in those new markets.

Second, access to the current games doesn't alleviate the FTC's concerns about future output. Microsoft already owns 24 gaming studios, the CMA found. That means Microsoft owns not only the studios' games, but their capacity to produce more games. The FTC's administrative complaint against the Microsoft/Activision merger points out that there are only a few independent game studios that can churn out "AAA" games that can become blockbusters—and one of them is Activision. Even if Microsoft agrees to continue providing "Call of Duty" to rivals, the pool of developers that will create the next best seller for those rivals is smaller, while Microsoft's pool of top-quality content creation assets grows with the merger.

Microsoft argues that the acquisition of one more game developer, even one as large as Activision, isn't a competition killer. At the shareholder's meeting, Smith noted that PlayStation has 286 exclusive games, compared with Xbox's 59, so the presiding judge in the FTC's challenge "is going to have to decide whether going from 59 to 60 is such a danger to competition that he should stop this from moving forward." But if games aren't widgets, counting them up might not be indicative of the threat the merger poses.

Can You Prove It?

Quality and type of game—along with network features like online communities—make games highly differentiated products and hard to compare to each other. The economics used in antitrust lawsuits does better parsing quantity, not quality. It will be difficult for the FTC to prove that Activision's output is vital for future competitors in the streaming, cloud gaming, and console markets that the FTC alleges will be harmed by the merger.

Furthermore, the FTC must convince the administrative law judge hearing its challenge that Microsoft's proposed "fix" won't cure potential harms from the deal. Recent cases suggest that's not an easy task.

In September, ALJ D. Michael Chappell (who will also hear Microsoft's case) rejected the FTC's challenge to the vertical merger of Illumina Inc. and GRAIL Inc. Chappell held that the FTC failed to prove that rivals in cancer testing innovation would be harmed by the deal because Illumina's long-term supply agreements meant there was little likelihood that Illumina would stop supplying rivals. It's a very similar argument to Microsoft's that a 10-year agreement to supply "Call of Duty" to rival gaming platforms constitutes a "fix" for the harms the FTC seeks to show in console gaming.

US enforcers have similarly failed to block other recent vertical deals. In September, Judge Carl Nichols of the US District Court for the District of Columbia rejected the Justice Department's challenge to UnitedHealth's acquisition of Change Healthcare. As to the vertical aspects of that merger, Judge Nichols concluded that the DOJ's theory of harm "rests on speculation rather than real-world evidence that events are likely to unfold as the Government predicts." He also held that the companies' proposed divestiture "fix" was enough to remedy horizontal harms. In other words, the government failed to prove that harms were likely to occur in the face of UnitedHealth's existing contracts and the proposed remedy.

Battle Royale

The FTC faces an uphill battle to demonstrate that the Microsoft/Activision merger will harm a number of digital markets that are nascent, fuzzy, and potentially huge. Microsoft's pledge to provide Activision's blockbuster to its rivals likely makes the FTC's job harder.

Even if the FTC fails to block the merger, the deal still may not close if open probes at the EU and the CMA come out against the deal. This particular deal still faces hurdles, but the outlook for vertical mergers looking to "litigate the fix" remains bullish in the US

 

[zedinen]

"FTC's strategy is kind of nutty"

FTC makes Microsoft look like Dunder Mifflin:

1. Smith:"If you look at the global market, Sony has 70% of that market, and we have 30%. "

FTC:"The relevant geographic market in which to assess the proposed acquisition's
effects is the United States."

2.Nadella:" Microsoft would only be the third largest player in the industry behind Sony and Tencent"

FTC:" In a July 26, 2022 earnings call, Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella announced that the company "had been the market
leader in North America for three quarters in a row among next gen consoles."

FTC:"Microsoft is a leader in the United States in the multi-game content library
subscription services market."

FTC:" In September 2020, Microsoft added cloud gaming to its top-tier multi-game content library subscription service offering, Xbox Game Pass Ultimate. To date, more than 20 million gamers have used the service to stream games from the cloud."

FTC:"Microsoft and other Cloud Gaming subscription service providers have similarly focused on the United States"

FTC: "High-performance consoles, multi-game content library subscription services and cloud gaming subscription services are relevant markets for evaluating the likely
competitive effects of the proposed acquisitions"

3.Smith:"Our Xbox remains in third place in console gaming, stuck behind Sony's dominant PlayStation and the Nintendo Switch."

FTC:"The only high-performance consoles offered for sale today are the Xbox Series X|S and the PS5."

FTC:"The Nintendo Switch, therefore, is not included in the relevant market"

FTC:"Microsoft closely tracks the performance of its Xbox consoles relative to Sony's Playstation consoles"

FTC:"The Xbox Series X|S and PS5 consoles are plug-in devices that draw electrical power to support advanced computations and are connected to an external display like a television"

FTC:"In contrast, the Nintendo Switch is a portable battery-operated device with a built-in display screen, and it can optionally be connected to an external display"

FTC:"Microsoft and Sony compete closely for high-quality, resource-intensive AAA console games. They compete over genre coverage, portfolio size and quality, and
multiplayer game availability"

FTC:"Nintendo pursues a different strategy of integrating its lower performance, portable hardware with its own distinctive first-party games to appeal to player nostalgia"

FTC:"While Xbox Series X|S and PS5 consoles offer more mature content for more serious gaming, Nintendo's hardware and content tends to be used more for casual and family gaming"

FTC:"The PlayStation 5 and the Xbox Series X, the companies' latest flagship consoles,
retail for $499.99. By contrast, the Nintendo Switch retails for $200 less at $299.99"

FTC:"Due to their distinct offerings, Microsoft and Sony consoles appeal to different gaming audiences than the Nintendo Switch"

FTC:"Gaming PCs are distinct from high-performance consoles due to differences in price, hardware, performance, and functionality, among other factors. Gaming PCs are therefore not included in the relevant market"

4.Microsoft:"Call of Duty is not unique"

FTC: " From its launch in 2003 up through 2020, it generated $27 billion in revenues"

FTC:"The franchise has achieved sustained dominance over the past decade, with Call of Duty titles comprising 10 of the top 15 console games sold between 2010–2019.

No other franchise had more than one title in the top 15"

FTC:"Modern Warfare II, amassed more than $1 billion in sales within just ten days of its release and is on track to outsell all other games this year despite not having been released until late October 2022.

The previous franchise record was held by Call of Duty: Black Ops II, which took 15 days to hit the $1 billion"

5.Nadella:" Let us have competition"

FTC:"The proposed acquisition is reasonably likely to substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly in multiple markets"

FTC:"it will create a combined firm with the
ability and increased incentive to use its control of Activision titles to disadvantage Microsoft's competitors."

FTC:" Microsoft is eager to further build upon its already significant strength in gaming, with Mr. Nadella declaring publicly, "Microsoft's all-in on gaming."

Looking to reap the financial opportunity available in the gaming industry, Microsoft would be incentivized to withhold Activision content from, or degrade content on, rival products in order to disadvantage
its rivals"

FTC:"The number of independent companies capable of developing standout video games for those consoles has contracted, with only a small group of firms commanding that space today"

FTC:"The gaming industry recognizes a limited top tier of independent game publishers, sometimes referred to as the "Big 4" or simply the AAA publishers: Activision, Electronic Arts, Take-Two, and Ubisoft.

These publishers reliably produce AAA games for high-performance consoles and collectively own a significant portion of the most valuable IP in the gaming industry. These high-profile franchises include, for example, Call of Duty (Activision), FIFA (EA), Grand Theft Auto (Take-Two), and Assassin's Creed (Ubisoft)"

FTC:"The proposed acquisition also may accelerate an ongoing trend towards vertical integration and consolidation in, and raise barriers to entering, the relevant markets"

6.Michael Scott??:"Microsoft should not need to make any formal concession to win regulatory approval for the deal"

 

[Three]

Dualsense exclusive features baby.

In all seriousness it's likely PSVR owners

 

[yurinka]

Again with this shit? Can you post declarations or an official doc where it says, explicitly, that they won't make any existing or future Zenimax game exclusive?

The Xbox CFO said in an interview that their strategy with Zenimax was going to be 'first on, or best on' their platforms instead of exclusivities. They said to the regulators back then that they had no incentives to make them exclusive because Zenimax games are a very small part of the market and the extra players they could get wouldn't compensate the revenue they would lose for stopping selling these games on PS.

The deal is for 10 years

It isn't a signed deal at least with Nintendo and Steam because MS doesn't need deals to publish games on PS, Switch or Steam. It's only a MS 'commitment'. As Gaben say, they can simply publish whatever they want and will be more than welcomed.

MS and Activision even did use Minecraft as example in public interviews or in SEC filing legal binding documents to mention their 'commitment' to keep multiplatform the main ABK IPs. But well, Jimbo called that bullshit because MS was offering them only 3 years of CoD instead of following a Minecraft strategy (which means publish all games and dlcs everywhere day one, fully featured and with the same quality). Now MS expanded it to 10 and also including Switch and Steam, and even offered to include it on PS Plus.

As far as we know, after rejecting the 3 years thing Sony doesn't replied them for the 10 year thing pretty likely because MS can publish the games without any deal, or because MS ask them a deal with what Sony may consider abusive conditions to keep having CoD on PS during these years (maybe things like avoiding the 30% cut or allowing them to put an Xbox store on PS or something like that), or/and sending a message to the regulators saying that Sony wouldn't like this acquisition happen because they logically prefer to keep having full featured, same quality CoD forever day one.

"FTC's strategy is kind of nutty"

FTC makes Microsoft look like Dunder Mifflin:

1. Smith:"If you look at the global market, Sony has 70% of that market, and we have 30%. "

FTC:"The relevant geographic market in which to assess the proposed acquisition's
effects is the United States."

2.Nadella:" Microsoft would only be the third largest player in the industry behind Sony and Tencent"

FTC:" In a July 26, 2022 earnings call, Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella announced that the company "had been the market
leader in North America for three quarters in a row among next gen consoles."

FTC:"Microsoft is a leader in the United States in the multi-game content library
subscription services market."

FTC:" In September 2020, Microsoft added cloud gaming to its top-tier multi-game content library subscription service offering, Xbox Game Pass Ultimate. To date, more than 20 million gamers have used the service to stream games from the cloud."

FTC:"Microsoft and other Cloud Gaming subscription service providers have similarly focused on the United States"

FTC: "High-performance consoles, multi-game content library subscription services and cloud gaming subscription services are relevant markets for evaluating the likely
competitive effects of the proposed acquisitions"

3.Smith:"Our Xbox remains in third place in console gaming, stuck behind Sony's dominant PlayStation and the Nintendo Switch."

FTC:"The only high-performance consoles offered for sale today are the Xbox Series X|S and the PS5."

FTC:"The Nintendo Switch, therefore, is not included in the relevant market"

FTC:"Microsoft closely tracks the performance of its Xbox consoles relative to Sony's Playstation consoles"

FTC:"The Xbox Series X|S and PS5 consoles are plug-in devices that draw electrical power to support advanced computations and are connected to an external display like a television"

FTC:"In contrast, the Nintendo Switch is a portable battery-operated device with a built-in display screen, and it can optionally be connected to an external display"

FTC:"Microsoft and Sony compete closely for high-quality, resource-intensive AAA console games. They compete over genre coverage, portfolio size and quality, and
multiplayer game availability"

FTC:"Nintendo pursues a different strategy of integrating its lower performance, portable hardware with its own distinctive first-party games to appeal to player nostalgia"

FTC:"While Xbox Series X|S and PS5 consoles offer more mature content for more serious gaming, Nintendo's hardware and content tends to be used more for casual and family gaming"

FTC:"The PlayStation 5 and the Xbox Series X, the companies' latest flagship consoles,
retail for $499.99. By contrast, the Nintendo Switch retails for $200 less at $299.99"

FTC:"Due to their distinct offerings, Microsoft and Sony consoles appeal to different gaming audiences than the Nintendo Switch"

FTC:"Gaming PCs are distinct from high-performance consoles due to differences in price, hardware, performance, and functionality, among other factors. Gaming PCs are therefore not included in the relevant market"

4.Microsoft:"Call of Duty is not unique"

FTC: " From its launch in 2003 up through 2020, it generated $27 billion in revenues"

FTC:"The franchise has achieved sustained dominance over the past decade, with Call of Duty titles comprising 10 of the top 15 console games sold between 2010–2019.

No other franchise had more than one title in the top 15"

FTC:"Modern Warfare II, amassed more than $1 billion in sales within just ten days of its release and is on track to outsell all other games this year despite not having been released until late October 2022.

The previous franchise record was held by Call of Duty: Black Ops II, which took 15 days to hit the $1 billion"

5.Nadella:" Let us have competition"

FTC:"The proposed acquisition is reasonably likely to substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly in multiple markets"

FTC:"it will create a combined firm with the
ability and increased incentive to use its control of Activision titles to disadvantage Microsoft's competitors."

FTC:" Microsoft is eager to further build upon its already significant strength in gaming, with Mr. Nadella declaring publicly, "Microsoft's all-in on gaming."

Looking to reap the financial opportunity available in the gaming industry, Microsoft would be incentivized to withhold Activision content from, or degrade content on, rival products in order to disadvantage
its rivals"

FTC:"The number of independent companies capable of developing standout video games for those consoles has contracted, with only a small group of firms commanding that space today"

FTC:"The gaming industry recognizes a limited top tier of independent game publishers, sometimes referred to as the "Big 4" or simply the AAA publishers: Activision, Electronic Arts, Take-Two, and Ubisoft.

These publishers reliably produce AAA games for high-performance consoles and collectively own a significant portion of the most valuable IP in the gaming industry. These high-profile franchises include, for example, Call of Duty (Activision), FIFA (EA), Grand Theft Auto (Take-Two), and Assassin's Creed (Ubisoft)"

FTC:"The proposed acquisition also may accelerate an ongoing trend towards vertical integration and consolidation in, and raise barriers to entering, the relevant markets"

6.Michael Scott??:"Microsoft should not need to make any formal concession to win regulatory approval for the deal"

I think all they said it's true and compatible with the other things they said, with this part as exception:

FTC:"The proposed acquisition is reasonably likely to substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly in multiple markets"

I think the acquisition would mainly affect PS once MS starts making CoD exclusive -if they make it ever exclusive-, but looking at the CoD, PS and market numbers I think it won't substantially lessen competition and won't tend to create any monopoly on any market. CoD is very big but only represents a small part of the PS business, around 90% of the PS don't buy CoD and a in case it goes exclusive I think only a small portion of these 10% of PS players who buy CoD would leave PS, because many of them already have an Xbox or PC gaming and even GP, or are interested on more PS games.

Even FTC agrees that the acquisition wouldn't have a meaningful impact on the gaming market, PC market, mobile market, portables/Nintendo market or VR market, where the combination of MS+ABK will not only will be far of being able to create a monopoly: they'll be far of even being market leaders. And unlike FTC I think same will happen in high end consoles, where I think the acquisition will have more impact but still won't cause a meaningful change even after CoD goes exclusive doesn't matter if in 3, 6, 10 or 12 years.

Also, FTC has to prove game subs and cloud gaming are different markets and relevant ones, plus that ABK being exclusive could be key for it, which I could understand but I'm not 100% sold. Cloud gaming is a small part of game subs, and game subs as I remember generate only around 8-9% of the gaming revenue and it's expected to grow in the next few years to only 10-15%. Plus we have to remember Sony has around twice the global amount of subs and using a model that is more profitable for them. And well, things like data caps, very slow 4G and 5G coverage and internet coverage of certain countries prevent cloud gaming being a big thing in the next let's say at least 10 years or so.

 

[feynoob]

 

[reksveks]

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/bloom...crosoft-wants-to-litigate-the-fix-thats-smart

Beat me to it.

Interesting analogy but obviously may not be indicative of the same judge view in this deal.

 

[DeepEnigma]

You forum warriors

 

[feynoob]

He ain't no warrior. He is the embodiment of the warrior tribe.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Then fucking make them.

You have over 20 studios.

The more I see theses toddler comments from him, the more I subscribe to them intentionally holding back announcements. Both camps seem to be doing this at the moment.

 

[Three]

Beat me to it.

Interesting analogy but obviously may not be indicative of the same judge view in this deal.

It may well be but then if that analogy holds:

https://www.reuters.com/markets/dea...l-says-deal-would-hurt-innovation-2022-09-06/

 

[Pelta88]

Best thing to come out of this thread is Microsoft's admission that they need more first party games. No "what about GP?" spin or "Wait till..." meaningless PR.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Best thing to come out of this thread is Microsoft's admission that they need more first party games. No "what about GP?" spin or "Wait till..." meaningless PR.

He would be called on to be banned if he posted this on here anonymously with the "Xbox has no games" rhetoric.

 

[Three]

"We're the small entrant". who the hell is going to believe that?

 

[feynoob]

He would be called to be banned if he posted this on here anonymously got "Xbox has no games" rhetoric.

Phil be like

 

[DeepEnigma]

Phil be like

 

[Pelta88]

He would be called on to be banned if he posted this on here anonymously with the "Xbox has no games" rhetoric.

I think it deserves it's own thread. But mods would most likely give whoever posted this MS CEO's words verbatim a ban or warning.

I wonder if we can call on a mod publicly and ask if the thread can be made because the CEO's words here are really significant.

Someone @ a mod or two.

 

[R3claimer117]

Best thing to come out of this thread is Microsoft's admission that they need more first party games. No "what about GP?" spin or "Wait till..." meaningless PR.

This is good pr put the pressure on them and they're about to lose this meta within case as well. And them not even meeting is a mistake and Linas arrogance in just wanting to shut down deals is going to backfire on her.

 

[DarkMage619]

Best thing to come out of this thread is Microsoft's admission that they need more first party games. No "what about GP?" spin or "Wait till..." meaningless PR.

Game pass and first party titles are independent situations. Game pass has shown that the requirement to have lots of first party titles is overblown though. The biggest games still tend to be Madden, Fortnite, and CoD.

 

[DeepEnigma]

This is good pr put the pressure on them and they're about to lose this meta within case as well. And them not even meeting is a mistake and Linas arrogance in just wanting to shut down deals is going to backfire on her.

Their PR:

 

[onesvenus]

The Xbox CFO said in an interview that their strategy with Zenimax was going to be 'first on, or best on' their platforms instead of exclusivities. They said to the regulators back then that they had no incentives to make them exclusive because Zenimax games are a very small part of the market and the extra players they could get wouldn't compensate the revenue they would lose for stopping selling these games on PS.

So you can't provide an official doc where they said they won't make any game exclusive. That's what I thought.

It isn't a signed deal at least with Nintendo and Steam because MS doesn't need deals to publish games on PS, Switch or Steam. It's only a MS 'commitment'. As Gaben say, they can simply publish whatever they want and will be more than welcomed.

More bullshit.

We all know you are against the deal because it will break the status quo where your preferred plastic box is winning but can you please stop posting your thoughts as facts? Thank you very much

 

[feynoob]

Their PR:

Does it really suck, when general people consume this shit?

 

[DeepEnigma]

Does it really suck, when general people consume this shit?

No. But that's the narrative they're going with, innit?

 

[feynoob]

No. But that's the narrative they're going with, innit?

Yes.
This is the advantage MS has right now.
Their poor line up allows them to spew these shit.
If this was during x360, they would have been rejected super fast.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Yes.
This is the advantage MS has right now.
Their poor line up allows them to spew these shit.
If this was during x360, they would have been rejected super fast.

And anyone with half a brain would be like, "then why aren't making games with the 20+ studios you have and purchased already. Studios that were productive prior?"

"Buying up more shit, just to take it away from the competition, is not "competition" due to your failures to produce."

"In fact, this isn't good for the industry to buy up the largest productive third party publisher, when your track record output has shown to be lackluster post doing so."

 

[feynoob]

And anyone with half a brain would be like, "then why aren't making games with the 20+ studios you have and purchased already, in which were productive prior?"

"Buying up more shit, just to take it away from the competition, is not "competition" due to your failures to produce."

"In fact, this isn't good for the industry to buy up the largest productive third party publisher, when your track record output has shown to be lackluster post doing so."

But the problem is people are stupid.

 

[DeepEnigma]

But the problem is people are stupid.

 

[yurinka]

So you can't provide an official doc where they said they won't make any game exclusive. That's what I thought.

More bullshit.

We all know you are against the deal because it will break the status quo where your preferred plastic box is winning but can you please stop posting your thoughts as facts? Thank you very much

I and many people more linked many times here in Gaf the interviews and SEC filing or regulators investigations docs including their statemend and also info coming from MS or Sony, both when talking about this or the Zenimax acquisitions, or in other threads related to MS acquisitions or exclusives.

These documents are facts. PS MAU is a public nomber posted by Sony, it's a also a fact. Sales of the CoD games also have been publicly provided by Activision, so it's a fact too. CoD franchise yearly revenue also has been publicly mentioned by Activision ($3B, being $1B from the mobile game and the rest from PS+XB+PC), Sony gaming revenue is also publicly share their gaming revenue every year, being around a couple dozens of billions in the last couple fiscal years. These are also facts. MS, Nintendo, Tencent and Activision, like any other big gaming public company post their revenue every year so can be compared, they are more facts. There's the NPD, Famitsu and different European charts, plus other independent gaming market analyst firms showing MS as the third in the console race, this is another fact.

It's also a fact that publishers can submit their games to be published on any console and Steam if they want to do without needing to sign any special deal with the platform holder, Gabe Newel recently reminded it when MS annoucend their 10 year commitment.

I mentioned you the specific docs and sources, but I won't google them for you, me and many other people already posted them many times on gaf, even multiple times in this thread.

And as I mentioned above, I think this acquisition should be allowed. Seems you have serious issues with reading comprehension or accepting facts and reality.

Best thing to come out of this thread is Microsoft's admission that they need more first party games. No "what about GP?" spin or "Wait till..." meaningless PR.

I found the full video with the complete interview (starts at 44:52) to see if he mentioned something else there, but seems that the portion in the tweet was all they shown about it in the show:

 

[DForce]

Not sure if anyone posted this already, but some Xbox fans in this thread were saying a few days ago that it wasn't a sure thing that Starfield would appear on PlayStation consoles.

Does this confirm what some Xbox fans were denying in this thread?




Bethesda games going exclusive wasn't being considered until they were bought by Xbox. oldergamer are you going to deny this one too?

 

[DeepEnigma]

Not sure if anyone posted this already, but some Xbox fans in this thread were saying a few days ago that it wasn't a sure thing that Starfield would appear on PlayStation consoles.

Does this confirm what some Xbox fans were denying in this thread?




Bethesda games going exclusive wasn't being considered until they were bought by Xbox. oldergamer are you going to deny this one too?

 

[Snowdonhoffen]

Damn, so they bought like 15 studios in the last 4 years including an entire publisher with lots of existing and new IPs and nowadays they have more 1st party studios than their direct competition.
And his reasoning to acquire ABK is that they still need even MORE to be able to compete?

 

[DeepEnigma]

Damn, so they bought like 15 studios in the last 4 years including an entire publisher with lots of existing and new IPs and nowadays they have more 1st party studios than their direct competition.
And his reasoning to acquire ABK is that they still need even MORE to be able to compete?

The great lie.

 

[DarkMage619]

Not sure if anyone posted this already, but some Xbox fans in this thread were saying a few days ago that it wasn't a sure thing that Starfield would appear on PlayStation consoles.

Does this confirm what some Xbox fans were denying in this thread?




Bethesda games going exclusive wasn't being considered until they were bought by Xbox. oldergamer are you going to deny this one too?

People were looking for official confirmation from Bethesda not speculation from pundits. I bet a bunch of people thought Street Fighter 5 was coming to Xbox too. MS was clear that Bethesda games would be taken on a case by case basis not all future games will be on PlayStation. It should not matter regardless. There is nothing illegal about having exclusives especially when you are funding them.

 

[DForce]

People were looking for official confirmation from Bethesda not speculation from pundits. I bet a bunch of people thought Street Fighter 5 was coming to Xbox too. MS was clear that Bethesda games would be taken on a case by case basis not all future games will be on PlayStation. It should not matter regardless. There is nothing illegal about having exclusives especially when you are funding them.

This has no relevance to my post. You're so quick to defend MS.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

Damn, so they bought like 15 studios in the last 4 years including an entire publisher with lots of existing and new IPs and nowadays they have more 1st party studios than their direct competition.
And his reasoning to acquire ABK is that they still need even MORE to be able to compete?

Because with ABK they will ONLY BE ON PAR with Playstation's output. (that's is assuming their scheduling/Management improves) which "fucking lol"

 

[Topher]

Damn, so they bought like 15 studios in the last 4 years including an entire publisher with lots of existing and new IPs and nowadays they have more 1st party studios than their direct competition.
And his reasoning to acquire ABK is that they still need even MORE to be able to compete?

The poorest $2 trillion company in the world

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

This has no relevance to my post. You're so quick to defend MS.

Don't be so hard on him. He reads with his ears

 

[DarkMage619]

This has no relevance to my post. You're so quick to defend MS.

You seemed to be implying that Starfield was 'taken' from the PlayStation. If that was not your point then feel free to ignore my post.

 

[DForce]

You seemed to be implying that Starfield was 'taken' from the PlayStation. If that was not your point then feel free to ignore my post.

You guys need to stop playing dumb. Starfield was planned to be released on PS before MS acquired them. That's the point.

 

[feynoob]

You seemed to be implying that Starfield was 'taken' from the PlayStation. If that was not your point then feel free to ignore my post.

Bethesda would have released Starfield, if MS didn't buy them.
That is point.
MS made them Xbox 1st party, and any of their games becomes Xbox ecosystem focused, and won't be released on other platforms.

 

[Salty Popsicle]

You guys need to stop playing dumb. Starfield was planned to be released on PS before MS acquired them. That's the point.

Good thing Microsoft purchased Bethesda before they announced official platforms for Starfield then.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

You seemed to be implying that Starfield was 'taken' from the PlayStation. If that was not your point then feel free to ignore my post.

Not only was/is being. It was being made and green-lit without any involvement from MS. Other words: they (Starfield, Redfall) are not First party games.

 

[JTCx]

You guys need to stop playing dumb. Starfield was planned to be released on PS before MS acquired them. That's the point.

Playing dumb is all they got.