Microsoft / Activision Deal Approval Watch |OT| (MS/ABK close)
- Status
That 68% game on metacritic that everyone should like and people risk a perm for.
Clearly, and the regulators aren't required to accept them either. Only pointing out that they want to make it exclusive but they also want this deal approved so they are playing both sides. Their words/promises prior are meaningless without those formal remedies. They offered it along with all the lobbying the week that it became more clear to them that the FTC was moving to block the deal. Before that they and their fans were saying 3 yrs is beyond standard and companies don't make longterm deals, then that changed when it became apparent it was being blocked. They wanted to make no formal concessions or proposals to regulators either. They wanted exclusivity, they argued that in court, how removing it would mean nothing and how unimportant the titles are, they made empty promises of no incentives to remove them before too, then they started their lobbying and 10 yr deals when they knew that wasn't going to fly.
Last edited:
MasterCornholio
Member
bitbydeath
Member
What uncertainties though?
It only means as long as they're still making COD it also has to be made for X platform. That would excuse any uncertainties of MS going broke and unable to make anymore COD games.
feynoob
Banned
The issue with your point is that FTC block was already anticapated, considering the person that is leading them wants these type of deals to be shutdown.
I think the regulators that you need to focus would be CMA and EU which are the only sensible regulators in this case.
CMA hasnt made a decision about concession yet, but EU seems to signal that with their upcoming findings.
feynoob
Banned
The issue however stems from the range of that contract. Since there is no definitive date, MS is stuck with that contract.
MS is essentially giving away negotiation power, and have to obey that contract forever. MS would have to follow with what is written in that contract.
R reksveks i think you are expert in this topic. Can you help us little bit?
feynoob
Banned
Also sherlock would be in public domain next year.
DenchDeckard
Moderated wildly
ahhh, oh yeah. good game. nothing amazing but genuinely good fun. I enjoyed it.
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
This is pretty much what many regulatory bodies are doing.
Remember CMA gave Microsoft the deadline before they entered Phase 2 investigation? That was Microsoft's chance to eliminate CMA's concerns and submit everything in writing. Microsoft chose not to do that.
As a result, the CMA entered phase 2 after the deadline ended.
Depending on their findings now, they will ask Microsoft to make certain concessions. The next course of action (or regulatory resistance) will be decided on how Microsoft responds to those requests.
bitbydeath
Member
It all just comes out sounding nefarious to me as there shouldn't be a need to renegotiate, or anything to renegotiate but I appreciate your response.
feynoob
Banned
It needs to be done, and not give MS any leeway.
Think you have basically summed it up. It's the fact that the power will shift 'unfairly' towards Sony.
The uncertainties could be anything from Sony having 5% market share to CoD being irrelevant.
I am not sure what other examples or scenarios would be helpful. I was thinking about the deals that Marvel used to make and the bad outcomes that it led to.
Thinking about the marvel one, you could definitely build in some condition but obviously some people would use it against MS in terms of PR.
Last edited:
Was randomly thinking about this today but doesn't some of the investors docs from Sony imply that they include Nintendo as a competitor at least for market share?
I don't exactly know what metric they were using.
Not sure how you would get to 45% without including Nintendo.
I don't exactly know what metric they were using.
Not sure how you would get to 45% without including Nintendo.
feynoob
Banned
They include them. Even MS does that too.Was randomly thinking about this today but doesn't some of the investors docs from Sony imply that they include Nintendo as a competitor at least for market share?
I don't exactly know what metric they were using.
Not sure how you would get to 45% without including Nintendo.
The FTC wants to make it Sony vs MS, considering COD.
Without that high performance market, FTC doesn't have a chance to block the deal. By isolating Nintendo, they would have a chance to block this deal.
They went as far as to say, that this is a 9th gen, while Nintendo is 8th gen.
PaintTinJr
Member
It is hardly dumb logic if they can cite a source showing the public in a major xbox market - say the UK with the CMA commisioning an ipsos poll - shows that consumer buying decisions don't consider the Switch in general when choosing where they buy the major(under TV) multiplatform games though, would it?Keep up the dumb logic FTC.
You are digging your grave a lot with these takes
Last edited:
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
Not sure if it does or not, but Sony's document won't matter here even if it does include Nintendo. What matter more are Microsoft's internal documents that claim that Nintendo isn't their main competitor and does their own thing.Was randomly thinking about this today but doesn't some of the investors docs from Sony imply that they include Nintendo as a competitor at least for market share?
I don't exactly know what metric they were using.
Not sure how you would get to 45% without including Nintendo.
And this is not just about the FTC. The CMA also has the same understanding, based on evidence, that Nintendo is not a direct competitor to either Microsoft or Sony.
Last edited:
I don't think an FTC block was anticipated. MS expected it to pass in the US.
Why? Not sure I see the relevance. That's from 1928. I don't think anybody expects an "infinite contract" that's beyond copyright laws because it wouldn't even be required for a 75yr old game anyway. Doesn't mean new CoDs can't be made and sold. Disney retains the rights to any new Micky Mouse films and designs.
feynoob
Banned
If MS and Sony considers it a competition, then it is.
Last edited:
Neofire
Member
HB you hit the nail on the head dude. All people are taking about (the ones that want this mess to go through) is CoD and not talking about the dozens of other great IPs ABK has that MS will own. I am 100% confident they will do the same exact strategy as when they bought Bethesda and slowly choke out the competition by throwing scraps. While undermining the releasing they do bring to Nintendo or Sony with a day one release on GP.I can't believe I have to explain this ...
Microsoft words = Marketing talk and potentially misleading statements (like in the case of Bethesda)
Internal documents = Not marketing talk.
Microsoft says they won't take COD off of PlayStation ever but submits in writing an offer that only lasts 10 years. So words do not match documents.
Also, they haven't submitted anything about other ABK IPs, e.g., Diablo, WoW, etc.
Does this make it clear?
Y'all keep listening to this news sites talking about "it's a uphill battle for the FTC" when they also said this acquisition was in the bag a few months after it was announced and here we are.
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
MS doesn't. This is Phil's statement:
And, by the way, in that case, it's even worse for Microsoft with this acquisition, because if we compare Microsoft with Amazon and Google in the Cloud gaming market, Microsoft looks like a monopoly. They have the biggest catalog for Cloud games, and they are adding to it with that acquisition and locking those previously independent IPs to their cloud subscription service.
Google is out of the gaming business because of Microsoft's acquisition spree.
Bethesda Acquisition by Microsoft Factored Into Stadia Studios Shutdown
Google Stadia's Phil Harrison reportedly states that Microsoft's acquisition of Bethesda played a role in shutting down Stadia studios.
gamerant.com
Last edited:
feynoob
Banned
Maybe try to post the entire statements instead of picking up few words.
It was more about cloud gaming, and not traditional model.
Amazon and Google have insane money. Stadia might have failed, but Google has fk you money and do the same process again. Nintendo and Sony can't afford that.
MasterCornholio
Member
Is it a timed exclusive though?
Just trying to figure out why they made a big deal out of it.
it's not even the Phil statement the FTC is referring to but an internal document which suggests Nintendo isn't competition to them. Even if you look back at their silly Major Nelson PR from years back (before xcloud) you see him mention Nintendo as not a competitor and Sony as 'the enemy'. They know they aren't really competing for third party game sales on Nintendo systems. Most people with common sense know that too.
Last edited:
feynoob
Banned
Key point is that Nintendo has the means to compete with them. And with their next console on the horizon, these 3rd party games would eventually come to their system.
They might not be their actual competitor, but they are still in the play.
From wii U failure to switch success. And now switch 2 might change the conversation.
Define means here. A mobile or Apple has the means to compete too but it doesn't mean it has the same audience or current competing product.
Last edited:
feynoob
Banned
Next gen console is around us, and that could run the games, which consumers want.
Just pointing out an interesting tidbit that even copyright laws also have a time range and also there are definitely people who are wondering why ms lawyers don't simply use the word forever in the contract or allow Sony to always renew the contract
"Can you explain in detail why an infinite deal can't be made?" from this thread.
Anybody is a big word sadly (there is always niche pov's on the internet).
Really trying my best of ignore this market definition conversation, we just lack the metrics to answer it.
Last edited:
ChorizoPicozo
Member
Is possible to know what users got banned and in what thread? It would be nice to have a memorial wall to press F.
Topher
Identifies as young
Sometimes the mods reference a specific post on the bans page, but in this case they didn't.
PaintTinJr
Member
Not in terms of this deal and making a case to a judge. The facts - like an ipsos poll of 3k people in the UK - will carry far more weight when used by a regulator than any player in the market's vested interest definition.
Where consumers consider buying the latest CoD, AC, Fifa, Battlefield, Elden Ring, etc defines the market mainly under threat from this acquisition, and it will be easily proven by the FTC, CMA or EU if they need to.
Last edited:
MasterCornholio
Member
Comments like this?
After seeing comments like that I can see how the others got their bans as well.
That clarifies a lot. Thank you.
Last edited:
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
Sorry to say, man, but your comprehension skills are extremely poor, making discussions very tough.
I didn't cherry-pick a statement. I posted his entire statement. The additional statements you added don't change anything. The gist is still the same, i.e., MS doesn't see Nintendo as a competitor, and FTC & CMA also don't see Nintendo as a competitor to Xbox.
feynoob
Banned
Console manufacturers knows who their competition is.
Which the next switch gen can change their mind.
The only who knows about this are Nintendo.
If they manage to make that console, consumers would be able to play those games on the next switch.
Competition isn't only tied to right now.
feynoob
Banned
In term of cloud gaming, they don't see them as competitor. What more do you need?
The only place they see them as competitor is Console hardware.
FtC, CMA, and EU are focusing on the console market with Activision.
2 different part.
Kagey K
Banned
It's more like, let's says say Sony decides to go VR only with the PS7 or PS8, a perpetuity contract would leave MS stuck making an unplanned VR CoD on top of thier regular version.It all just comes out sounding nefarious to me as there shouldn't be a need to renegotiate, or anything to renegotiate but I appreciate your response.
I'm not saying that's going to happen, but it's 1 reason why you don't do in perpetuity contracts.
Last edited:
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
Phil says that their main goal is to excel in Cloud gaming and reach out to billions of gamers. And that's why, Nintendo and Sony are not their main competitors. Instead, Google and Amazon are their main competitors because the latter two compete with Xbox in Cloud gaming (their primary business target now).
Phil never said this statement that you are implying he said.
Last edited:
feynoob
Banned
If you read it carefully, you will understand what he means.
Console is still the main competitor. But cloud gaming, Sony and Nintendo doesn't stand a chance, due to the infrastructure.
Anyway, it's best for us to stop here. We are going off topic here.
gothmog
Gold Member
Microsoft will say anything at this point to not have their own documents and words used against them. This is why you stay quiet during pending legal action. Your words can and will be used against you. They will also be taken out of context or mixed with something else you said to paint a broader picture.
feynoob
Banned
PaintTinJr
Member
Which doesn't matter, because the countries/regulators/courts are in charge of these definition, not the corporations, no matter how much they project or wish it to be.
Even if the Nintendo replacement console is a re-launch into strictly under the TV gaming to compete - which the Switch doesn't, and its namesake replacement won't either in their handheld stronghold market - that would have to come under "Theories of improving competition", and going by Nintendo's strictly under the TV competing consoles since Xbox joined the market, they haven't "competed" with a console that's sold over 20m units (GC/WiiU) and other than the GC they didn't seriously compete as they were technologically a gen behind, and the lack of three way faceoffs by DF - of all people
- will illustrate that point very nicely. At best the Wiiu had a handful of faceoff comparison, and I suspect more of those were against the 360/PS3 like Batman Origins, than against the PS4/X1.
Demographically they aren't competing for X1/PS4/Xseries/PS5 CoD customers, and the lack of their inclusion in face-offs, and lack of comments in such threads clamouring for their inclusion shows neither Nintendo or Nintendo customers mind that situation.
DarkMage619
$MSFT
I am not surprised to see the 'Nintendo doesn't count' argument pop up again. This is funny for a few reasons but the most is this idea that a company gets to choose who they compete with versus the reality of the competition in the market. If MS says internally they don't compete against Nintendo does that suddenly remove Nintendo from the gaming industry? If MS claims that their main competitors are Amazon and Google does that mean the FTC should look to see how Activision acquisition affects those companies and ignore Sony and Nintendo? We don't get to shape our reality based on documents internal or external. We also don't get to have it both ways.
Why is MS listened to when they said they aren't competing with Nintendo but ignored when they say they are competing against Amazon and Google? How can you argue that MS cannot be trusted even under contract when there is no evidence of them breaking contracts? This entire complaint appears quite political.
Like it or not Nintendo is a significant competitor in the gaming industry and they are competing for the same money and time of gamers. The differences in form factor and the time it was released does not put it into a market onto itself. Just like the way you pay for games doesn't put your system into a different MARKET. When the 360 came out before the PS3 it wasn't in a new market, it was just a newer product. I'm glad that the FTC arguments will have to be decided by a judge where they should rightfully be laughed out of court.
Why is MS listened to when they said they aren't competing with Nintendo but ignored when they say they are competing against Amazon and Google? How can you argue that MS cannot be trusted even under contract when there is no evidence of them breaking contracts? This entire complaint appears quite political.
Like it or not Nintendo is a significant competitor in the gaming industry and they are competing for the same money and time of gamers. The differences in form factor and the time it was released does not put it into a market onto itself. Just like the way you pay for games doesn't put your system into a different MARKET. When the 360 came out before the PS3 it wasn't in a new market, it was just a newer product. I'm glad that the FTC arguments will have to be decided by a judge where they should rightfully be laughed out of court.
gothmog
Gold Member
That's why evidence has a chain of custody. Random internet videos may raise eyebrows but without sources and verification they should be just as inadmissible as hearsay.
DenchDeckard
Moderated wildly
Yeah I think its like 3 or 6 months timed unless I'm mixing it up with some other game?
feynoob
Banned
Beg your pardon?
SenjutsuSage
Banned
[/URL]
FTC is on fire
Microsoft said that they don't want to lessen competition because they are also putting Call of Duty on Nintendo. FTC hits back by saying MS didn't even consider Nintendo as a competitor as per Microsoft's own internal documents, so this move of putting COD on Nintendo doesn't help minimizing the anti-competitiveness.
By fire you must mean their arguments are burning in a trash bin where all the failed attempts go?
Expanding Call of Duty to Nintendo regardless of how Nintendo is viewed in internal documents (which are being misinterpreted, but that's another matter altogether) creates additional opportunity and expanded markets for Activision Blizzard content by making COD available to more consumers. Nintendo has a far reach, as large or larger than Sony.
That in addition to the commitment to bring COD to Playstation for the next 10 years destroys any market competition or consumer argument that can possibly be made against the deal.
Did you think this deal is being argued in a middle school debate class or something? It's going to be argued before a judge, which will then eventually make its way to a federal judge who has to operate on actual monopoly and antitrust law and market realities, not convenient assumptions. Legally binding remedies carry weight before judges.
SenjutsuSage
Banned
And by the way, I'm not referring to a federal appeals court, but federal district court. May/June Supreme Court decisions will confirm as much.
gothmog
Gold Member
That's not how contracts work. If there is any material breach the contract is null and void. A material breach is when one side or the other stops basically following the terms specified in the contract. Sony going VR only would be a breach since it would probably be specified that it is for the console version. They could easily make the contract perpetual. Microsoft just doesn't want to do it in the same way they don't want to divest themselves of COD.
Pelta88
Member
FTC argues semantics, creates new console market that doesn't include Nintendo
The Federal Trade Commission has created a new 'high-performance console' market definition that does not include the $62 billion Nintendo Switch platform.www.tweaktown.com
FTC is on fire
Microsoft said that they don't want to lessen competition because they are also putting Call of Duty on Nintendo. FTC hits back by saying MS didn't even consider Nintendo as a competitor as per Microsoft's own internal documents, so this move of putting COD on Nintendo doesn't help minimizing the anti-competitiveness.
You mean to tell me that everyone who wasn't copy pasting resetera, Hoe law, and idas... And actually looked at the documents for themselves, had a point?
Last edited:
- Status