Microsoft / Activision Deal Approval Watch |OT| (MS/ABK close)
- Status
onesvenus
Member
They have a lot of their games verified on steam deck and worked with Valve to make XCloud work there. What more do you expect them to do?
Xbox Cloud Gaming now supports Steam Deck through Microsoft Edge
Microsoft is continuing to support Steam Deck.
www.theverge.com
Microsoft details its Steam Deck support for Xbox Game Studios titles
Most Xbox Game Studios games will be supported.
www.theverge.com
All the latest releases from Xbox Game Studios have been verified to work on Steam deck
SenjutsuSage
Banned
Like they add Platform to Starfield, Redfall or Elder Scrolls 6 am I right
#1 - Microsoft owns the studios and IP and can do what it wants.
#2 - Regulators determined there was no anti-competive risk and approved the purchase without conditions.
#3 - Redfall and Starfield are two brand new IP with no prior platforms that they've been committed or promised to before the acquisition. Those games are in no way an essential component of any game platform's success.
#4 - While Elder Scrolls and Bethesda Game Studios in general may have a strong fanbase, the last Elder Scrolls single-player RPG was over 10 years ago back in 2011. No platform had had a new Elder Scrolls title since then and has survived just fine. It is therefore not an essential input to compete.
#5 - Popular brands and entertainment based IP are purchased and then made exclusive to a company and its associated products and/or services all the time. There's nothing unique about Microsoft doing so with Elder Scrolls.
#6 - These types of games are not the same type of annualized franchises with these massive multi-player communities that are heavily dependent on multiplayer and cross-play functionality the likes of which Call of Duty is. Even if Redfall were to have been such a game, it likely would not command the kinds of numbers that would be deemed an essential input to maintain competitiveness. Call of Duty is an annual multiplayer, crossplay monster community of a game, and even that isn't truly an essential input to competition and could safely leave Playstation without too much harm to Playstation, which is why a binding promise to not tear off the bandaid too quickly and to provide COD to Playstation for10-15 years might be more than enough for some regulators.
What more do I expect them to do? How about native support like others do? Microsoft Xcloud through Microsoft Edge Browser isn't support and I don't think you even read the article about what's verified to work. Most of the verified list isn't XGS games, at least not originally
Verified:
Deathloop
Psychonauts 2
Hellblade: Senua's Sacrifice
The Evil Within
Fallout Shelter
Prey
Battletoads
Max: The Curse of Brotherhood
Now look at what's unsupported
Unsupported:
Gears 5
Halo: The Master Chief Collection
Halo Infinite
Microsoft Flight Simulator X
If you think that's "what more do you expect them to do" material then it's not worth discussing with you.
Last edited:
Minecraft ran on toasters before it was acquired by MS. It was Java. They didn't really add platforms because it was already on everything.
Pelta88
Member
When you read thread updates and people talk like the regulators have already made their decision, it gets kinda weird.
Can we stay in the present where the CMA, EU, and FTC negotiations are still ongoing?
gothmog
Gold Member
I think people are overthinking what was largely an introductory call. The only thing of note was the agreement over an expedited discovery. Not sure if any of that will be disclosed to the public, though.
But hey, people have been wrong before and will be wrong again and again when they read too much into these things. This isn't television.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
On NeoGaf, rUmOrS are treated like press-releases.
Just check any "rumor" thread about games people don't want.
Found the lie... "Q&A at all at Bethesda."
Last edited:
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
Like what? Only Pentiment is verified.They have a lot of their games verified on steam deck and worked with Valve to make XCloud work there. What more do you expect them to do?
Xbox Cloud Gaming now supports Steam Deck through Microsoft Edge
Microsoft is continuing to support Steam Deck.
Microsoft details its Steam Deck support for Xbox Game Studios titles
Most Xbox Game Studios games will be supported.
All the latest releases from Xbox Game Studios have been verified to work on Steam deck
Grounded is a particular pain in the ass to make it work on Steam Deck -- so much so that I totally abandoned it and moved on to other games.
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
None of these points matter or are in line with Microsoft says. According to Microsoft, these acquisitions increase player choice and bring games to more people wherever they want to play them.
It's a simple question then. Do these acquisitions bring the joy of gaming to everyone (PlayStation users?) and across every device? (PlayStation?)
Or do they minimize the number of platforms unlike what Phil and Microsoft have been saying?
DarkMage619
$MSFT
I must have missed the announcement of those titles for multi-console release. Was there a similar announcement for those titles like CoD? By the way no title is guaranteed to any platform just like Street Fighter 5 and Final Fantasy 7 remake just happened to skip Xbox. It's business.Like they add Platform to Starfield, Redfall or Elder Scrolls 6 am I right
Untrue. MS released Minecraft on Switch and WiiU. Platforms it was not on when Mojang was acquired. MS has updated and improved the title for multiple consoles when they didn't have to. The spin-offs were also mentioned and again MS could have made those exclusive. No other platform holder puts more IP they own on platforms they do not than MS. There is no need to downplay this.
If we are talking about CoD it's an obvious yes. That title is not on any Nintendo platforms currently and that will change. It also will allow Activision titles to be accessible via cloud and subscription which is also an expansion. PlayStation users are also getting a guarantee of the titles' availability unlike many games that skip Xbox altogether so I am not seeing any issue with Phil's comments. Again MS has put more IP they own on platforms they don't than any other console manufacturer. Until another company does more MS' position is unassailable.
Oh my bad, forgot the switch always existed, and the Wii U, and the ps3 since Sony was so scared they called MS to see if they are going to remove it, Minecraft realms and it's dedicated servers that's just all in my head I guess, or the cross play update.
Like Jesus Christ stop already, they made it more available and did the SAME THING WITH THE SPIN OFF's. Trying to cling for anything doenst make what I said less true. And your steam deck comparison was, again, respectfully, still makes zero fucking sense to me. Swear to god you sound like the type that's gonna see starfield come out or red fall, then go around these forums like "nu-uh idc if it's 90+ meta MICROSOFT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT LOLOLOL they still have no games." It's childish as fuck.
Since you're of this mentality and I am actively losing brain cells from our lil debate I'm a just let thread talk about the threads topic. Especially since it seems like the deals is literally going to go through, despite your "well worded" arguments.
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
Phil isn't talking about Call of Duty. He is talking about Activision Blizzard games, which includes all other IPs as well. Do you believe that all other IPs (Diablo, Crash, Spyro, World of Warcraft, Overwatch, ABK new upcoming unannounced games etc.) will also continue to release on Nintendo and PlayStation forever?
Microsoft and Bethesda also shared similar statements about Zenimax games before the acquisition closed, by the way. Here are just a couple of quotes:
So, does this not include PlayStation? Why are upcoming Zenimax games not on PlayStation then?
And by choosing to not release Starfield and Redfall on Nintendo and PlayStation, are more people going to be able to play those games now?
In which scenario do you think more people would be playing Zenimax games? If they release on PC, Xbox, and GP? Or if they released on PC, Xbox, GP, PlayStation, and Nintendo?
Last edited:
.
DarkMage619
$MSFT
Who knows? What I do know is that after the acquisition those games will be available to more people via cloud and subscription. Those players outnumber PlayStation only players so by the numbers it's still an expansion. If Sony had a full featured browser on PlayStation you could also stream those titles on PlayStation as well.
MS continued to support all current Bethesda games on PlayStation and announced new titles like that Quake remaster plus all expansions on ESO and FO76. Most importantly Phil said ZeniMax games would hit non-Xbox platforms on a case-by-case basis. He never promised all games would hit PlayStation unconditionally.
Yes. Again cloud and subscription access are real tangible things and more people have access to those titles than before the acquisition. You still can get those titles without an Xbox or any console or PC at all. That was not always true.
The reality is that GP and streaming were not options at all prior to the acquisition. Their inclusion now is a substitute for PlayStation and Nintendo (assuming Starfield was hitting Switch is a stretch). More people have access to cloud and subscription services than PlayStations. Also don't forget no title is guaranteed to any platform. Xbox gamers in particular know this fact very well.
No shit it didn't exist on Switch when Mojang was acquired, because Switch didn't exist at all when Mojang was acquired. Rumours of Wii U devkits at 4J and a Wii U version date back to late 2013, MS got Mojang in late 2014. If anything the Wii U version was badly delayed.
Not sure what you're saying here. The switch didn't exist when Mojang was acquired but before mojang was acquired they ported Minecraft to all devices regardless. So yes you can say MS "added platforms" by the simple fact that after the acquisition more platforms existed to port to.
The update (with crossplay) was held hostage from PS anyway even though it would have been possible to offer it without so I'm not sure why that's even being brought up.
Last edited:
Aguero9320
Member
The most interesting thing said to me is MS saying they expect the FTC to go to Federal Court, and the FTC saying they have no intention. Having been through some extensive discovery efforts myself, it's a massive PITA, and almost always hugely damaging/embarrassing to someone (in passing, no one really cares in the long run).
FTC's position of being open to concessions is also interesting. That would seem to weaken their philosophical argument at this point. I don't see this ever going to court, or any significant concessions beyond what is already on the table, but to back away the FTC will need something to try and claim as a win. I think we're approaching the end game tbh.
FTC's position of being open to concessions is also interesting. That would seem to weaken their philosophical argument at this point. I don't see this ever going to court, or any significant concessions beyond what is already on the table, but to back away the FTC will need something to try and claim as a win. I think we're approaching the end game tbh.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
feynoob
Banned
)
gothmog
Gold Member
What MS news? All I've seen is rumors and speculation today.This is a meh trial. More like a.
All eyes are on CMA, after recent MS news.
feynoob
Banned
It's an MLA report.
Last edited:
akimbo009
Member
Are you arguing MS should publish on Playstation because "consistency"? That's a bizarre ass take.
Probably means about the hearing of yesterday. The tldr is the ftc doesn't want to take it to federal court, they NOW want to discuss concessions, and they also said whatever the CMA decides is what they'll most likely do as well. Not sure what rumors you've seen but this is the big news atm.
gothmog
Gold Member
Did you listen to it? It was largely technical difficulties and both sides kinda laying out how they would like to proceed. Discovery is being accelerated. Microsoft is trying to plan for all options. FTC has now been directed to talk about remedies with MS. There was literally nothing dramatic here. Just a bunch of lawyers basically doing the basic work to get this type of legal proceeding started. It's going to be a long process.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
No, he is saying, "reaching more gamers regardless of what they play on...." is a lie and at best, used car salesmen/politician ass spin.
feynoob
Banned
NickFire
Member
There is a huge difference between afraid of court and not needing to take something to court immediately. And there are multiple reasons they don't need to take it to court immediately.
I am intrigued by the claim they will most likely follow CMA. Seems very unlikely a US political person would publicly say whatever a UK one does works for us after alleging unfair practices. Did someone with authority actually say that?
gothmog
Gold Member
The only rumors I've seen was some kind of "FTC is backpedaling" thing. The whole meeting was pretty friendly and professional. The FTC said that there was no parallel proceedings (meaning there is no other court cases pending regarding this issue) and that the FTC at this time was not taking it to federal court right now. They said "only if it were to become necessary at some future date". Microsoft said they would base their concession discussions with the FTC on what they do with EU and CMA. FTC did not verbally object, so it sounded like they were in agreement that this was how they want to proceed for now.
I would imagine both sides have different views as to what acceptable concessions are. I am personally convinced they will have to agree to way more than a number of years of just COD to get this done.
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
No, they said whatever you play on. Why are their platform restrictions now?
NickFire
Member
Without having listened, I can still say this sounds far more plausible for what transpired than pretty much anything else I read.
This was posted this morning bro I just read the yahoo and other website summary's and I'm relaying it to you. I'm like 10 minutes in and you right hella technical difficulties but I think people posted another tldr for you that says the stuff I was saying. Tryna make a time stamp to post in the thread.
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
No, I'm saying they either need to stick by their words or shut up with the "when we all play; we win" bullshit because that's just a gross lie.
And MS and certain fans also need to stop lying and just accept that Bethesda and ABK acquisitions are resulting in fewer players to have access to those games, not more as their PR suggests.
Just at least have the decency to own the disaster they're causing. Then I don't care if they release those games on PlayStation or not.
Last edited:
It starts at 10:50
gothmog
Gold Member
There's a few timestamps in the video that get to the meat. It's really short.
Most people's TLDRs from yesterday were trying to stir up drama. Once you hear what was actually said and how it was said you'll probably laugh at how mundane it really is.
akimbo009
Member
Oh got it. Well, I don't give a shit if PS gets COD or Starfield or anything MS ends up owning. Not sure why I would - buy an Xbox, MS ain't altruistic.
Doesn't seem that mundane. I wish Hoeg was alright to discuss this I miss hearing his breakdowns. I'll agree nothing much came from this but the facts that it seems like both parties are reliant on what the CMA says seems pretty important, and after the FTC was literally saying they don't want to settle to now wanting to settle seems pretty damn big. Before this it was just the FTC is blocking it, no questions asked, we all heard what Brad smith said. Now it's different. Either or, it's clear they'd rather settle then go to federal court that much can be said.
DarkMage619
$MSFT
None of what you have said refuted my point that MS put Minecraft on platforms it wasn't on before the acquisition. MS expanded access to the title even when they didn't have to. They are really the only platform holder doing this. CoD will be following this model.
ChuckeRearmed
Member
They literally opened access to more people. Just because certain Playstation zealots that buy and play on a single device called Playstation cannot play, it still opens it to more gamers than ever - for example those who did not want to buy it full price. World does not revolve around Playstation (like Jimbo thought that Playstation brought gaming to Middle East for example
)
Last edited:
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Ok.They literally opened access to more people. Just because certain Playstation zealots that buy and play on a single device called Playstation cannot play, it still opens it to more gamers than ever - for example those who did not want to buy it full price. World does not revolve around Playstation (like Jimbo thought that Playstation brought gaming to Middle East for example
Last edited:
DarkMage619
$MSFT
Sorry you feel this way. Fact still remains MS has expanded access to their IP in more ways than any other platform has for theirs. People without PlayStations continue to outnumber people who have one.
NickFire
Member
There are millions of other lawyers who can tell you:
1) At a preliminary conference it is common to express openness to settlement talks. That does not mean anything more than not pissing off the adjudicator. But the devil is the unsaid details, which most courts will not go into as it can hinder settlement talks. What this means is we have no idea what concessions FTC would even consider. For all we know they might say "We want to settle, but only if you spin off x,y,z into a separate entity." And depending on what the separate entity would be, it might be tantamount to saying "only if you buy everything but COD." So sure, they would be offering to settle. But would they really be?
2) Delaying the filing is almost certainly a strategic way to exert pressure on MS, and possibly on other regulatory entities. The MS pressure is obvious because it puts them in a bind with escalating break up fees and so much uncertainty. By delaying court, you delay MS ability to gauge how the court will view everything (which can give some insight into whether a summary judgment motion might have viable legs).
3) Before going back to potential pressure on EU / CMA, it is "possible" that FTC really expects to lose in court and that is why they haven't filed. I think that sounds like a reach because it assumes FTC actually needs to file now, which they don't, and ignores the leverage FTC can gain with uncertainty over MS heads (while break up fees increase). But yes, its possible this is a show boat trial to make someone look tough on big tech. People with political ambition do sometimes take 1/2 measures for appearances even knowing they will lose.
4) That said, I suspect FTC may be trying to get EU / CMA to do the dirty work (so to speak). If someone on that side of the pond decides to block it to look as strong or stronger than FTC, MS would have even more incentive to pull out. It's much easier to win one fight than 2 or 3.
4) is pretty much what I took away from all the news lately. I just don't think there as distrusting of this deal as the FTC is. Either way it seems like this whole case is reliant on the Uk. I just don't see them doing extreme concessions because why would they go to that extreme instead of just delaying/suing in federal court, hence my reasoning that the FTC is (almost) a non issue in this acquisition and the CMA has more power because everything I've seen from the FTC yesterday certainly doesn't scream we're confident in blocking this by ourselves.
NickFire
Member
No idea where other two might go. But right now I do think they have more power than FTC in one small way. Specifically, they will decide how many fronts MS has to fight to get approval. That is a lot of power even though I doubt the FTC will ever say "whatever those guys say is fine".
Topher
Identifies as young
Riky
$MSFT
Since all first party games come to Gamepass day one and those games can be streamed almost everyone has a device that can play the games, nobody has to miss out.
graywolf323
Member
OverHeat
« generous god »
- Status