bentanchorbolt
Banned
mods need to ban more people is what I learned from this thread.
Microsoft / Activision Deal Approval Watch |OT| (MS/ABK close)
- Status
ChorizoPicozo
Member
do you have a list?
Cheezewizz
Banned
Advocating for Tencent acquiring anything game related seems incredibly shortsighted. It seems the gaming industry is consolidating whether we like it or not, so in some instances it really is a matter of picking your poison. With MS, at least we know what their goals are. That's not the case at all with Tencent. So while you can claim that Tencent's acquisitions aren't anticompetitive, I would add a "yet" to the end of that statement. They've already co-developed a handheld as well as filed for patents to make a regular console. It's only a matter of time until they make one, and you'd best believe they'll leverage every last developer and IP possible to steer people to buy it.
To simplify it. If you're argument is that you'd prefer Tencent over Microsoft related to anything in gaming... Well, you need a better argument.
Last edited:
NickFire
Member
"I think we continue to stay focused on getting the deal closed", after mentioning the previously anticipated timeline, is a better dance than the Electric Slide and The Macarena's love child.Phil seems confident enough:
Though I must say that I'm having déjà-vu:
X-Wing
Member
If Phil would spend more time making sure his studios were putting out games instead of giving an interview every other day, then maybe they wouldn't need to buy Activision. Also imagine him coming out saying he wasn't confident and the impact that would have on MSFT shares...
www.ign.com
Phil Spencer Interview: Xbox Was 'Too Light on Games' in 2022, But a Big 2023 Could Await - IGN
In a new interview with IGN, Xbox CEO Phil Spencer talked about 2022 being "too light on games," the recent layoffs, the role of 343, the Activision Blizzard acquisition, and more.
Last edited:
Phil seems confident enough:
Though I must say that I'm having déjà-vu:
Ahah is he for real?
I didn't know anything about the process of doing an acquisition
So you're an incompetent that dragged the company into something that now could backfire in an epic way while you could have gone for a different strategy if you knew better??
Barlow
Member
https://t.co/nxQsTRqRM3
Sony requested a 5 day Subpoena extension
Sony requested a 5 day Subpoena extension
Last edited:
That isn't exactly a legal argument
That's a false argument.
That's a debate about how big is too big, nit about how you got too big.
X-Wing
Member
It's like industrial spionage. But legal.
The concept of how they grew their business is irrelevant to the idea of their market dominance. There's no difference between organic growth or mergers when it comes to analyzing their current market strength.
Please, there's no good guys in big biz. It's all money driven.
You're too quick to dismiss the power of public opinion.
reinking
Gold Member
You're correct in that it does not matter about the type of growth, but the volume certainly does. Microsoft's previous purchases added much more strength to their portfolio and overall influence on the market. Of course, the next large purchase (the biggest in the industry) is going to take more heat than the previous ones. Your comment about "1 to 50" certainly matters since the closer we get to 50 the closer we would get to influence/control over the market.
No it's still irrelevant. How they got there is of no issue. It could have been 100 mergers and still wouldn't matter if it wasn't about market dominance. Size matters here, not how many acquisitions it took to get there.
reinking
Gold Member
Well yes, that is what I was saying. You put a number in there. I was just using your number for reference.
HeisenbergFX4
Member
envyzeal
Wants protagonists to make his peepee soft
"I hear" doesn't sound like something a communications lead should be saying about a legal disclosure on twitter.
Anyway he's trying to get some public attention and maybe try to shift things?
BrutalTruth_
Banned
they had like a 40 page thread calling Phil a piece of shit last week...what?
GHG
Gold Member
It's simple.
Make Sony and PlayStation public enemy number one, get gamers and the media to rally behind Microsoft, put public pressure on regulators etc.
Bonus - if it all goes to shit this is part of setting the narrative that it was all Sony's fault if the deal doesn't get approved.
BrutalTruth_
Banned
MS has been saying this from the start though, they never once said they were going to screw SONY.
They've been upfront to what they want to do from the start, hell this deal would bring COD back to the Switch.
Last edited:
feynoob
Banned
It's clear by now that Sony doesn't want this deal to pass at all, and will use whatever excuse they can to block it.
Scummy move, but understandable considering the stakes of this deal.
reinking
Gold Member
I know a lot of people are biting on that 10-year deal. 10 years is what, 1.5 console generations at most? 2-3 game development cycles? That is a short-term deal in the grand scope of things. I understand Sony wanting more.
If it is so important that Sony is the market leader and it "would defy business logic" to exclude Sony from CoD then why does it not defy business logic on other big titles like Starfield? If I remember right, Skyrim sold the most on PS3 by a significant margin. Of course, there is the flip-side too. If the deal goes through, CoD will become a XB property. They can do what they want with it excluding the concessions they have to make. I do wonder though... ...what happens when this deal goes through if it does not improve XB position in the market 10 years from now? I mean, most assume this is a game winning grand slam. What if it is not?
/rambling
If it is so important that Sony is the market leader and it "would defy business logic" to exclude Sony from CoD then why does it not defy business logic on other big titles like Starfield? If I remember right, Skyrim sold the most on PS3 by a significant margin. Of course, there is the flip-side too. If the deal goes through, CoD will become a XB property. They can do what they want with it excluding the concessions they have to make. I do wonder though... ...what happens when this deal goes through if it does not improve XB position in the market 10 years from now? I mean, most assume this is a game winning grand slam. What if it is not?
/rambling
Last edited:
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Neither does Google or nVidia. But we never bring them up.
feynoob
Banned
Those 2 are irrelevant. Especially Google.
Nvidia has no business there, since Activision doesn't want to give them their games for their service. Google already exited the game.
Sony is the only who has stake in this.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
If what MS said was true that it was all about mobile and sub/cloud based as well, they're just as relevant.
In fact, cloud and sub services was a point of concern by the CMA.
Last edited:
feynoob
Banned
They are not in any shape relevant.
Activision isn't doing any business with these 2 companies in the cloud field.
It's not up to MS to give them those content.
The only chance they have to get those games is through regulators, and that is why they are making noises. Without that, they won't see a sniff of activitision/blizzard content.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Ok.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Yep. And Google said one of the reasons Stadia folded was due to the Zenimax purchase.
feynoob
Banned
Stadia failed due to Google shit.Yep. And Google said one of the reasons Stadia folded was due to the Zenimax purchase.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
reinking
Gold Member
It isn't just about the cloud field. ABK has a significant impact on Google and their Play store.
feynoob
Banned
You are falling for Google tricks.
These guys screwed themselves badly, and want to shift the blame to something else.
What do you expect would happen, when you hire Phil Harrison?
Stadia had a great opportunity, but fucked themselves by charging full prices for games, instead of being a sub.
feynoob
Banned
So is apple, yet they aren't making a noise.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
I'm not falling for anything, but this is much bigger than just Sony. And I know how much you get balls deep in the Ree, thread but it's diluting your scope on this.
It's not boiled down to the limp dick black and white console wars.
feynoob
Banned
This isn't era shit or whatever notion you have about that.
Sony is the ones who have bigger impact on this deal. They are losing tons of contents. Not just COD.
Cloud is future market. But right now, Sony is ones that would be impacted heavily.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
No shit, but they're not the only ones who have issue with this. Which is a fact and all I said. People gloss over the others that spoke out because…. Console wars.
They want their typical lame drama of perceived good vs evil depending on the side of the fanaticult you're on.
Last edited:
POKEYCLYDE
Member
The math is just different. 2019's Call of Duty sold roughly 30 million copies. Skyrim has sold roughly 30 million copies. One takes a year to get to that number.. the other takes a decade.
Xbox needs SOMETHING to draw players into the Xbox ecosystem. The loss of sales on Playstation is probably worth getting a fraction of players jumping over to the Xbox ecosystem. They won't make as much money on Starfield as they could, but in the long run, if they get a few million new Xbox users that stick around, spending in their ecosystem, it's worth it.
The same isn't true for Call of Duty.
ChorizoPicozo
Member
you when the deal gets approved.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
ChorizoPicozo
Member
and that too
freefornow
Member
Get a room you two.
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
Yes, but money-driven decisions =/= anti-competitive.
Tencent and SNK acquisitions are money-driven but are not anti-competitive.
MS acquisitions are money-driven as well as anti-competitive.
They would be anti-anything as long as they made money. If they have or have not, it's merely a coincidence.
DenchDeckard
Moderated wildly
Iced Arcade
Member
Just came to that conclusion now fey lol
- Status