Support NeoGAF

[Jimmyisback]

Cma hasn't even taken into account MS offer is ten years for cod on playstation.

How can one be so naive?

Are you hoping that MS stops fighting for the deal and just give up?

 

[SneakersSO]

So they haven't even considered the deal that brings COD to Nintendo yet? This has a long way to go.

Yeah, but heres the thing (and now you can understand why Sony hadn't accepted this deal) - one of the folks and the main opponent of the deal is saying that the deal is nowhere near enough. Not just that, but on item 44, they are saying that any behavioral remedies extending towards Cloud inclusion of CoD will not be considered. Its almost an impossible situation to navigate - they want a concession that they feel will assuage their concerns enough, while also saying there is no concession they would sign off that includes allowing CoD to enter xCloud.

The deal still has several months to go, for sure, but the 10-year deal on its face is probably not going to be enough, cause their concerns aren't just about CoD being made available on other platforms, but also being included in gaming subscriptions and Cloud services. MS would have to draw up a contract that could allow anyone to include CoD into their gaming subscription service at a rate whose calculation has to be deemed fair by the CMA, never offer CoD exclusively into xCloud, and ensures that CoD is available on all other market participants platforms in perpetuity. And on top of all that, the CMA has to then also agree to be the enforcing agency on this agreement.

There has been only 1 merger that was challenged by the CMA that made it through with the proposed behavioral remedies out of the last like, nearly 20 or so. This isn't a situation MS would want to dabble in at all. They'd be handcuffing their rights to the most profitable IP they'd be getting through this deal. They are not going to pay $69b for this.

 

[NickFire]

Even Sony agreed VRR was better in the end, let it go, I was right all along.
We don't know what hardware Nintendo have coming by the time this all finishes and the point is they haven't even considered the 10 year offer to Sony yet, that means the remedy could already be available.

I'll let it go except for instances where you ignore major performance deltas to suggest COD (in most current forms) can be played where solid 60 FPS would be a pipe dream.

And no, I am not pretending Nintendo will come in hot with cutting edge cpu and gpu. If Nintendo surprises me I will gladly eat those words though.

 

[Riky]

I'll let it go except for instances where you ignore major performance deltas to suggest COD (in most current forms) can be played where solid 60 FPS would be a pipe dream.

And no, I am not pretending Nintendo will come in hot with cutting edge cpu and gpu. If Nintendo surprises me I will gladly eat those words though.

You played MW2 on last gen? If you have you will know other console owners are getting nearly 4 times the framerate before we even get to the PC players.

 

[Lyrical]

I hope this process is a lesson to Microsoft and the other gaming companies to fuck off with these large acquisitions. If this does go through then it has to be the last.

 

[Heisenberg007]

So they haven't even considered the deal that brings COD to Nintendo yet? This has a long way to go.

Because ABK does not need MS to bring their games to Nintendo. They have brought 100+ games on Nintendo in every generation, including 10+ ABK games on Switch.

COD isn't on Nintendo because they Nintendo hardware lacks power -- not because ABK doesn't have the capability to port their game.

They can do it on their own -- so that promise by MS is meaningless.

 

[NickFire]

You played MW2 on last gen? If you have you will know other console owners are getting nearly 4 times the framerate before we even get to the PC players.

Hell NO. 120 FPS and never going back.

Two more things: 1) It won't be supporting last gen for much longer. 2) You were always right about VRR.

 

[SneakersSO]

Cma hasn't even taken into account MS offer is ten years for cod on playstation.

Are you hoping that MS stops fighting for the deal and just give up?

Standard agreement in all M&A contracts is a good faith clause - essentially, both MS and ATVI are contractually obligated to explore all avenues, aka be super positive on the outcome of the deal and stan for it everywhere they can, least they can open themselves up to being in breach of contract. This is why you saw Sateya and Kotick go on business media this week and try to shit talk the CMA. Its why you saw Sateya and MS claim they expected this deal to go through with 0 concessions as well.

 

[Riky]

Hell NO. 120 FPS and never going back.

Two more things: 1) It won't be supporting last gen for much longer. 2) You were always right about VRR.

Ive still got my Xbox One, it's pretty painful online for MW2. Trust me.

I'm always right

 

[reinking]

What’s up with this fucking fanbase man?

...they are part of the reason I could never go full team green.

 

[Aguero9320]

The deal still has several months to go, for sure, but the 10-year deal on its face is probably not going to be enough, cause their concerns aren't just about CoD being made available on other platforms, but also being included in gaming subscriptions and Cloud services. MS would have to draw up a contract that could allow anyone to include CoD into their gaming subscription service at a rate whose calculation has to be deemed fair by the CMA, never offer CoD exclusively into xCloud, and ensures that CoD is available on all other market participants platforms in perpetuity. And on top of all that, the CMA has to then also agree to be the enforcing agency on this

I was with you here all the way until you inexplicably added ‘in perpetuity’ - there’s been no indication that would be a requirement? I can’t see that being the case.

Apart from that though, I think you are right - they seem less concerned about consoles, and more about not stifling the less developed cloud gaming market, which they seem to have assessed as the future of gaming (which ironically will piss off some of the same people cheering them on lol).

The toughest part will be assessing what is fair market value for Microsoft’s work product, post merger, on a cloud subscription service. I have no idea how they will reach a conclusion on that. Everything else seems pretty easy to overcome - in fact, it seems to have already been committed to.

 

[ToadMan]

The meltdown in Era is really fun to read lol.

Hate heterosexuals, love Microsoft.

Or maybe

Hate Heterosexuals? Love Microsoft.

Anyway that seems to be the Ree tagline these days…

http://[URL][URL][URL]https://www.g...-the-microsoft-and-activision-blizzard-merger

[/URL][/URL][/URL]

CMA findings stated "Our phase 1 investigation found Microsoft already has pre-existing strengths that it could use for cloud gaming..."

http://[URL][URL][URL]https://www.t...-antitrust-complaint-activision-blizzard-king

[/URL][/URL][/URL]

The FTC claimed the deal could “enable Microsoft to suppress competitors to its Xbox gaming consoles and its rapidly growing subscription content and cloud-gaming business.”

You’ll note this announcement came to press after I commented. Mind reading is a trick I have decided to use for good only.

It again does not appear like you have been keeping up with the details of this acquisition. The funny thing is that Xbox cloud is not a stand long product but a feature of a alternative payment method and access point to games. It is not an independent market. Even MS doesn't know if cloud gaming can be profitable as a standalone service and Google found out first hand that it is not.

Being able to access $70 games for a monthly fee over just a traditional retail model is not harmful to consumers. How is giving consumers MORE options on how to pay hurting anyone? The lawsuit in with the FTC is totally political. See Meta for how those lawsuits work out.

The options involve consumers having to change their existing consumption preferences.

Sony is the loudest entity claiming that this merger will hurt their ability to compete in video games. They absolutely need to show how this is possible especially when they continue to post record profits and growth. Sony interjected themselves into the process as soon as the acquisition was announced. But yes its only 'in my mind' that Sony has put themselves front and center in this process.

You'll notice MS has not made any requests from Nintendo to provide information about their business. That's because Nintendo isn't trying to stop the acquisition they in fact they reached an agreement with MS and stand to benefit from it as well as many other parties. Even Sony was offered the same deal as Nintendo but of course they did not respond and quite possibly could be lying about the details of thr deal to regulators.

The are implying this acquisition could cause consoles to be more expensive when Sony raised prices already in the UK and it had nothing to do with this acquisition. It is pretty silly.

Sony isn’t the subject of investigation - more whataboutism.

 

[demigod]

Those Jim Ryan meetings were clutch. This is what happens when Phil tried to call him out on not accepting the 3 year deal. You don’t fuck with Jimbo on his home turf.

 

[reksveks]

https://www.cnbc.com/quotes/ATVI

Down 2.8%-3% at the moment. Is it higher than when the story broke two/four days ago?

Feels a bit like mass delusion

Unrelated but the Google event was such a stinker its down 7%.

 

[Heisenberg007]

I was with you here all the way until you inexplicably added ‘in perpetuity’ - there’s been no indication that would be a requirement? I can’t see that being the case.

Apart from that though, I think you are right - they seem less concerned about consoles, and more about not stifling the less developed cloud gaming market, which they seem to have assessed as the future of gaming (which ironically will piss off some of the same people cheering them on lol).

The toughest part will be assessing what is fair market value for Microsoft’s work product, post merger, on a cloud subscription service. I have no idea how they will reach a conclusion on that. Everything else seems pretty easy to overcome - in fact, it seems to have already been committed to.

The 'perpetuity' clause might actually be valid, assuming the CMA didn't find the 10-year offer sufficient.

Besides, I think it's a loooooooooong shot this is getting approved now anyway. So far:

• The CMA has blocked behavioral times for 42 acquisitions, and
• Cleared only 1 acquisition with behavioral remedies.

That's a 2.38% chance.

 

[Aguero9320]

Also what would be interesting here is that Sony have said they think day one into subscription is a bad business model. It would be interesting to hear CMA’s take on that philosophical disagreement.

Sony can’t claim it’s important to have COD day one on their sub service when they say it’s bad business for their first party. So parity doesn’t even seem to be necessary?

 

[bitbydeath]

I hope this process is a lesson to Microsoft and the other gaming companies to fuck off with these large acquisitions. If this does go through then it has to be the last.

Sony quietly has 10B they’re looking to offload into planned acquisitions for PlayStation this year.

 

[DForce]

Read it again.

You said they haven't considered the deal and when the CMA said it was part of their investigation. The deal is 10 years and they know about it because Microsoft told them.

What they would consider is the supply or licensing agreement as part of their remedy process. This means Sony would likely have to agree with a deal with MS as they move forward. This is probably why Microsoft is trying to get Sony on a phone to make a deal, but Sony doesn't have to do shit if they think the deal is getting blocked.

 

[Pelta88]

Phil was so eager to make statements on Bethesda exclusivity. From Starfield through to Elder scrolls 6 he's made it emphatically clear they wont appear on PS. Statements which bought him the equivalent of a few minutes in the hype cycle. But also statements which in hindsight, ultimately played a large part of sinking his chances to buy COD.

I've always wondered why Phil Spencer refuses to sit his ass down somewhere and focus on delivering great game experiences. Why he chooses to give interviews and hop on podcasts instead of better managing his studios and ip. So the irony that this deal will fail partly because of his Phil's PR, which put statements that Sony and other companies could use to side step his pr smoke, and point directly at his actual intentions, is damn near poetry in motion.

 

[Aguero9320]

The 'perpetuity' clause might actually be valid, assuming the CMA didn't find the 10-year offer sufficient.

Besides, I think it's a loooooooooong shot this is getting approved now anyway. So far:

• The CMA has blocked behavioral times for 42 acquisitions, and
• Cleared only 1 acquisition with behavioral remedies.

That's a 2.38% chance.

It looks like they haven’t taken any positions on the length of any commitment yet, as they don’t consider them to be in place fully.

I don’t think your last point is statistically valid, but that’s a different conversation I don’t have the will to have

 

[SneakersSO]

I was with you here all the way until you inexplicably added ‘in perpetuity’ - there’s been no indication that would be a requirement? I can’t see that being the case.

Apart from that though, I think you are right - they seem less concerned about consoles, and more about not stifling the less developed cloud gaming market, which they seem to have assessed as the future of gaming (which ironically will piss off some of the same people cheering them on lol).

The toughest part will be assessing what is fair market value for Microsoft’s work product, post merger, on a cloud subscription service. I have no idea how they will reach a conclusion on that. Everything else seems pretty easy to overcome - in fact, it seems to have already been committed to.

CMA are literally arguing in their findings here that, should CoD become Xbox exclusive, over 25% of the users they polled said they would switch from PS->Xbox, and deemed that to be unacceptable. I cannot see a situation where they acknowledge that from their own market research study, cite this as the sort of impact they would want to avoid, then also agree that a 10-year deal is adequate. There would be nothing stopping MS from making CoD exclusive, or creating some sort of work around to skirt the CMA on this, which is seemingly one of the scenarios the CMA is seeking to avoid here.

As for everything else, I really don't see how the currently known about 10-year deal overcomes these concerns. Sure, MS did offer Sony the ability to include CoD into PS+, but never disclosed how much that would cost, and again, the CMA has to determine whether or not that is a fair market value. CMA has 0 insight into what MS would consider their calculation for a fair market value (yet), nor if Sony, the main opponent of the deal, finds it to be enough. CMA specifically stated that there is no behavior remedy that can change what is essentially the cloud streaming rights to CoD, either, which is still a massive part of all of this.

To be fair, this isn't a situation where Sony gets to decide if a deal being offered them is 'good enough'; MS and the CMA are going to work together to create a set of contracts that MS feels they can live with when it comes to CoD and how they do business, but I cannot imagine MS wants to give up this much control of CoD for $69b. And not to mention but this also bolsters the FTC's position in the short term by quite a bit.

 

[Banjo64]

Treating twitter as the battleground for this regulatory process hasn't worked thus far so what do they do? Double down and do it with greater frequency and aggression.

What could go wrong?

Pretty surprised that MS has chosen to conduct themselves through these channels - I think the regulators would be much more malleable if MS were having frank, honest and confidential discussions.

 

[FeastYoEyes]

Sony quietly has 10B they’re looking to offload into planned acquisitions for PlayStation this year.

Any big plans Playstation has for that money is probably on hold until all the dust on this settles.

 

[Thirty7ven]

Sony quietly has 10B they’re looking to offload into planned acquisitions for PlayStation this year.

Doubt it unless MS goes through with AB acquisition. Even with COD being divested it means Sony has to go out there and purchase IP and manpower.

 

[Riky]

You said they haven't considered the deal and when the CMA said it was part of their investigation. The deal is 10 years and they know about it because Microsoft told them.

What they would consider is the supply or licensing agreement as part of their remedy process. This means Sony would likely have to agree with a deal with MS as they move forward. This is probably why Microsoft is trying to get Sony on a phone to make a deal, but Sony doesn't have to do shit if they think the deal is getting blocked.

They say the deal offered will be part of the remedy assessment, it's very clear.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Pretty surprised that MS has chosen to conduct themselves through these channels - I think the regulators would be much more malleable if MS were having frank, honest and confidential discussions.

It's been their entire motif the past several gens in the gaming sphere. It's how they built up so many turfers, shills and fanatics.

 

[SneakersSO]

You said they haven't considered the deal and when the CMA said it was part of their investigation. The deal is 10 years and they know about it because Microsoft told them.

What they would consider is the supply or licensing agreement as part of their remedy process. This means Sony would likely have to agree with a deal with MS as they move forward. This is probably why Microsoft is trying to get Sony on a phone to make a deal, but Sony doesn't have to do shit if they think the deal is getting blocked.

Reading it again, it does seem like the CMA wants Sony's approval on this potential behavioral remedy? If this is the same set of standards set in the other deals they have opposed and blocked the behavioral remedies of, that explains why the success rate of behavioral remedies through the CMA is so low.

 

[Aguero9320]

Pretty surprised that MS has chosen to conduct themselves through these channels - I think the regulators would be much more malleable if MS were having frank, honest and confidential discussions.

I think there was a story a while back that intimated they were waiting to see what the objections were before entering into dialogue. Time will tell if that was smart or not. You have to assume they’ve gamed it out internally…

 

[Aguero9320]

Reading it again, it does seem like the CMA wants Sony's approval on this potential behavioral remedy? If this is the same set of standards set in the other deals they have opposed and blocked the behavioral remedies of, that explains why the success rate of behavioral remedies through the CMA is so low.

That would be hugely unethical, I can’t see that being the case at all.

 

[Forsythia]

So any gaffers dead yet?

 

[Banjo64]

I think there was a story a while back that intimated they were waiting to see what the objections were before entering into dialogue. Time will tell if that was smart or not. You have to assume they’ve gamed it out internally…

Yeah I just mean them commenting publicly so much rather than treating this like a sensitive matter. From Spencer, Egg and all of the muppets on Twitter like their chief comms officer, they should have had everyone on lock down not to comment whilst the investigations were ongoing (just my opinion).

 

[ChiefDada]

No way this is real. No fucking way.

 

[DForce]

They say the deal offered will be part of the remedy assessment, it's very clear.

It talks about a licensing agreement. That would be a signed contract between Microsoft and Sony.

 

[mansoor1980]

 

[SneakersSO]

That would be hugely unethical, I can’t see that being the case at all.

Right, I fully agree; this is probably why almost no merger's have gone through on objected cases via behavioral remedies. It seems like they are totally open to hearing some, but the preferred route is going to be the structural remedies, and those are basically a non-starter.

 

[Dick Jones]

No way this is real. No fucking way.

 

[Topher]

Yeah I just mean them commenting publicly so much rather than treating this like a sensitive matter. From Spencer, Egg and all of the muppets on Twitter like their chief comms officer, they should have had everyone on lock down not to comment whilst the investigations were ongoing (just my opinion).

Microsoft has been the one trying to win the PR battle first and foremost in almost everything they do. That's how we even know who Aaron Greenberg is.

No way this is real. No fucking way.

Why wouldn't that be real? Sams is a massive Microsoft fan.

 

[tmlDan]

I really wish we could bring back a thing called professionalism, but I guess we're in the age of childish complaints online that are considered normal for adults

 

[DeepEnigma]

Apple is the market leader if we are talking gaming revenue. It's how Satya was able to manipulate and call MS 4th or 5th place early on. Stick to a solid script.

 

[phil_t98]

It literally says they considered what MS offered Nintendo, Sony, and Steam during their investigation.

Yeah but it also says they may consider it in their remedies also. So looks like this could go either way still

 

[Banjo64]

Well he said that at 1pm uk time so yeah, he’s not wrong.

 

[phil_t98]

I really wish we could bring back a thing called professionalism, but I guess we're in the age of childish complaints online that are considered normal for adults

Same as when Sony not taking activision calls. All need to be professional about it either way it goes

 

[Aguero9320]

Yeah I just mean them commenting publicly so much rather than treating this like a sensitive matter. From Spencer, Egg and all of the muppets on Twitter like their chief comms officer, they should have had everyone on lock down not to comment whilst the investigations were ongoing (just my opinion).

I don’t think I’ve seen what you’re referring to, so I’ll just assume you’re right, and that would be odd.

My biggest takeaway from today’s provisional report is how contradictory it is - it seems to start off with a strong message, but undercuts itself throughout.

“It’s definitely option A and and we won’t even consider Option B under any circumstance. Unless we do. Which we might.”

Wishy washy and very political (unsurprisingly I guess).

 

[SneakersSO]

Yeah but it also says they may consider it in their remedies also. So looks like this could go either way still

Based on the concerns cited, the amount of times the CMA goes forward on Behavioral Remedies (unbelievably low), and that one of the main opponents feels the current set of deals is inadequate, it seems like it'll be almost impossible for this to go forward via behavioral remedies.

 

[reinking]

If that is her attitude going into educating the CMA on the gaming industry all I can say is good luck to her. It seems the CMA is not biting on their victim bait. It is clear the 10 year offer for CoD was not enough for the CMA concerns.

 

[Banjo64]

What’s up with this fucking fanbase man?

Makes me want to torpedo my association with Xbox but the PlayStation 5 is too much of a massive erection of a machine to fit on my little desk and be my main.

 

[Thirty7ven]

Yeah but it also says they may consider it in their remedies also. So looks like this could go either way still

It’s their job to listen to remedies proposals. How can those proposals match what the CMA has proposed though?

 

[tmlDan]

Same as when Sony not taking activision calls. All need to be professional about it either way it goes

Not taking calls is not a lack of professionalism, but if they answered and said "screw you, go cry to phil" then i would consider that unprofessional

 

[Topher]

"Nowhere does CMA even mention Nintendo"

You don't say.

 

[GHG]

Yeah I just mean them commenting publicly so much rather than treating this like a sensitive matter. From Spencer, Egg and all of the muppets on Twitter like their chief comms officer, they should have had everyone on lock down not to comment whilst the investigations were ongoing (just my opinion).

They fail to realise that everything they say while this process is ongoing can and will be used against them. All while their lawyers are more than willing to quote the opinions of their twitter shills in official documentation and responses to regulators.

I can only chalk it up to arrogance.