Thirty7ven
Banned
Maybe MS should focus on creating a better product that entices the audience instead of just buying the audience.
Microsoft / Activision Deal Approval Watch |OT| (MS/ABK close)
- Status
Maybe MS should focus on creating a better product that entices the audience instead of just buying the audience.
Banjo64
cumsessed
People loved Hi-Fi rush which is nothing like a Sony game. People just want good games regularly. Lots of Sony bros bought and liked the game.
GHG
Gold Member
It's because they refuse to admit those misgivings exist in the first place. Hence the perpetual negative feedback loop they are stuck in as an organisation.
bentanchorbolt
Banned
CoD leaving PlayStation was probably never seriously in the cards. It generates too much money, likely would be treated the same as Minecraft. The real value would be leaving CoD on all platforms present and future, but including it as part of Game Pass day and date. There are plenty of IPs under ABK that could be made exclusive while leaving the likes of CoD and Overwatch largely alone.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Pelta88
Member
Idas = XBOX copium
He's been giving them false hope and framing every development as a positive for XBOX for over a year. Here on gaf we kept it honest. We weighed up the arguments, read the documents and came to our own conclusions. What we've known to be factual and have discussed at length... Resetera didn't know about or think was possible. Today on era is like a rude awakening. But they're already back to taking doses of copium/idas posts and genuinely believe that Microsoft will sell COD in order to get the rest of activision.
Completely and collectively unaware that COD was the goal of the acquisition.
Last edited:
And if they played the game by Sony's rules. Sony would of locked up a deal on HI-Rush and xbox gamers would be waiting until 2024 to play it see ghosts wire tokyo and deathloop. Yes that help xbox gamers how?
bentanchorbolt
Banned
If MS wants to earn back market share at this point its going to be about more than just releasing quality exclusives. MS and Sony were neck and neck with the 360/PS3 era but they didn't just lose ground with Xbox One, they lost ground in the era when people began to overwhelmingly start a digital library. How many people invested heavily in PS4 with $1000 libraries are inclined to move to Xbox at this point, and vice versa? They need to spend money to invest in their future.
Banjo64
cumsessed
That's some crack pot logic. Sony gamers can't wait until 2024 to play Hi-Fi Rush, they had to play by Microsoft's rules; Xbox ecosystem or Steam. How does that help Sony gamers. I'm not going to respond to further drivel.
Topher
Identifies as young
What? Hi Fi Rush is a first party Xbox game dude.
demigod
Member
Stop with this bs that MS can't moneyhat games and only Sony can. High on Life says hi.
SenjutsuSage
Banned
Microsoft said from the beginning they weren't taking COD off game pass. Try again. Bethesda games are on PS+ now, and all existing bethesda games have not been removed from Playstation. Try again. Why would the same not be the case for Activision Blizzard? Microsoft has never claimed they wanted to take COD from playstation. Now, the one uncertainty in the whole thing was about future diablo games or other games, or new IP, but COD was never in doubt.
And there was always a suspicion that many of activision's games may have to remain multi-platform, which (contrary to what you think) is fantastic news still for Microsoft who will have the ultimate game pass benefits over any other platform as the owner and all the damn money they will make from playstation fan support.
I'll repeat again money. Are you ignoring the money aspect of this? You think Microsoft is more motivated by console wars or money? If you guess console wars. You're wrong. It's money. Activision Blizzard makes more money for Microsoft mostly multi-platform with Microsoft having access to that entire catalog via Game Pass and cloud gaming.
Have you seen Activision Blizzard's recent q4 report and entire year results??? Activision Blizzard King, all 3 segments are a money making money. 40-50% profit margins!!! Microsoft wants all of that. Stop thinking about the deal like a console warrior because Microsoft sure isn't. It's clueless to think Microsoft gets no value from this deal if they can't make 100% of activision blizzard's games exclusive. Xbox operations will be turbo charged, they get all the talent, the game engines, the tools and other development resources. They get a massive host of resources many still aren't fully considering. That all belongs to them going forward.
This deal is primarily about the kind of money and engagement it will bring to Microsoft's Gaming business, and how that will allow them to get even more aggressive with game pass due to the additional revenue and profit coming in. Nothing the CMA has done today cuts that off. The CMA didn't have to open the floor to remedies, most especially behavioral ones. They could have simply killed the deal full stop. That is not at all what transpired in this provisional decision.
This is one of the stupidest things I ever read. Then why would the cma approve of any acquisition. The purpose of an acquisition or merger is too gain an advantage.
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
How about using their 23 studios (4 more than PlayStation), making great games, recapturing their lost market share (which was equal to PlayStation's by the end of the 7th gen), and leveling the playing field?
Does this sound like a reasonable alternative?
GHG
Gold Member
If Sony managed to get deathloop and Ghostwire as timed exclusive (and marketing) deals then that's evidence that Microsoft would have had a fair shot at getting Hi Fi Rush as part of a gamepass + timed exclusive deal. Bethesda proved they were both open to and willing to doing business deals of that nature. Hence their games have appeared on all sorts of subscription services over the years.
To support my point above there were a number of Bethesda games that hit gamepass long before the acquisition.
They were clearly not a difficult publisher to sit down and do business with so I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion.
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
... as long as the merger/acquisition is not anti-competitive. This one is.
SneakersSO
Member
This is nowhere near a toss-up scenario; this isn't a 50% thing here. Based on CMA's past, the chance of this going through now lies in that < 3% chance that is correlated to how many deals they've objected to in the past which they allowed to go through on behavioral remedies.
CMA is leaving the door open, and they have to since this whole process is still slated to go on until April, but just because they haven't closed the door on this (which they can't, since they haven't even heard from MS whether even those structural remedies are deemed adequate (spoiler: they won't be)) doesn't mean they have any issues killing it outright.
Last edited:
Coulomb_Barrier
Member
REEEEE is now on the side of Bobby Kotick. Let that sink in.
And Jez Corden. Completely shameless.
harry mason 1989
Banned
That idas guy is weird
Why any lawyer would waste his time in a videogames fourm like reeeeeeee
demigod
Member
Says this biggest shill and console warrior, lol. It's hilarious that you write so much yet regurgitate the same bs. CoD off Gamepass? Pretty sure you meant off Playstation. If that wasn't the case, why did Phil came out and say 3 years only then? It was ALWAYS been their goal to take it off from day 1 when they were in talks for the acquisition. Bethesda games that were in development HAS been removed from Playstation. If it's been about money, then why is Starfield, Elder Scrolls not going to be on Playstation? Why isn't Hi-Fi Rush? This deal is as good as dead.
aries_71
Junior Member
To tell you the truth, I received plenty of LOLs here at Neogaf for suggesting that this deal was dead on the water without COD. It's not like Neogaf doesn't have plenty of lunatics. It's unbelievable how people think this deal was anything but having COD as the main gaas in gamepass.
bentanchorbolt
Banned
This. As you mentioned, timed deals with Sony, their games appearing on both PS+ and Game Pass, plus VR versions of their games appearing on PS VR, etc. Bethesda/Zenimax clearly was willing to play ball, and its also very likely that Starfield was about the get gobbled up to a marketing deal with Sony had it not been for MS stepping in and acquiring them.
How? Ms is in third place among the three console platforms. Do you think Sony would survive without cod? How much marketshare do you think Sony would lose do to this acquisition? Curious if you had a number in mind?
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Cause he's a MS PR lawyer.That idas guy is weird
Why any lawyer would waste his time in a videogames fourm like reeeeeeee
demigod
Member
He should've shown the 5th card, CMA.
Thirty7ven
Banned
Pelta88
Member
Go look at the people giving you the lols. Each of them will have an idas post in their history.
But they are church mouse quiet today. I'm calling no names because we all know who they are...
Lol someone should tell her that she's not in a twitter court and CMA has already decided about what's concerning or not about the deal and they're past that stage.
At this point the only hope she has is that Microsoft thinks the deal is still worth giving up control on COD which is...unlikely??
There's a reason only Activision is talking today...they know it's now in Microsoft's hands to decide what to do.
Coulomb_Barrier
Member
Seriously, can anyone check this Idas' post history? The spineless weirdos worship him over there. I bet he suddenly started being active when this acquisition was announced. I wouldn't be surprised if he's a MS employee given his expertise and 'commitment' to that thread.
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
Read the document and Chris Dring's tweets. It's all in there.
- In the UK, Xbox has a 40% console market share, while PlayStation has a 60% console market share.
- According to the survey by the CMA, 24% of PlayStation owners will switch to Xbox if Call of Duty were made an Xbox exclusive.
- So the new console market share will become 64% for Xbox and 36% for PlayStation.
That's as anti-competitive as it can get. That's why the CMA made this decision, which makes total sense.
Demon2blades
Member
There's a reason deals are expensive for ms and it's not because of sony imo its more to do with the fact ms seems incapable of running and growing their gaming division in a proper manner .
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Now that's a take, lol.
FIREKNIGHT2029
Member
bentanchorbolt
Banned
I'm still somewhat inclined to think this deal goes through, but with the major concession and in inconclad writing that CoD is to remain on PS4 & PS5, and all existing Sony platforms moving forward. I'm sure there are others but this is very likely the biggest hurdle in the deal.
Last edited:
ToadMan
Member
Not quite. This is the UK - there won't be an open court trial over this because it's effectively the government saying "no" which isn't contestable in court.
The trial process was in the USA - but if the UK decision is enough to block the deal as it would appear to be barring a massive climb down by MS, then that US trial won't go ahead.
Not that the US trial would have exposed Sony's numbers beyond what's in their earnings reports anyway.
And if MS do bend over - well again the US trial doesn't go ahead because they'll have satisfied the regulators that the deal can proceed.
Last edited:
Thirty7ven
Banned
Doesn't help that in many cases these deals have worked against the success of the games. The game ends up not selling too well on Xbox and the PlayStation audience moves on from it.
Rise of The Tomb Raider was a fiasco because of this.
And now you have Xbox in an all in on gamepass situation with dwindling software numbers.
Daneel Elijah
Member
The math is wrong. But yes this merger is anti competitive.
harry mason 1989
Banned
I agree with youCause he's a MS PR lawyer.
He's so suspicious actually
jm89
Member
It'd have to be more then that though, CMA have shown concerns with cloud and subs services. I can't imagine them allowing MS to dictate the pricing completly on putting on competitor sub services, as they could easily put a high price tag that makes it not worth it for competitors.
Last edited:
Baki
Member
100%
The only reason why they had to say they'd keep COD on PS was due to regulators. The original deal they offered Sony was another 3 years. Again, all to placate regulators. They are not spending $69B, the biggest MS acquisition in history, to keep the status quo. They want to dominate the market. Taking away COD from PS would've been the ideal move. Ofcourse they can't get away with that now.
Wait I thought that in the UK the decision can't be subject to a trial...so what are they talking about? What losing legal argument?
Does Pachter even know what he's talking about or is he doing damage control for their previous confidence in the deal?
Last edited:
Nahh I don't agree. It makes Ms more competitive for sure, but it doesn't veer towards Microsoft being monopolistic. The cma isn't there to protect Sony's marketshare.
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
In perpetuity, it might work.
The tricky part would be Cloud gaming -- specifically, how Microsoft promises to make ABK games available on cloud services by future potential entrants. That's quite difficult to put in writing.
Also, they aren't sold on this idea. So first, Microsoft will have to convince the CMA that this is actually a viable remedy/solution.
That's why I think the chances of this passing through is quite low. Statistically, the chance is only 2.38% if Microsoft chooses the behavioral access remedies route.
bentanchorbolt
Banned
Sure, it's likely not perfectly cut and dry but CoD is very likely the major tipping point here.
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
You're free to disagree, but that doesn't really matter as the data is there, and the CMA has made the right decision based on that data.
It also isn't there to help Xbox increase its market share.
bentanchorbolt
Banned
I wonder how they would remedy this. If the solution is to then allow CoD on PS+ for game streaming purposes and others, then it kind of devalues the deal overall for Microsoft.In perpetuity, it might work.
The tricky part would be Cloud gaming -- specifically, how Microsoft promises to make ABK games available on cloud services by future potential entrants. That's quite difficult to put in writing.
Also, they aren't sold on this idea. So first, Microsoft will have to convince the CMA that this is actually a viable remedy/solution.
That's why I think the chances of this passing through is quite low. Statistically, the chance is only 2.38% if Microsoft chooses the behavioral access remedies route.
kyliethicc
Member
GHG
Gold Member
- Status