Support NeoGAF

[Banjo64]

Marketing deals have "little impact":

Also, who thought it was appropriate to underline "benefit"? Fuck me...



Yep. Dated 31st October of last year.

Yo dawg, focus on the word benefit. Big brain move from the legal team, hope MS are paying them in Haribo and not money.

‘This deal will not benefit Sony’

Microsoft next submission. Probably.

You know this thing is effectively over, and is going to be approved, right? Get your hopes up about an alternate outcome if you want to. I'll take my L if I'm wrong in the end, but I'm confident I won't be.

Be ready for my response when it's all said and done. Today is the day we found out this transaction will get approved.

How is it that your responses have gone from unexpectedly measured in the immediate aftermath of this news to gradually more and more deranged as the day has progressed?

 

[Warablo]

Sony is going to be unstoppable, now if their online games fail they still have CoD microtransactions/subs to fall back on. Let alone their single player story games. Arrogant Sony is going to be in the seat for a long while.

Hope this makes MS take those 70B and really create some good games. This amount funds decades of great experiences and IP's, get your head out of your ass and work you lazy fucks.

Doubt Xbox gets any of that money from Microsoft ever again.

 

[Bo_Hazem]

 

[Mr Moose]

Sony is going to be unstoppable, now if their online games fail they still have CoD microtransactions/subs to fall back on. Let alone their single player story games. Arrogant Sony is going to be in the seat for a long while.

You know Call of Duty is available on Xbox, right?

 

[GHG]

Just replace the CMA with Microsoft's legal team in this picture, because that's literally what's happened here. The number of own goals are astounding. If Harry Maguire was a lawyer...

 

[Banjo64]

You know Call of Duty is available on Xbox, right?

Plus Microsoft have Halo Infinite’s MTX

 

[MasterCornholio]

Microsoft on Nintendo:

And wait for it...:

The CMA while combing through the document:

Yeah the CMA in their office.

 

[Baki]

The 10yr deal was back in November and back in November I said the CMA are unlikely to accept it based on the fact that they are likely to push structural remedies instead:


If the CMA accept any behavioural remedies it would need to be ironclad/comprehensive and require as little regulation from the CMA as possible.

It's very different spending $70B and investing $70B. By buying ABK, they are in theory investing their money into an asset that is worth close to the $70B they've put up and that acquisition will hopefully lead to a $70B increase in their share price. Spending $70B on content is different, it's consider a cost, not an investment and it takes a much longer time for that value to be reflected in their share value or balance sheet as an asset.

 

[silent head]

B2P= Buy to play

 

[ToadMan]

The CMA was very thorough here, and while they suggest a range of divestiture options, they clearly stress the importance of protecting and not destroying any potential relevant consumer benefits, they highlight the desire to not leave whatever divested piece of Activision without the necessary means or resources to even compete effectively, which runs counter to their goal. They highlight that they could be open to access remedies.

The CMA also highlights that Microsoft and Activision Blizzard hasn't yet offered a single remedy to them officially. Microsoft, following the process, have been waiting for this part in the process to do because this is the only phase where a detailed assessment of those plans can be measured. They could have done it in talks leading up to provisional, but Microsoft first wanted to see the provisional findings. And Microsoft faces no punishment or prejudice for doing it that way.

Microsoft are merely following the process, and some are busy thinking they're in trouble. This is the process!

While they do have the scarier sounding divestiture parts, CMA makes clear that they are open to less severe options.

CMA is also nervous about harming the consumer benefits because of divestiture and potentially creating a scenario where it's difficult to decide who gets what and leaves the divested piece unable to adequately compete or get resources. CMA could have flat out blocked it. They didn't. They are making clear they are open to dealing with behavioral remedies.

The CMA has suggested divestment.

For something other than divestment they’ll need a remedy that’s as wide reaching and open.

A 10 year licensing deal is nowhere near that scope.

 

[Baki]

Phil's years of PR crumbling by the minute. We all knew this to be true but now we have confirmation. I personally enjoy game-pass but it's always been clear that it's going to require an increase in pricing to make up for lost unit sales. At the very least, if MS remains competitive but not dominant, they will keep game-pass price competitive.

 

[Banjo64]

Microsoft;

 

[DeepEnigma]

Just replace the CMA with Microsoft's legal team in this picture, because that's literally what's happened here. The number of own goals are astounding. If Harry Maguire was a lawyer...

Should never have had a Lulu or an Idas on the payroll.

Then again, they had people like Albert Penello and the like.

 

[MasterCornholio]

OK this is starting to get scary. I mean I kind of knew something like that could happen but Microsoft admitting it is the scary part.

 

[Clintizzle]

Plus Microsoft have Halo Infinite’s MTX

Way too soon....

 

[Heisenberg007]

Any honest gaming journalist would sit Phil Spencer down and ask him about his current views on whether or not Game Pass affects sales. And by how much game sales have declined since the introduction of Game Pass.

Unfortunately, the industry don't have many journalists who would actually ask real questions and put people on the spot.

 

[Warablo]

You know Call of Duty is available on Xbox, right?

Ya, and Sony has all the cards

I game on PC btw

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

They put behavioral remedies on the same pedestal as divestiture or block. They also seem very conscious about solving the SLC concerns (which are now down to two from a much larger list before. Microsoft's arguments have clearly hit home. They had far more concerns than this in phase 1.

Cloud gaming in UK and consoles are as easy to fix as it gets. We shall see how our bet ends up, but I feel pretty good, win or lose, that this deal is 100% closing.

This is significant progress for Microsoft.

I wouldn't call it "significant" because those behavioral remedies are going to have to go WELL beyond the 10-year deals or "offering" to let Sony put COD into PS+. Knowing full well Sony would not do that because of the revenue that would stand to be lost...revenue MS has no problem losing if they did the same with COD in Game Pass because gaming revenue means almost nothing for them and nor do gaming profits. Basically meaning they can force Sony into a situation of accepting a form of predatory pricing from MS if they were to make a move for COD into Game Pass after all, and that can fall into violating antitrust.

Although I do agree it leaves room for Microsoft to negotiate...it just depends on how far they are willing to go in terms of behavioral remedy concessions. If they require COD and other ABK IPs to stay multiplat in perpetuity, will MS agree to it? If they require the inability to dump ABK new releases into Game Pass for (x) period of months/years, will MS agree to it? If they require that both they and Sony are allowed to pursue their own independent marketing deals with COD and potentially other ABK games independently, will MS agree to it?
Just because behavioral remedies are on the table doesn't mean things have gotten significantly easier. I'd argue in a way it's gotten even tougher on that front because we know the current offers (10 year contracts for COD, COD into PS+, etc.) aren't good enough, otherwise the CMA would've came to more favorable conclusions in their investigation to begin with. But I do agree that this does still mean the deal is alive, it's not "dead" like some people are saying, at least in absolute terms.

In terms of what Microsoft are actually realistically willing to compromise on to get it to go through, though, it could effectively be a dead deal. We'll have to see how humble they really are on this.

 

[Mr Moose]

Ya, and Sony has all the cards

Sony's deal with CoD ends in a year or two. MicroSoft could simply outbid them, like they did with 360/early Xbox One days of CoD.
MicroSoft are making plenty off CoD right now.

These days things are different though, there's no 30 day timed exclusive maps.

 

[Three]

It's very different spending $70B and investing $70B. By buying ABK, they are in theory investing their money into an asset that is worth close to the $70B they've put up and that acquisition will hopefully lead to a $70B increase in their share price. Spending $70B on content is different, it's consider a cost, not an investment and it takes a much longer time for that value to be reflected in their share value or balance sheet as an asset.

I suspect you meant to quote a different post of mine about expenditure and profitability?

 

[poppabk]

This is the problem when you assume something without doing any prior research to back it up.

It tends to be wrong.

Yeah but how many of them actually use it regularly and how many of them really give a shit. I'm no doubt among that number as I was for OnLive and Stadia, but streaming has always been a neat thing to try out once or twice and never go back to, even Steam in home streaming.

 

[Heisenberg007]

B2P= Buy to play

Now it makes sense why Microsoft was guilt-tripping Sony into putting their games on PS Plus day one.

Sony Wants To Grow PlayStation By Making Xbox Smaller, Phil Spencer Says

"There has really only been one major opposer to the deal, and it's Sony."

www.gamespot.com

"Sony is trying to protect their dominance on console. The way they grow is by making Xbox smaller," Spencer said. "They have a very different view of the industry than we do. They don't ship their games day and date on PC, they don't put their games into subscription when they launch their games."

 

[GHG]

Things you shouldn't say when attempting to convince regulators you have no ill-intentions:

If it's not the case (or not under consideration) then it doesn't need to be talked about or defended.

 

[DForce]

Sony is going to be unstoppable, now if their online games fail they still have CoD microtransactions/subs to fall back on. Let alone their single player story games. Arrogant Sony is going to be in the seat for a long while.


Doubt Xbox gets any of that money from Microsoft ever again.

Microsoft nearly tied Xbox in console sales during the 360 era. They fumbled the launch of both the Xbox One and now the Series X.

They have more studios than Sony.

Microsoft shouldn't use this deal as an excuse not to compete, they should look at themselves.

 

[SneakersSO]

Any honest gaming journalist would sit Phil Spencer down and ask him about his current views on whether or not Game Pass affects sales. And by how much game sales have declined since the introduction of Game Pass.

Unfortunately, the industry don't have many journalists who would actually ask real questions and put people on the spot.

Phil Spencer has spent *literal years* going to any gaming "journalist" who was willing to listen and telling them that game sales were INCREASING on Xbox thanks to GP, that games made more money after they were included in GP, and that GP was not cannibalizing SW sales on Xbox.

Now MS is admitting that all of that was a lie. And yet, you still get folks who will defend him.

Like I said in an earlier post in this thread - Sony is probably never going to be scared of MS as a competitor while its being led by Spencer and his cronies. I know for a fact, having heard this from folks within MS and Xbox, that Spencer actually believes every thing he has said, and cherry picks analysis internally that backs up his assertions.

 

[Banjo64]

Things you shouldn't say when attempting to convince regulators you have no ill-intentions:

If it's not the case (or not under consideration) then it doesn't need to be talked about or defended.

Really appreciate you going through the doc and posting snippets - I’m not feeling well tonight but will try and read in full tomorrow

 

[ToadMan]

B2P= Buy to play

Gotta be faked. MS said that GP increased sales!

 

[Warablo]

Now it makes sense why Microsoft was guilt-tripping Sony into putting their games on PS Plus day one.

Sony Wants To Grow PlayStation By Making Xbox Smaller, Phil Spencer Says

"There has really only been one major opposer to the deal, and it's Sony."

www.gamespot.com

You can only grow so much, then you gotta start making your competition smaller if you want to keep growing.

 

[Baki]

I suspect you meant to quote a different post of mine about expenditure and profitability?

Quoted the wrong post and maybe person. I was responding to the idea that MS would take the 70B and spend it on exclusives and content if ABK falls through. I wanted to explain that spending $70B is much less attractive than investing $70B through the form of an acquisition.

 

[GHG]

Yeah but how many of them actually use it regularly and how many of them really give a shit. I'm no doubt among that number as I was for OnLive and Stadia, but streaming has always been a neat thing to try out once or twice and never go back to, even Steam in home streaming.

The same can be said for any streaming service's userbase numbers.

You're clearly not coming at this from a position of sincerity. All we can go off at this point for both xcloud and geforce now are the reported user numbers and the information I provided makes your original statement incorrect. Anything beyond that is conjecture.

Steam in home streaming is not a competing service either. They do not even monetise it.

 

[Thirty7ven]

Things you shouldn't say when attempting to convince regulators you have no ill-intentions:

If it's not the case (or not under consideration) then it doesn't need to be talked about or defended.

Yeah the problem here is MS convincing regulators they don’t have an history of, a recent history of, the financial means to, and the incentive to. They can’t.

So now they are arguing that if they were to do it would be ok. I don’t see how.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

Things you shouldn't say when attempting to convince regulators you have no ill-intentions:

If it's not the case (or not under consideration) then it doesn't need to be talked about or defended.

Yep, always thought it odd MS were using hypothetical arguments basically equating to "Sony would be fine without COD" to try winning favor in the acquisition. Why state those hypotheticals unless there's a potential motive to actually, well, remove said content?

It doesn't even matter if they're ultimately right about Sony being fine sans COD; fact is using the hypothetical contradicts intentions they had stated earlier and messaging they presented at the time the acquisition was announced formally. MS played themselves there.

Any honest gaming journalist would sit Phil Spencer down and ask him about his current views on whether or not Game Pass affects sales. And by how much game sales have declined since the introduction of Game Pass.

Unfortunately, the industry don't have many journalists who would actually ask real questions and put people on the spot.

Who is that one lady recently who did an interview with Phil Spencer? Not iJustine and her sister; the actual interviewer?

I remember her kind of grilling Phil with some tough questions he doesn't normally get asked by the others. Felt like they pressed him a good bit. There's another interviewer/journalists, this one a guy, who kind of did similar and I think it was about Game Pass numbers.

They are like the 1% of 1% of decent journalists left in the industry, who actually ask some pressing questions. At least sometimes.

 

[GHG]

Yeah the problem here is MS convincing regulators they don’t have an history of, a recent history of, the financial means to, and the incentive to. They can’t.

So now they are arguing that if they were to do it would be ok. I don’t see how.

That whole statement is "we won't do it, but even if we did it would be ok".

In the context of everything the CMA had said to them up until that point, that is lunacy. If you can't think of anything better than that to say then sidestep it entirely, pick your battles.

 

[DeepEnigma]

You can only grow so much, then you gotta start making your competition smaller if you want to keep growing.

Buying up not one, but two of the largest 3rd party publishers in the world, one being the very largest... is the very definition of making your competition smaller.

They're projecting.

 

[recykle]

All this push back is doing is pissing off ABK and MS. If this merger fails the legal way, be prepared for a significantly uglier and much more anti-consumer approach from MS and ABK towards Sony. I wouldn't be surprised if when the exclusive marketing deal expires with Sony in 2024 MS just straight up buys CoD exclusivity for consoles for a couple of years, which would truly screw Sony over.

 

[GHG]

I now present to you, how to lie with statistics 101:

 

[DeepEnigma]

All this push back is doing is pissing off ABK and MS. If this merger fails the legal way, be prepared for a significantly uglier and much more anti-consumer approach from MS and ABK towards Sony. I wouldn't be surprised if when the exclusive marketing deal expires with Sony in 2024 MS just straight up buys CoD exclusivity for consoles for a couple of years, which would truly screw Sony over.

MS said marketing deals have little impact though, so....

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

I wouldn't be surprised if when the exclusive marketing deal expires with Sony in 2024 MS just straight up buys CoD exclusivity for consoles for a couple of years, which would truly screw Sony over.

Lol yeah, can definitely see this happening alongside all the budget cuts

 

[JTCx]

B2P= Buy to play

Phil dispencer should get an award for killing game sales.

 

[Baki]

Yep, always thought it odd MS were using hypothetical arguments basically equating to "Sony would be fine without COD" to try winning favor in the acquisition. Why state those hypotheticals unless there's a potential motive to actually, well, remove said content?

It doesn't even matter if they're ultimately right about Sony being fine sans COD; fact is using the hypothetical contradicts intentions they had stated earlier and messaging they presented at the time the acquisition was announced formally. MS played themselves there.



Who is that one lady recently who did an interview with Phil Spencer? Not iJustine and her sister; the actual interviewer?

I remember her kind of grilling Phil with some tough questions he doesn't normally get asked by the others. Felt like they pressed him a good bit. There's another interviewer/journalists, this one a guy, who kind of did similar and I think it was about Game Pass numbers.

They are like the 1% of 1% of decent journalists left in the industry, who actually ask some pressing questions. At least sometimes.

They want to cover all bases in their argument with regulators. Primarily because regulators might not be convinced that they won't remove COD, so they need to make a case that removing COD won't impact the competitive environment.

 

[X-Wing]

All this push back is doing is pissing off ABK and MS. If this merger fails the legal way, be prepared for a significantly uglier and much more anti-consumer approach from MS and ABK towards Sony. I wouldn't be surprised if when the exclusive marketing deal expires with Sony in 2024 MS just straight up buys CoD exclusivity for consoles for a couple of years, which would truly screw Sony over.

They can try, but considering how fast PlayStation 5 is selling right now that will be irrelevant by then.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

Quoted the wrong post and maybe person. I was responding to the idea that MS would take the 70B and spend it on exclusives and content if ABK falls through. I wanted to explain that spending $70B is much less attractive than investing $70B through the form of an acquisition.

Personally I think if the deal happens to fall through, MS will use the vast majority of that $70 billion and invest it into AI, Azure, Windows, Office and the EV market. They're not going to put that type of money on Xbox after (potentially) losing an acquisition that would've made the whole company look like a fool.

 

[mansoor1980]

review scores , twitter chat and metacritic ...............yet no mention of COD sales each year/revenue

 

[Dick Jones]

If MS make an announcement to kill the deal, may I suggest this man to play at that event

He is available on Friday if needed at short notice

 

[NickFire]

All this push back is doing is pissing off ABK and MS. If this merger fails the legal way, be prepared for a significantly uglier and much more anti-consumer approach from MS and ABK towards Sony. I wouldn't be surprised if when the exclusive marketing deal expires with Sony in 2024 MS just straight up buys CoD exclusivity for consoles for a couple of years, which would truly screw Sony over.

There's a factor you are not considering. If the deal is legally blocked, Activision cannot be sold to MS. So making COD exclusive to MS would jeopardize billions in Activision stock value. Activision would never intentionally sink their own stock value.

 

[Banjo64]

I now present to you, how to lie with statistics 101:

Huh, they left out the important ranking; how much money does Call of Duty make each year in comparison to everything else?

 

[Baki]

Personally I think if the deal happens to fall through, MS will use the vast majority of that $70 billion and invest it into AI, Azure, Windows, Office and the EV market. They're not going to put that type of money on Xbox after (potentially) losing an acquisition that would've made the whole company look like a fool.

I think they will give up on acquisitions for other 2 big publishers (EA, T2) depending on how this deal is rejected. I'm not sure on MS path forward without a big acquisition. Which is why all the publishers are for this acquisition. They don't want to block any future acquirers from considering them.

 

[GHG]

Huh, they left out the important ranking; how much money does Call of Duty make each year in comparison to everything else?

"It's not as popular, good or important as you think, promise."

 

[X-Wing]

Alright, seriously now. I can't imagine the EU coming with a much different conclusion than the CMA. So the FTC, CMA and EU are against the deal. The chance of this thing going through is minimal, or am I missing something?

 

[Bitmap Frogs]