Support NeoGAF

[ByWatterson]

Is this a subtle attempt to make you appear more credible, or less biased? I only because...

This is literally a 180° from before. You bought a Series X specifically because they announced the acquisition. Yet the year since has shown you that the "Sony approach" of...

• "Building Studios". Where are all these home grown studios that Sony has built. Have they built any in the last year, which would cause you to completely reverse your thinking from a year prior?

• "Cultivating Talent". This is largely a catchphrase at this point. But just to be fair. Could you please provide these specific examples of cultivated talent that Sony is currently producing?

• "Investing in quality". Is this doublespeak for Sony buying Bungie or Haven?

And to be fair, there is at least one sign that Microsoft's plan will work. Because isn't that the very reason you bought your Series X to begin with?

So Phil and Microsoft need to be humbled because "they've done SO much right in building an ecosystem."? How does this even make sense? Even if we go looking for context in the next sentence, "Now they have to do the rest" doesn't really clarify why you believe they should be humbled.

Yeah, this is just regurgitated fanboy logic you're citing here. There's a million reasons why this logic fails. Personally, I'd be embarrassed to use it, but seeing as you obviously aren't...

You say "earn it" in a futile attempt to portray a disparity in how Sony and MS compete in the gaming industry. As if by some nondescript morally superior manner, Sony has "earned" it's position, while MS has somehow cheated by using "office 365 money".

It's a flawed argument because basically no company starts out using "earned" money. If you follow this failed logic far enough, you'll quickly conclude that basically nothing has ever been earned. Should Sony abandon VR, because they didn't properly "earn" the funds used to launch PSVR? Surely you wouldn't consider ever buying a Sony TV because that division alone has lost money for years, and almost broke the entire company. In your attempt to play one company against the other, you conveniently forget that you're basically excluding any and every other company not named Nintendo from ever competing in the console market.

Fanboys, diehards, whatever you want to call them exist in just about every industry. I've seen people talk about a brand of car as though it was something it wasn't. I've seen people exaggerate one beer, while completely dismissing another. But I have never seen people jump through so many hoops trying to convince others that company A has gained massive marketshare due to completely to it's morally righteous tactics. While Company B should be despised and "humbled" because of it's underhanded and undeserving tactics.

You okay, my dude?

Yes, I changed my mind. I think Sony's approach is better, and to the extent Microsoft has mirrored it (albeit with the steady building of services rather than studios), I think they've done a great job. They should keep doing that rather than trying to use a big purchase as rocket fuel for a vessel that isn't even built yet.

 

[ToadMan]

For someone who doesn't follow this closely. Is the deal over or is MS still in a good position? What's the next step?

The deal of MS to acquire ABK is over. That day is gone - the regulators are opposed enough that we can say what was held aloft previously as MS buying the video-game market and we could all bow down, is dead.

However, like a half eaten corpse reanimated as a zombie, what may come is a new arrangement where MS still acquires some portion of ABK while having to give up COD plus other stuff or at least have an arrangement where COD plus other stuff remain third party.

We await MS's decision but for now they all seem shell shocked, like a spoilt kid being told "no" for the first time… although MS has a history of being told no when it comes to anticompetitive behavior.

 

[gothmog]

Gaf and Era truly are opposite sides of the same coin.

Era has people doing what someone earlier called "writing revenge fan fiction".

And now this thread has become a "Xbox leaves gaming altogether" fan fiction thread.

Nah. They're the same. Same general group of Xbox fanboys with just a slightly different twist on the we'll show them power fantasy.

Era kicked out most of the Sony fans so it just seems more extreme over there.

 

[Astray]

There are certain things about Xbox that are legitimately great, they have by far the best maintained backcompat library. And whether it's sustainable or not, Gamepass IS an excellent value.

But for some reason they just decided that they would essentially ship a retread of the same device with more power and no launch slate games, despite having an incredibly long buildup time during the late XBone years. You look at things that Sony did this gen (Tempest 3D, Haptic feedback integration, Trigger stuff), and you feel like gaming took a step forward, and you just don't feel the same way with what Xbox has in response.

This is why I am skeptical that even throwing a few billion at 1P studios would produce something that will swing the lead, these 1P devs need new tools and features to take their craft forward and make a dent in the mindshare wars, and Xbox just didn't provide that yet. My 1st thought while I was playing Hifi Rush was: "This game would rock with haptics", and that's really not a good place to be in for the long-term.

 

[Heisenberg007]

For someone who doesn't follow this closely. Is the deal over or is MS still in a good position? What's the next step?

The deal, as it started, is pretty much dead.

There is a 2.38% chance that Microsoft might still close it to its full extent -- but even that would come with the caveat that Call of Duty (and possibly other Activision Blizzard King games) remain available on PlayStation as well as competitor cloud gaming services.

Outside of the 2.38% chance, the only way Microsoft can close this deal is if they do not buy Activision and/or Call of Duty.

There is 0% chance that Microsoft can buy ABK in its entirety, buy Call of Duty, and make Call of Duty exclusive.

 

[Topher]

Think folks need to keep in mind that the Tribunal can override all/any of the remedies the CMA has proposed.

 

[Astray]

Think folks need to keep in mind that the Tribunal can override all/any of the remedies the CMA has proposed.

I personally would not be writing off the deal as things stand right now.

A lot can happen and there are a lot of parts to this process that all impact each other.

 

[Topher]

Boogers are all natural. Pretty much the perfect snack.

The message brought to you by The Booger Eater Society. Join today!

 

[Ozriel]

The deal, as it started, is pretty much dead.

There is a 2.38% chance that Microsoft might still close it to its full extent -- but even that would come with the caveat that Call of Duty (and possibly other Activision Blizzard King games) remain available on PlayStation as well as competitor cloud gaming services.

Outside of the 2.38% chance, the only way Microsoft can close this deal is if they do not buy Activision and/or Call of Duty.

There is 0% chance that Microsoft can buy ABK in its entirety, buy Call of Duty, and make Call of Duty exclusive.

You're (strangely) focused on that, but I don't believe the deal was ever floated with the ideas of making COD exclusive to Xbox.

Think folks need to keep in mind that the Tribunal can override all/any of the remedies the CMA has proposed.

Or the CMA themselves could accept behavioral remedies from MS. Possibly including an expansion of the 'non exclusivity' 10 year pledge to include some elements of cloud gaming.

 

[DenchDeckard]

The deal, as it started, is pretty much dead.

There is a 2.38% chance that Microsoft might still close it to its full extent -- but even that would come with the caveat that Call of Duty (and possibly other Activision Blizzard King games) remain available on PlayStation as well as competitor cloud gaming services.

Outside of the 2.38% chance, the only way Microsoft can close this deal is if they do not buy Activision and/or Call of Duty.

There is 0% chance that Microsoft can buy ABK in its entirety, buy Call of Duty, and make Call of Duty exclusive.

I do believe MS that having COD as exclusive was never the plan. It makes too much money and doesn't make sense to take it off Sony platforms.

Im desperate to see what Microsoft is discussing right now lol must be crazy in Redmond.

 

[Astray]

I do believe MS that having COD as exclusive was never the plan. It makes too much money and doesn't make sense to take it off Sony platforms.

Im desperate to see what Microsoft is discussing right now lol must be crazy in Redmond.

If that was the case then we would not see anywhere near this level of rage from Xbox influencers and Activision.

This deal genuinely feels to me like it's about COD exclusivity or at the very least preferential treatment.

 

[Heisenberg007]

I do believe MS that having COD as exclusive was never the plan. It makes too much money and doesn't make sense to take it off Sony platforms.

Im desperate to see what Microsoft is discussing right now lol must be crazy in Redmond.

I am on the other side of the fence. I now believe it was 100% the plan. Otherwise, they'd not have offered only a 3-year deal to Sony. Then, when things became problematic, they extended the deal to 10 years, but still didn't offer it in perpetuity.

Even the CMA determined that Microsoft (based on the assessment of their internal documents and markets) will make Call of Duty exclusive. (last sentence)

 

[Topher]

Or the CMA themselves could accept behavioral remedies from MS. Possibly including an expansion of the 'non exclusivity' 10 year pledge to include some elements of cloud gaming.

Well as Heisenberg007 pointed out, behavioral remedies would not be a primary resolution as far as the CMA is concerned.

 

[ToadMan]

Have they left the door open for behavioral remedies in every case that wasn't an outright block? I thought the CMA's process essentially made it so that the court's opinion doesn't matter, it goes back to the CMA if Microsoft wins in court. The whole reason why everyone assumes this is over is because Microsoft doesn't have an avenue to win the right to have it passed in court.

I don't know what behavioral remedies would be sufficient either, I think the main difference between where we stand is a few percentage points. You may think this deal has a 0-1% chance of passing with behavioral remedies, where as I'm around 5%. I'm taking the CMA at their word and not their minds are made up on this.

When you're open to all possibilities it does wonders for your mind. I mean, just look at the meltdown some pro-acquistion people are having. If somehow Microsoft manages to convince the CMA to except behavioral remedies and you think it's an impossibility, you'll be left feeling something.

For the CMA their decision is not directly contestable in court. Best MS could do is try to appeal on grounds of procedural irregularities - but that doesn't overturn the decision.

Here we go - from a legal website thing

"…meaning the applicant must show that the CMA acted irrationally, illegally or with procedural impropriety. The CAT will not engage with the merits of the CMA's decision or conduct a wholesale review of the parties' evidence. In practice this means that applicants face a high threshold when seeking to overturn a merger decision, which is reflected in the statistics: the CMA has won 67% of all merger appeals since 2010.

Even if an applicant successfully appeals the CMA's substantive assessment in a merger, the CAT will not make a fresh decision, but will instead remit the case back to the CMA for further review –typically by the same decision makers and case team as previously. This may not be an attractive prospect, particularly if the deal economics or environment have changed since the transaction was first signed (months or years previously)."

 

[Heisenberg007]

You're (strangely) focused on that, but I don't believe the deal was ever floated with the ideas of making COD exclusive to Xbox.

I merely summarized the CMA decision.

And, of course, it was about making COD exclusive -- even if Microsoft pretend that it wasn't.

If making COD exclusive wasn't the focus, and the main reason was King like Phil Spencer said, Microsoft would just accept the CMA's deal, divestiture Activision and Blizzard, and just buy King.

Let's see if they do that.

 

[ChiefDada]

There are certain things about Xbox that are legitimately great, they have by far the best maintained backcompat library. And whether it's sustainable or not, Gamepass IS an excellent value.

But for some reason they just decided that they would essentially ship a retread of the same device with more power and no launch slate games, despite having an incredibly long buildup time during the late XBone years. You look at things that Sony did this gen (Tempest 3D, Haptic feedback integration, Trigger stuff), and you feel like gaming took a step forward, and you just don't feel the same way with what Xbox has in response.

This is why I am skeptical that even throwing a few billion at 1P studios would produce something that will swing the lead, these 1P devs need new tools and features to take their craft forward and make a dent in the mindshare wars, and Xbox just didn't provide that yet. My 1st thought while I was playing Hifi Rush was: "This game would rock with haptics", and that's really not a good place to be in for the long-term.

Couldn't have said it any better. I'm really liking the level-headed perspectives from the most recent class of NeoGAF members.

 

[Heisenberg007]

Well as Heisenberg007 pointed out, behavioral remedies would not be a primary resolution as far as the CMA is concerned.

I went through the documents for so long to gather all that information and compiled them together ... but people still didn't read it and instead continue the behavioral remedies and 10-year-deal arguments

 

[splattered]

I wonder what's going through the minds of all the Sony 1st party studios right now... Sony is acting like they can't exist without cod on their system. Gotta be a real demotivater esp how hard they work all the goty awards etc, like none of it really matters because casual is king

 

[GHG]

I wonder what's going through the minds of all the Sony 1st party studios right now... Sony is acting like they can't exist without cod on their system. Gotta be a real demotivater esp how hard they work all the goty awards etc, like none of it really matters because casual is king

They are all thinking about leaving and joining Xbox Games Studios.

 

[Three]

I wonder what's going through the minds of all the Sony 1st party studios right now... Sony is acting like they can't exist without cod on their system. Gotta be a real demotivater esp how hard they work all the goty awards etc, like none of it really matters because casual is king

I'm pretty sure all first party would prefer a strong Playstation install base. They're not 12.

 

[vaibhavpisal]

I am thinking instead of spinning off Call of Duty, MS will spin off Xbox as a new company itself. That will separate it from their cloud business.

Xbox as a company has everything it needs to succeed. Phil will lead company to great heights. They even got Bethesda as gift from daddy MS. Acti-Blizz will be a merger instead of an acquisition.

Sony will follow suit with PlayStation. Thats only way they can consolidate and bring in huge influx of new players.

 

[SneakersSO]

Yup the behavioural remedies would have to be cast iron - 25-30 years in length, no wriggle room in terms of absolute parity on release date/dlc/content, third parties having a reserve set price for CoD on subscription services e.g £10m for 12 months of the latest CoD on PS Plus day 1, a commitment to release the games on future competing platforms as and when they rise.

It may as well be divestiture at that point.

Like you say, it's just a formality to say 'we will listen' so MS can't claim undue process later down the line.

There is one more factor that I know for a fact Sony will argue to the CMA during these behavioral remedies that they will want accounted for. And its one of the reasons why I think MS won't accept a behavioral or structural remedy that ensures they MUST produce Call of Duty post-acquisition.

The loophole Sony is gonna fight to ensure gets closed is that MS cannot make a new spiritual successor IP to CoD with the CoD resources ABK possesses. Think about it - what would prevent MS from taking up behavioral remedies ensuring that CoD has release and feature parity across all platforms and services, and then just slowly killing off CoD in favor of some new IP they begin producing that is CoD in every way but name, that is also now fully exclusive?

Games is unique in that you can totally do that, and the audience will fully understand exactly what it is you're doing and go with it. Dark Souls vs. Demon's Souls is a perfect example of this. Which is also partially why I think MS pursuing this purchase while also being essentially forced to continue producing CoD is kind of a non-starter for them - I would never want to sign a deal that has some regulator completely forcing how I can operate my new assets.

 

[JLB]

Its you. Wherever you live or how lobbying is illegal there has no bearing on whether this gets passed.

Probably you are about to enter high school or so, let me humbly tell you that when humans growth, they tend to construct more complex rationales. That's why when a given subject is presented, doing a contextual analysis (what some refer to multivariate analysis) is so constructive and helps to enrich a conversation, and to enrich the participants as well.
In this case, a few users where discussing about lobbying in the context to a merge process. User A provides a remark pointing out that lobbying is a bad thing because, as in most cases, represents an interest group taking advantage of a powerful position. In many cases lobbying includes passing bad legislation, trafficking influence, or plain corruption.
Lobbying is a bad thing, remember this.
Why its allowed on US is something to ask to that society.
You should not applaud or think that lobbying benefits a society as a whole or majority. Typically the contrary.
When User B rejects doing a further, deep analysis of lobbying, I pointed out that a moral / ethical analysis of it in this context is pertinent. Not essential to undertand or construct a position about the problem on this thread, but something to enrich the discussion and provide better context.

 

[JLB]

Ok. Then lock MS execs up because they've been doing it for decades.

Jesus, who is saying the opposite? Probably MS is the king of lobbying, no wonder how they got those military multibillion contracts or licenses for a gazillion of state offices.
Is that right? lobbying is ok? Should I be allowed to go and punch people on the face on the street and say: "well, you know, there are lots of bulliers in the world, so why its wrong?".
Cant understand this logic.

 

[reinking]

I'm pretty sure all first party would prefer a strong Playstation install base. They're not 12.

I think that is the point. They are not 12 so their feelings are not hurt over talk of COD.

 

[Heisenberg007]

There is one more factor that I know for a fact Sony will argue to the CMA during these behavioral remedies that they will want accounted for. And its one of the reasons why I think MS won't accept a behavioral or structural remedy that ensures they MUST produce Call of Duty post-acquisition.

The loophole Sony is gonna fight to ensure gets closed is that MS cannot make a new spiritual successor IP to CoD with the CoD resources ABK possesses. Think about it - what would prevent MS from taking up behavioral remedies ensuring that CoD has release and feature parity across all platforms and services, and then just slowly killing off CoD in favor of some new IP they begin producing that is CoD in every way but name, that is also now fully exclusive?

Games is unique in that you can totally do that, and the audience will fully understand exactly what it is you're doing and go with it. Dark Souls vs. Demon's Souls is a perfect example of this. Which is also partially why I think MS pursuing this purchase while also being essentially forced to continue producing CoD is kind of a non-starter for them - I would never want to sign a deal that has some regulator completely forcing how I can operate my new assets.

Summon Of Job: Contemporary Combat

 

[jm89]

I am thinking instead of spinning off Call of Duty, MS will spin off Xbox as a new company itself. That will separate it from their cloud business.

Xbox as a company has everything it needs to succeed. Phil will lead company to great heights. They even got Bethesda as gift from daddy MS. Acti-Blizz will be a merger instead of an acquisition.

Sony will follow suit with PlayStation. Thats only way they can consolidate and bring in huge influx of new players.

 

[SneakersSO]

I do believe MS that having COD as exclusive was never the plan. It makes too much money and doesn't make sense to take it off Sony platforms.

Im desperate to see what Microsoft is discussing right now lol must be crazy in Redmond.

I know for a fact that they ultimately did want to have it appear as exclusive around the time they started shifting to what they feel will be a new console launch. Folks do not realize, but MS has internal analysis telling them point blank that their publishing strategy for RedFall and Starfield are going to massively hurt these brand new IPs overall, compared to what Bethesda's internal analysis had their potential performance and market impact pegged at - MS simply don't care.

 

[GHG]

I am thinking instead of spinning off Call of Duty, MS will spin off Xbox as a new company itself. That will separate it from their cloud business.

Xbox as a company has everything it needs to succeed. Phil will lead company to great heights. They even got Bethesda as gift from daddy MS. Acti-Blizz will be a merger instead of an acquisition.

Sony will follow suit with PlayStation. Thats only way they can consolidate and bring in huge influx of new players.

If Xbox gets spun off then Phil gets hung out to dry.

 

[Ozriel]

If making COD exclusive wasn't the focus, and the main reason was King like Phil Spencer said, Microsoft would just accept the CMA's deal, divestiture Activision and Blizzard, and just buy King.

Activision's also important to MS for the guaranteed COD revenue, the wealth of IP and content for Gamepass.
If exclusivity was the focus, they wouldn't have been rushing to offer guarantees for multiplatform releases well before any remedies were being proposed.

Well as Heisenberg007 pointed out, behavioral remedies would not be a primary resolution as far as the CMA is concerned.

The CMA is pushing for structural remedies as their preferred option, but they're willing to listen to discussions around behavioral remedies, even if they're somewhat skeptical. MS will be making their arguments around keeping COD multiplatform via enduring deals.

CMA's argument (Stolen from another forum):

18. Microsoft has, however, informed us of existing and potential contractual arrangements with third-party platforms relating to access to Call of Duty. Accordingly, while none of the circumstances in which the CMA would select a behavioural remedy as the primary source of remedial action in a merger investigation (as summarised in paragraph 15 above) appear to be present, the CMA will also consider a behavioural access remedy as a possible remedy.

19. Access remedies are a form of behavioural remedy which seek to maintain or restore competition by enabling competitors to have access on appropriate terms to the products and facilities of a merger entity that they require to remain competitive. Access remedies normally require an access commitment which is set out in significant detail so that both customers and monitoring agencies can enforce compliance effectively. In this case, an access remedy would look to ensure third party access to Activision Blizzard, Inc's content that is necessary to remedy the provisional SLCs.

44. As noted above, the circumstances in which the CMA might select a behavioural remedy as the primary source of remedial action are not present in this case. The two markets in which the CMA has provisionally found SLCs are multi-faceted and continue to develop. This is particularly the case in cloud gaming, where the customer offerings and business models of market participants are evolving rapidly. We are of the initial view that any behavioural remedy in this case is likely to present material effectiveness risks. We invite the Parties to provide evidence on how these risks could be appropriately managed to ensure that any behavioural remedy is effective.

Pretty much consistent with what I said earlier. They're pushing for structural remedies, but are inviting MS/Activision to make their case on how effectively identified risks can be managed via proposed behavioral remedies

 

[aries_71]

I wonder what's going through the minds of all the Sony 1st party studios right now... Sony is acting like they can't exist without cod on their system. Gotta be a real demotivater esp how hard they work all the goty awards etc, like none of it really matters because casual is king

If the CMA poll is right, PlayStation players preferred CoD to any first party Sony game. So, yes, CoD is a big deal. To think that Neogaf universally loathed CoD and forecasted it's quick decline more than 10 years ago…

 

[DeepEnigma]

 

[Nothing1234]

I mean surely the CMA have to listen to behavioural remedies as due diligence in case of appeal. It seems to me they have said MANY times in the document it is structural remedy as a preference.

 

[SneakersSO]

Pretty much consistent with what I said earlier. They're pushing for structural remedies, but are inviting MS/Activision to make their case on how effectively identified risks can be managed via proposed behavioral remedies

Right, and for all intents and purposes, they have to. So far, even going against other cases which resulted in similar preliminary findings, the CMA is not acting out of the ordinary. They almost always never block a deal outright at this junction, and always have to be open to potential behavioral remedies. But almost always, the stated structural remedies are the bar that the behavioral remedies are contrasted against.

To put it another way - if the CMA felt that a long-term licensing agreement was enough to resolve the issues they have found, then they simply would've suggested it in their report. What they didn't consider is that MS has made this offer, but they are also aware that a long-term licensing agreement is very much an option. However, the CMA didn't list that they in their structural remedies - they listed divestment.

 

[SneakersSO]

I mean surely the CMA have to listen to behavioural remedies as due diligence in case of appeal. It seems to me they have said MANY times in the document it is structural remedy as a preference.

Yup. The thing is, behavioral remedies can often have loopholes baked into it right from the outset. Not just that, but the CMA has no interest in acting as an enforcement agency in perpetuity.

I just pointed out - MS can totally offer a licensing agreement for CoD, then post-acquisition, retire CoD and begin making a spiritual successor to CoD, advertise it as such, and not have those behavioral remedies apply to this new IP. Thats 1 mere tactic that could be pursued. This is why the CMA will ultimately side with their structural remedies, unless MS presents behavioral remedies that are both iron clad AND has Sony publicly agree to it.

Like, in the structural remedies, the CMA specifically cited that CoD isn't just an IP - its the studios and manpower who are all currently working on it. Its why they said that divesting CoD also means having to divest all the studios that currently work on CoD. The CMA is clearly aware of how this industry is operating on the development side.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Jesus, who is saying the opposite? Probably MS is the king of lobbying, no wonder how they got those military multibillion contracts or licenses for a gazillion of state offices.
Is that right? lobbying is ok? Should I be allowed to go and punch people on the face on the street and say: "well, you know, there are lots of bulliers in the world, so why its wrong?".
Cant understand this logic.

Against lobbying. However, being asked questions by the CMA is not lobbying, it's meetings and testimony.

 

[Elios83]

Activision's also important to MS for the guaranteed COD revenue, the wealth of IP and content for Gamepass.
If exclusivity was the focus, they wouldn't have been rushing to offer guarantees for multiplatform releases well before any remedies were being proposed.



The CMA is pushing for structural remedies as their preferred option, but they're willing to listen to discussions around behavioral remedies, even if they're somewhat skeptical. MS will be making their arguments around keeping COD multiplatform via enduring deals.

CMA's argument (Stolen from another forum):



Pretty much consistent with what I said earlier. They're pushing for structural remedies, but are inviting MS/Activision to make their case on how effectively identified risks can be managed via proposed behavioral remedies

It's pretty much impossible to get the same result of a divestment through what Microsoft has in mind.
Their 10 years license doesn't even address the subscription and cloud markets (and it's clear why...their goal is putting COD on Gamepass while the competition can at best sell the 70$ version of the game).
Microsoft's proposal is not new, it has been at the center of their difensive strategy through all these months of discussions (and always rejected by Sony).
They need to propose something that has the same effect of selling COD and can be 100% legally enforced.
Good luck with that, if it was possible and it had the same effect they would just accept the solution proposed by the CMA.
The only fact they're trying with something else is an alarm bell.

The reality is simple, either Microsoft thinks the rest of Activision is worth getting without COD or this deal is bound to fail.

 

[DryvBy]

I do believe MS that having COD as exclusive was never the plan. It makes too much money and doesn't make sense to take it off Sony platforms.

Im desperate to see what Microsoft is discussing right now lol must be crazy in Redmond.

Well, we now know they're low 3rd place in terms of consoles and lagging far behind with mau, yet they bought Bethesda and they're keeping off the big games from popping in PS. Even during this, they went from "as long as there's a PS" to a 10-year deal within a matter of a month.

 

[Dick Jones]

Well, we now know they're low 3rd place in terms of consoles and lagging far behind with mau, yet they bought Bethesda and they're keeping off the big games from popping in PS. Even during this, they went from "as long as there's a PS" to a 10-year deal within a matter of a month.

You missed a step, it went from Spencer saying "as long as there's a PS" to Jim Ryan saying "it was 3 years after the marketing deal ends". Notice that MS never denied that but threw the 10 years thing out afterwards. If you keep getting caught lying, regulators are not going to believe you.

 

[Banjo64]

Well, we now know they're low 3rd place in terms of consoles and lagging far behind with mau, yet they bought Bethesda and they're keeping off the big games from popping in PS. Even during this, they went from "as long as there's a PS" to a 10-year deal within a matter of a month.

You missed a step. In between 'as long as PlayStation exists' and the 10 year deal there was a middle statement that was 'as long as it makes sense'.

I can't believe some people still think the plan wasn't exclusivity in the long term. It is obvious as more and more info comes out.

 

[DeepEnigma]

You missed a step. In between 'as long as PlayStation exists' and the 10 year deal there was a middle statement that was 'as long as it makes sense'.

I can't believe some people still think the plan wasn't exclusivity in the long term. It is obvious as more and more info comes out.

That's also them putting into the ether their long term goal with all these purchases

 

[drganon]

Probably you are about to enter high school or so, let me humbly tell you that when humans growth, they tend to construct more complex rationales. That's why when a given subject is presented, doing a contextual analysis (what some refer to multivariate analysis) is so constructive and helps to enrich a conversation, and to enrich the participants as well.
In this case, a few users where discussing about lobbying in the context to a merge process. User A provides a remark pointing out that lobbying is a bad thing because, as in most cases, represents an interest group taking advantage of a powerful position. In many cases lobbying includes passing bad legislation, trafficking influence, or plain corruption.
Lobbying is a bad thing, remember this.
Why its allowed on US is something to ask to that society.
You should not applaud or think that lobbying benefits a society as a whole or majority. Typically the contrary.
When User B rejects doing a further, deep analysis of lobbying, I pointed out that a moral / ethical analysis of it in this context is pertinent. Not essential to undertand or construct a position about the problem on this thread, but something to enrich the discussion and provide better context.

Your point is moot. Sony and Microsoft can and have lobbied where it is legal.Hell, to call what they're currently doing as lobbying is a stretch. It doesn't matter whether you agree with it or not. All that pyschobabble you just typed is worthless.

 

[Dick Jones]

How I see the 10 year plan going.

When next gen occurs (ps6/XboxOne) that first year there would be a free to play released similar to Warzone released for ps5/series gen only. This will run with seasons for a few years until the clock winds down on 10 years. A new COD on the next gen console will release almost to the day after the 10 years. COD exclusively only on Xbox consoles. Kill off FTP version.

Modern Warfare Trilogy will be sold on Switch 2 in the 10 years and depending on sales they might stop at one. We tried guys but there is no demand.

 

[Thirty7ven]

I wonder what's going through the minds of all the Sony 1st party studios right now... Sony is acting like they can't exist without cod on their system. Gotta be a real demotivater esp how hard they work all the goty awards etc, like none of it really matters because casual is king

Actually odds are that they are fully opposed to the deal too. There was a naughty dog lead artist or something saying the timed deal was a poor solution because the problem here is IP ownership.

But it's a nice fantasy.

 

[Helghan]

Does the CMA actually matter? As if they are going to say no when everyone would say yes.

 

[DeepEnigma]

 

[Three]

That's also them putting into the ether their long term goal with all these purchases

Brad Smith VC of MS was going around calling Sony the next Blockbusters. It doesn't get any clearer than that.

 

[Heisenberg007]

Activision's also important to MS for the guaranteed COD revenue, the wealth of IP and content for Gamepass.
If exclusivity was the focus, they wouldn't have been rushing to offer guarantees for multiplatform releases well before any remedies were being proposed.

Phil Spencer on ABK acquisition:

Question: You're buying the Candy Crush company. People think about it as Call of Duty or whatever, but you're buying Candy Crush.

Phil Spencer: "Absolutely. The idea that Activision is all about Call of Duty on console is a construct that might get created by our console competitor and maybe some players out there."

So if they were "absolutely" buying the company for Candy Crush, losing COD or ABK should not deter them from their primary target -- King and Candy Crush. Let's see if they accept the deal by CMA and close the acquisition.

The CMA is pushing for structural remedies as their preferred option, but they're willing to listen to discussions around behavioral remedies, even if they're somewhat skeptical. MS will be making their arguments around keeping COD multiplatform via enduring deals.

CMA's argument (Stolen from another forum):

Pretty much consistent with what I said earlier. They're pushing for structural remedies, but are inviting MS/Activision to make their case on how effectively identified risks can be managed via proposed behavioral remedies

Yeah, someone posted this on Ree, but they highlighted the irrelevant points. It's also just list the list remedies by the CMA (without any details or context). The following post should give you more context.

The CMA makes it clear that behavioral remedies do not apply in this case, but Microsoft is free to convince them. Also, those behavioral remedies should match the effectiveness of the structural remedy, which completely eliminates the 10-year deal. The CMA also mentioned the 10-year deal Microsoft offered to Sony and explicitly said that it does not matter.

Last, but not least, Microsoft's current offer does not take into account cloud gaming at all. It'll be a nightmare to propose anything regarding that.

The door is open but extremely small to squeeze through. As you said, it likely won't happen.

This needs to be seen in full context. I am adding some excerpts that would show how slim the chances are that the CMA will accept any promises or deals by Microsoft (behavioral remedies).

 

[ChiefDada]

I wonder what's going through the minds of all the Sony 1st party studios right now...

The usual - making great games.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Brad Smith VC of MS was going around calling Sony the next Blockbusters. It doesn't get any clearer than that.

It's how demons nefarious actors operate, they have to verbally express their folly onto the world.