Support NeoGAF

[adamsapple]

Why Microsoft's Activision Blizzard deal shouldn't go through, and why it will | This Week in Business

This Week in Business is our weekly recap column, a collection of stats and quotes from recent stories presented with a…

www.gamesindustry.biz

Why Microsoft's Activision Blizzard deal shouldn't go through, and why it will | This Week in Business

Microsoft's past use of market leadership leverage is concerning, but Sony might have the means to compete in the cloud regardless

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

http://[URL]https://www.gamesindust...through-and-why-it-will-this-week-in-business

[/URL]

Source: Pachter

Yeah...that guy

 

[SenjutsuSage]

This is why it's always useful to read these things myself lol. Turns out the FTC judge didn't actually quash the specific document requests by Microsoft that Sony wanted quashed at all. What people saw was a proposed order (written by Sony) that Sony hopes the judge will grant.

And the other order granting Sony's order in part and denying it in part was also a proposed order (written by Microsoft) hoping that the judge will share their view on the matter.

So as of now both sides have simply made their complaints to the judge about the other side and have drafted proposed orders they wish for the judge to grant, and we are awaiting the judge's decision. For all we know, the decision was already made, and we just haven't seen it yet. The judge has not yet ruled to block the request of any of the documents Microsoft has requested from Sony, at least not that we can prove.

 

[Tomeru]

This is why it's always useful to read these things myself lol. Turns out the FTC judge didn't actually quash the specific document requests by Microsoft that Sony wanted quashed at all. What people saw was a proposed order (written by Sony) that Sony hopes the judge will grant.

And the other order granting Sony's order in part and denying it in part was also a proposed order (written by Microsoft) hoping that the judge will share their view on the matter.

So as of now both sides have simply made their complaints to the judge about the other side and have drafted proposed orders they wish for the judge to grant, and we are awaiting the judge's decision. For all we know, the decision was already made, and we just haven't seen it yet. The judge has not yet ruled to block the request of any of the documents Microsoft has requested from Sony, at least not that we can prove.

 

[Daneel Elijah]

Why Microsoft's Activision Blizzard deal shouldn't go through, and why it will | This Week in Business

This Week in Business is our weekly recap column, a collection of stats and quotes from recent stories presented with a…

www.gamesindustry.biz

That article was weird to read. Pretty much all against Microsoft, will multiple reasons why. And yet the deal will pass, because Pratcher says so.

 

[The Pleasure]

Bruh..... Anyone feel like they're getting Trolljutsu my ass! But the troll is really Phil Spender saying "Spenders gonna Spend" while praying to Tubro the fat Panamanian god of money sees him through?

 

[SenjutsuSage]

That article was weird to read. Pretty much all against Microsoft, will multiple reasons why. And yet the deal will pass, because Pratcher says so.

They say it will pass because everybody knows Sony has the lineup necessary to compete with an activision blizzard equipped game pass. Even on the cloud. Hell, Sony's titles are more appropriate for cloud streaming than Call of Duty multiplayer is.

 

[splattered]

My feeling is....if you're a Microsoft fan. Why do you really care if it doesn't work out?

You're still getting Activision Blizzard on your system....just not potentially exclusively and not on GamePass

The only people that have any right to really have a vested interest are Playstation only gamers.

"The only people that have the right" ... Really? What about increasing funding for passion projects, revitalizing dormant IPs, freeing up some of the support studios to be able to do what they actually want with a budget, improved working conditions for everyone at these studios etc etc? Sony has been leaning hard into trying to block 3rd party exclusives from Xbox (as does Ms) which this deal would nip in the bud. In my opinion everyone "has the right" to have a vested interest in this deal. I play on all the systems so im not as bothered by which games the systems end up on, but the *possibility* of the other items I listed above kinda makes me more hope this goes through just to see how it all turns out. Activision has been slowly heading down an increasingly stale path as time goes on, maybe a shakeup like this will help?

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

They say it will pass because everybody knows Sony has the lineup necessary to compete with an activision blizzard equipped game pass.

Not according to the CMA, this deal will be bad for consumers

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

about increasing funding for passion projects, revitalizing dormant IPs, freeing up some of the support studios to be able to do what they actually want with a budget, improved working conditions for everyone at these studios etc etc?

So hopium?

There's little guarantee any of those factors is better under MS leadership

 

[Ezekiel_]

http://[URL]https://www.gamesindust...through-and-why-it-will-this-week-in-business

[/URL]

 

[bentanchorbolt]

So hopium?

There's little guarantee any of those factors is better under MS leadership

There are several devs at this point that have spoken out for Game Pass and how it offers them the chance to work on projects that in the past were not greenlit under normal publishing deals. Are they lying?

I read a lot of things straight from the horses' mouth and then regular folks with no ties to the industry saying the opposite.

Example: Pentiment would not have existed without Xbox Game Pass, says Obsidian

 

[The Pleasure]

Regular person on the street after playing Halo Infinite

 

[splattered]

So hopium?

There's little guarantee any of those factors is better under MS leadership

Sure except the best things we've seen out of Microsoft in recent years are the things mentioned above? So you think MS after being under a microscope for so long after the announcement of this proposed acquisition is going to all of a sudden show their true colors and consolidate all of the studios into a single COD factory? Sorry I just don't see that happening

 

[Daneel Elijah]

They say it will pass because everybody knows Sony has the lineup necessary to compete with an activision blizzard equipped game pass. Even on the cloud. Hell, Sony's titles are more appropriate for cloud streaming than Call of Duty multiplayer is.

the thing is they spend more time talking against microsoft than talking about why the deal should pass.
If i see a title been why I dont like x and why x will pass anyway i expect a 50/50 for both parts right? If you read the article the author is clear that microsoft totally would abuse of their position if they could. And outside of pratcher, who has interest in the deal passing according to some people in the thread, only 1 pharagraph is about why it would pass. That's why I found it weird.

 

[Iced Arcade]

Regular person on the street after playing Halo Infinite

Tourettes or something?

 

[Mibu no ookami]

There's absolutely nothing in that quote that supports your claim that it's Gamepass that turned Nadella's mind around on Xbox.

Try clicking on the full interview...

Spencer: In that 2014 moment, when we came together as our new leadership team, we really charted out, what does it mean for a trillion dollar market cap company like Microsoft to be in the games business? We're by far the biggest company that's kind of your traditional platform gaming company from a market cap standpoint. What we really hit on, with Satya's support, was that our identity should mean a few things. One was we should make the resources of Microsoft available to us to really go succeed in this category, and one of the pivots we made is we should really build our future strategy around gamers. Not our device, not our business model, not the one business model that works for us. If we really say, "Let's make as many decisions as we can from the perspective of what we think our players want," that's our guide.

There are certain times when we don't get that right. I'm not saying we're perfect. But Game Pass for us was just, "I want to be able to play more games" and "Why don't I play more games today?" One answer is, "Do I have access to the game?" We had to get more games on the platforms for people to play. Another barrier to me playing more games is, "I have to buy every game that I want to try. Can we use a subscription model that's working in music and working in video to increase the diversity of games that I try?" And consequently from that, hopefully, is the diversity of things that are built.

We see in the games business that when you get a hit—battle royale, PVP, whatever it might be— as an industry, naturally, we'll see so much of the creative go chase the last thing that was successful because in the end, these games have to make money put food on the table for the people who work in the industry. We wanted to create in Game Pass something where a diversity of creations can find real success without each one having to be a pure retail success. We thought that model could work.

 

[SneakersSO]

"The only people that have the right" ... Really? What about increasing funding for passion projects, revitalizing dormant IPs, freeing up some of the support studios to be able to do what they actually want with a budget, improved working conditions for everyone at these studios etc etc? Sony has been leaning hard into trying to block 3rd party exclusives from Xbox (as does Ms) which this deal would nip in the bud. In my opinion everyone "has the right" to have a vested interest in this deal. I play on all the systems so im not as bothered by which games the systems end up on, but the *possibility* of the other items I listed above kinda makes me more hope this goes through just to see how it all turns out. Activision has been slowly heading down an increasingly stale path as time goes on, maybe a shakeup like this will help?

I have worked for Microsoft studios, some before MS acquired them and some after they were acquired and I can tell you right now - if you have any expectation that the working conditions will materially improve in any way once they have been acquired, then you are 10000% deluding yourself. Heck there was a recent article that came out about the working conditions at that team that does State of Decay even. MS' working conditions, in my experience, can be as problematic in terms of crunch or sexual harassment as any other development studio/culture that i've seen, including at Activision. What MS is significantly better at than most folks in tech is getting NDAs signed and hush money paid out - any org the size of Microsoft will have these issues.

For starters, there is no world in which this deal goes through, and those studios are given any leeway into pursuing development that is anything but CoD. This deal is as expensive as it is specifically because of CoD and very little else. All of this talk of revisiting dormant IPs is simply PR intended to get more public support for the deal to go through. Its hot air.

The reality is that MS is paying $69b for CoD, in essence. You take CoD out of the equation, and ABK is probably worth somewhere around $14-$20b - not chump change by any metric, but certainly not the $69b they are willing to pay here. MS wouldn't just flush nearly $49b worth of value down the drain. Make no mistake about this - the reason all these studios are working on CoD is because the amount of development effort required to produce most AAA games has increased substantially in recent years. If ATVI could afford to have these studios produce something else and not have it impact CoD's dev pipeline, they would be more than happy to.

Any development resources going towards anything else has to be weighed against the opportunity cost of not making *more CoD*, and CoD is still making more money now than ever before. Say Spencer's example of Guitar Hero right - the last few times folks tried to revive music rhythm games, the attempt fell on its face somewhat (looking at the Rock Band stuff from a couple of years back). So, take a studio like what remains of Raven right. Could Raven make a new Guitar Hero? Sure. But doing so would impact the product line of CoD, and in the end, what is guaranteed to bring in more money right now: a guitar hero revival or more CoD content? (The answer is more CoD content btw).

Not just that, but many of the support studios that are now working on CoD, they have all been restructured and hired talent specifically to build FPS games and FPS game content. You can't just take a team like Sledgehammer and have them build a non-FPS game. What engine would they use? Is CoD's new engine even designed to support game types that aren't FPS? How long would it take to restructure the engine to do so? Okay, fine, just switch to UE5 - okay, how long will it take to take an entire studio worth of devs who have never used UE and now get them efficient enough in it to generate a new game? How many years could that take? Meanwhile, here's CoD, slowly degrading, withering due to a lack of content.

Now, is there a chance that MS could take some of these IPs and allow other teams outside of ABK, say Obsidian or DoubleFine, work on one of them? Of course! But whose to say those teams don't just wanna work on titles they themselves are already invested in?

 

[DenchDeckard]

If this deal goes through after all this I admit I have no ducking clue about anything. This is well beyond my knowledge of bullshittery

 

[DeepEnigma]

Source: Pachter

Yeah...that guy

Did he disclose he reps the hedge funds vested in it?

 

[Helghan]

I must've missed this, could you give me the source on that?

Then they should have no problem divesting Activision Publishing along with Blizzard Entertainment & just acquiring King. I mean, it was all about mobile & King in the end right?

Not only but mostly

 

[Mibu no ookami]

I wonder if people read the notice of possible remedies from the CMA. Not sure how anyone can listen to pachter and take him seriously here.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/63e376bdd3bf7f173ad1cee4/Notice_of_possible_remedies_2.0.pdf

As set out in published remedies guidance, in merger inquiries the CMA prefers structural remedies, such as divestiture or prohibition, over behavioural remedies, because: (a) structural remedies are more likely to deal with an SLC and its resulting adverse effects directly and comprehensively at source by restoring rivalry; (b) behavioural remedies are less likely to have an effective impact on the SLC and its resulting adverse effects, and are more likely to create significant costly distortions in market outcomes; and (c) structural remedies rarely require monitoring and enforcement once implemented.

At this stage, the CMA has identified the following possible structural remedies: (a) Requiring a partial divestiture of Activision Blizzard, Inc. This may be: (i) Divestiture of the business associated with Call of Duty; (ii) Divestiture of the Activision segment of Activision Blizzard, Inc. (the Activision segment), which would include the business associated with Call of Duty; (iii) Divestiture of the Activision segment and the Blizzard segment (the Blizzard segment) of Activision Blizzard, Inc., which would include the business associated with Call of Duty and World of Warcraft, among other titles. (b) Prohibition of the merger.

Behavioural remedies are designed to address an SLC and/or its adverse effects by regulating the ongoing conduct of parties following a merger. The 7 Merger Remedies: CMA87 (December 2018), paragraph 3.46. 4 CMA will generally only use behavioural remedies as the primary source of remedial action where: (a) divestiture and/or prohibition is not feasible, or the relevant costs of any feasible structural remedy far exceed the scale of the adverse effects of the SLC; (b) the SLC is expected to have a short duration; or (c) behavioural measures will preserve substantial relevant customer benefits (RCBs) that would be largely removed by structural remedies.

At this stage, the CMA considers that certain divestitures and/or prohibition are, in principle, feasible remedies in this case. The provisional SLCs are not time-limited, and while RCBs have not yet been assessed in detail, evidence on efficiencies received to date does not suggest that RCBs might be substantial.

The scope of the divestiture package 24. To be effective in remedying the provisional SLCs, any partial divestiture package would need to be appropriately configured to address all the provisional SLCs, to be attractive to potential purchasers and to enable the purchaser to operate effectively as an independent competitor and restore the 10 Merger Remedies: CMA87 (December 2018), paragraphs 7.17-7.23. 6 competitive constraint imposed by Activision Blizzard, Inc that would be lost under the Merger.

As set out in paragraph 14, the CMA is considering the effectiveness of three different partial divestiture packages: (a) the business associated with Call of Duty; (b) the Activision segment; or (c) the Activision segment and the Blizzard segment. 29. As set out in paragraph 25, the CMA generally prefers divestiture of an existing business that has the ability to compete on a stand-alone basis. We are of the initial view that the partial divestiture packages may not have 11 Merger Remedies: CMA87 (December 2018), paragraph 5.7. 12 Purchaser risk refers to the risks that a suitable purchaser is not available or that the merger parties will dispose to a weak or otherwise inappropriate purchaser; composition risk refers to the risks that the scope of the divestiture package may be too constrained or not appropriately configured to attract a suitable purchaser or may not allow a purchaser to operate as an effective competitor in the market; Merger Remedies: CMA87 (December 2018), paragraph 5.3 and 5.12. 7 sufficient assets and resources to operate as an independent entity. In addition, there may be significant risks relating to identification, allocation and transfer or assets arising from the carve-out of the divestiture package. These factors may present an unacceptably high level of composition risk. We invite the Parties to provide evidence on how this risk may be adequately mitigated.

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.

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

I wonder if people read the notice of possible remedies from the CMA. Not sure how anyone can listen to pachter and take him seriously here.

I seriously wonder if Pachter is shilling this news as much as he is so his hedge fund buddies have enough time to slowly unload their positions while the market price is kept higher than usual on his supposed "positive" insider knowledge.

The fact remains: CoD is effectively out of the question for Microsoft. If Microsoft does manage to acquire CoD, it would take a perpetual license whereby Sony could make the call on whether it could come to any Sub or Cloud service, and they could NOT create a "duplicate" IP to circumvent the ruling.

Microsoft DOES NOT want CoD just for the "cashflows". They want it to make their brand more attractive. They can't make their brand more attractive without acquiring some part of CoD that is advantageous to their platform, and this ruling completely disallows that.

It's why Microsoft started with vague discussions of honoring existing agreements, then allowing it to happen for at least 3 years, then finally 10 years. Microsoft is a BIGTECH company that has been in operation for decades. They know CoD is a multi-decade hit that is year-in-and-year-out the #1 title in Gaming. They are OFFERING RESTRICTED DEALS OF UP TO 10 YEARS BECAUSE THEY CAN WAIT, AND WILL HAPPILY WAIT.

In twenty years from now when CoD is still massive and still an influential part of gaming they would then be able to pull the rug out from under Sony. There have been many CoD competitors and none of them are successful, despite some arguing they are of higher quality. Why? Because IP matters. McDonalds doesn't make the best burger but there's no chance they won't be the best selling burger well into the future.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

I seriously wonder if Pachter is shilling this news as much as he is so his hedge fund buddies have enough time to slowly unload their positions while the market price is kept higher than usual on his supposed "positive" insider knowledge.

Definitely what it is. I have no idea how the stock is still up. They'll get out soon though.

Feel bad for the Activision employees with unvested stock... they can't get out.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

Let's say that Tencent produces a console in 2025.

Any behavioral remedies would dictate that the game would have to be available on Tencent's console.

What happens if Google, Tencent, Apple, Amazon, and Netflix all come to market with a console or a cloud streaming service. Microsoft would be compelled to support them all and if they weren't compelled by behavioral structures, the behavioral structures would limit competition and be lacking.

There is no way around this for Microsoft but to give up the deal or at minimum sell the CoD IP, Infinity Ward, Treyarch, and any studios that have acted as support studios for CoD (which is basically every studio within Activision).

There is no way Microsoft agrees to do this. The sale of these properties would not give them what they want ultimately, nor would it make them whole. They'd have to sell to the highest bidder and no one is going to bid more than say 20-30 billion for CoD and Co.

This leaves Microsoft buying the rest of ABK, largely, BK for 40 billion dollars...

 

[Mibu no ookami]

What if the PS6 is signficantly weaker than the X-Next? Will the games still have parity of features? What if there is a quirk that only works on the X-Next? What if the PS6 has a quirk that all developers utilize on the PS6 but the X-Next doesn't have it. Does parity demand that the game not utilize the quirk?

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 Makes Great Use of the PS5's DualSense

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 is currently in its beta phase, and fans have had their first experience with its impressive DualSense features.

gamerant.com

Will Microsoft promise to utilize the feature set of the PS6 and all other manufacturers and service providers?

It's impossible.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

I seriously wonder if Pachter is shilling this news as much as he is so his hedge fund buddies have enough time to slowly unload their positions while the market price is kept higher than usual on his supposed "positive" insider knowledge.

The fact remains: CoD is effectively out of the question for Microsoft. If Microsoft does manage to acquire CoD, it would take a perpetual license whereby Sony could make the call on whether it could come to any Sub or Cloud service, and they could NOT create a "duplicate" IP to circumvent the ruling.

Microsoft DOES NOT want CoD just for the "cashflows". They want it to make their brand more attractive. They can't make their brand more attractive without acquiring some part of CoD that is advantageous to their platform, and this ruling completely disallows that.

It's why Microsoft started with vague discussions of honoring existing agreements, then allowing it to happen for at least 3 years, then finally 10 years. Microsoft is a BIGTECH company that has been in operation for decades. They know CoD is a multi-decade hit that is year-in-and-year-out the #1 title in Gaming. They are OFFERING RESTRICTED DEALS OF UP TO 10 YEARS BECAUSE THEY CAN WAIT, AND WILL HAPPILY WAIT.

In twenty years from now when CoD is still massive and still an influential part of gaming they would then be able to pull the rug out from under Sony. There have been many CoD competitors and none of them are successful, despite some arguing they are of higher quality. Why? Because IP matters. McDonalds doesn't make the best burger but there's no chance they won't be the best selling burger well into the future.

How does one effectively enforce that Microsoft can't create another first person shooter that is for all purposes Call of Duty?

How much does it cost Sony to put CoD on PS+ from Microsoft? Is this a set price or does it get to increase over time?

As long as it doesn't cost Microsoft anything to put it on GamePass how can they charge to have it on PS+? Can Microsoft charge itself if Activision isn't an independent subsidiary? Can Activision fairly negotiate with Microsoft as a wholly owned independent subsidiary?

There is no promise of time or parity that can be taken seriously in this case. This is wholly unenforceable.

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

How does one effectively enforce that Microsoft can't create another first person shooter that is for all purposes Call of Duty?

How much does it cost Sony to put CoD on PS+ from Microsoft? Is this a set price or does it get to increase over time?

As long as it doesn't cost Microsoft anything to put it on GamePass how can they charge to have it on PS+? Can Microsoft charge itself if Activision isn't an independent subsidiary? Can Activision fairly negotiate with Microsoft as a wholly owned independent subsidiary?

There is no promise of time or parity that can be taken seriously in this case. This is wholly unenforceable.

Yep.

The unenforceability of this sort of thing really means that behavioral remedies are unrealistic, and I don't know how Microsoft could convince them that they are.

But hey....There's always hope

 

[Mibu no ookami]

Yep.

The unenforceability of this sort of thing really means that behavioral remedies are unrealistic, and I don't know how Microsoft could convince them that they are.

The only way to ensure parity of quality matching that of the devices and services is to have an independent ownership of CoD and Co. where utilizing all features and tech available on a console or service yields the highest possible sales potential.

If I own CoD and co, there is no reason for me to selectively charge an unreasonably higher rate for Sony than Microsoft for subscription services, with the exception of market share, but there should be a formula I base that off of.

i.e. if Xbox has 20 million users, I want 200 million dollars for it to be on gamepass and if Sony has 40 million users, I want 400 million dollars for it to be on PS+

An independent owner can decide whether it is financially viable to support Tencent's console or Amazon's streaming service rather than be forced to do so by agreement.

 

[Nothing1234]

Yep.

The unenforceability of this sort of thing really means that behavioral remedies are unrealistic, and I don't know how Microsoft could convince them that they are.

But hey....There's always hope

Why are you sharing that console warrior? Their timeline is embarrassing.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

Not only but mostly

Man just drop this dumb shit already.

 

[Yoboman]

The best bit about this is that he doesn't understand the meaning of precedent. He literally thinks that Microsoft can just go down the list of publishers if they don't get Acti. He's totally unaware that this ruling effectively ends Microsoft's pursuit of purchasing publishers if a relevant party has a genuine objection to such a deal.

Forget COD. The CMA just told Microsoft to go build and manage talent. Something XBOX has been failing at for 26 years.

Not really though. It probably rules out EA and Take2 to their possession of similar sized gaming properties

But that's about it

 

[Mibu no ookami]

Not really though. It probably rules out EA and Take2 to their possession of similar sized gaming properties

But that's about it

I'm not sure it would rule out EA. I think T2 would be easier to rule out than EA.

I think anything smaller would fly without issue. Ubi Soft for example.

T2 means taking away two of the best-selling game franchises of all time from the largest number of consumers.

Ironically I think Sony could get away with buying T2 because it hasn't sold nearly as much on Xbox. I think Sony's PC efforts also show that they'd be willing to keep publishing on PC. Their purchase of Bungie confirms that they're willing to continue keeping content on Xbox. Sony played the Bungie buy really well compared to Microsoft and Bethesda.

That being said, they could get blocked from buying them as well and that would make clear kind of where the line is. I don't think Jim Ryan would test out the line, especially because they're probably out of Sony's price range.

 

[SenjutsuSage]

the thing is they spend more time talking against microsoft than talking about why the deal should pass.
If i see a title been why I dont like x and why x will pass anyway i expect a 50/50 for both parts right? If you read the article the author is clear that microsoft totally would abuse of their position if they could. And outside of pratcher, who has interest in the deal passing according to some people in the thread, only 1 pharagraph is about why it would pass. That's why I found it weird.

Oh yea, it's clearly designed to trigger a block from the CMA. That's the ultimate desire.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

Ive never heard of anybody demonizing paying for a game. Not even to justify a subscription service. That must be a GAF thing.

No it's pretty regular to see on Twitter. A few other places, too, but less so. People definitely do it and you don't have to look that far to see it.

Also being a minority does not equate poor. plenty of white people living below the breadline too, so we both should no better than to digest the ignorance of a few vocal gamers with agendas. This does not change the fact however that there is a cost benefit to GP for people on lower incomes (regardless of race) in the same that that netflix great is for people who cant afford satalite TV. nobody wants to be bored at home no matter how poor. Im british-jamaican but happen to be doing well enough that I have homes in london and florida aswell, here in jamaica where im typing from right now. and yes the internet is great (a legit 200 Mbps, according to download speeds on my xbox...not bad for a 'third world country' eh?) )

I agree with you on that; my issue is there were people trying to push Game Pass who equivalated lower-income gamers as black & Latino people. They racialized it and got called out for it. Like you said, there are a lot of white and even some Asian people who aren't well off, but when some of the weird pushes for Game Pass were popping up online last year (mainly from Twitter...so I guess dumb talking points coming from there should be expected), there were people who tried arguing in favor of the service because of its affordability and then immediately jumped to that benefiting lower-income people and specifically citing black & Latino people.

Obviously I see the benefits for services like Game Pass for people who do happen to be cash-strapped and still want to access new games, but a lot of the people who started making it a debate about economics and such don't even fall into the groups they were trying to speak on behalf of. Many of them could probably very well afford the service and afford to buy a few AAA new releases a year; they just don't want to. But instead of just coming out and admitting that's their choice, they try hiding behind other people, generalize them, and spin up talking points to where the services benefit others.

I'm not even saying that people can't speak about the benefit of the service for people that could utilize it. But don't go assuming all lower-income people are only a specific ethnic group, and don't just bring it up when its convenient to hide the fact you want other people to be okay with the service so that YOU can feel comfortable about using it (or have your choice in using the service approved by other people)! That's all.

and I can tell you..... GP would make a killing out here and on the other islands, if they would take markets like the carribean and latin america more seriously. Funny thing is there is a local arcade/game room/VR space here in kingston (jamaica) with hooked up series S's. you pay 1000 jamaican dollars and you can play whatever for an hour. local kids always in there playing forza and whatnot with their friends. GP has been great for that little business (the owner is from england but fell in love with the island some years ago...as people do, before they up and move here) I wish to see more of those around the island for these kids. affordable gaming for all! Im all for THAT. And this island needs it for these kids, I Couldnt care less about console wars. I can see the benefits of subs in general. I see gaming subs the same way I see gaming subs.

We have (had?) something like that at a local Flipper McCoy's in our area before it shut down. Not for console games though, but arcade games as this was like 5-8 years ago. I have noticed that some streamers in particular have taken a liking to Game Pass, for obvious reasons. It lets them play certain new games Day 1 for an inexpensive subscription, and they can monetize their playthrough and make a lot of money doing so. It significantly lowers the costs of expenses for people like that, so I see why they like it.

Theoretically that should translate to regular non-streaming gamers, but it seems to be at a cap. And at least for now, Game Pass has reached that cap until they get more quality mass-market exclusive content coming regularly. The situation changes in some ways depending on location; the kids you mention for example are probably ecstatic to have a place where they can play a lot of the new games on console for a cheap price and also socialize with their friends in something like a cyber cafe. But...services like GameFly can provide the same benefit. And with GameFly, you get a wider selection of big games as it carries stuff for all the consoles.

You guys do realise the even creative professionals are subscribing their software tools these days, right? and for far more than the cost of any of these entertainment subs too....

Yes but that is a VERY different market. People who use creative productivity software are also making content they then sell, or making content for companies that then sell that content. In other words, people using those programs can justify the costs because a lot of employment positions may require them to use that software, and if they're freelancers, they can sell the work they produce for big profit margins through commissions or whatnot.

Those sort of people also only use a single program or a small number of them, and use them a LOT, so they get all the usage out of them. Most people subbing to Game Pass, PS+ or even NSO are not putting a lot of time into the vast majority of the catalogue if they haven't played them before. What I mean by that is, they have so many games to choose from, they are usually either only playing like 1% of the total content for any decent stretch of time, or jumping around game-to-game so often they don't make any real progress in any single title.

So the argument can be made they aren't getting anywhere near maximized usage of the content in a game subscription service, that a professional subbed to Photoshop or Corel is getting out of those programs.

 

[DryvBy]

They say it will pass because everybody knows Sony has the lineup necessary to compete with an activision blizzard equipped game pass. Even on the cloud. Hell, Sony's titles are more appropriate for cloud streaming than Call of Duty multiplayer is.

This isn't going anywhere lol. Microsoft has a history of buying stuff, making empty promises, and turning great franchises into shells.

In the story of the boy who cried wolf, people finally quit listening to the boy because he's a liar.

 

[Sanepar]

Not according to the CMA, this deal will be bad for consumers

Well they can bribe regulators and CMA can go back on their decision.

 

[Edmund]

, improved working conditions for everyone at these studios etc etc?

Please. You do not care about this. Just be honest and say you want more games on your plastic box free and exclusive.

 

[TheGodfather07]

Seriously this guy is mentally ill at this point.

Pure stupidity isn't a mental illness. The guy is just dumb as fuck.

 

[SoloKingRobert]

I can't wait until this deal goes through....

Edit: https://bing.com/create

 

[drganon]

Yep.

The unenforceability of this sort of thing really means that behavioral remedies are unrealistic, and I don't know how Microsoft could convince them that they are.

But hey....There's always hope

That twitter user might be more mentally unstable than Jez.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

I agree all information should be presented. The deal as of today has not been blocked.

The CMA is open to hearing behavioral remedies but based on precedence and their general stance on behavioral remedies part of having all the information is understanding and communicating that those behavioral remedies are unlikely to be adopted by the CMA just as they weren't with Facebook/Giphy. Ultimately the CMA ordered divestiture, which Microsoft could in theory accept, but again that's unlikely to happen either.

They'll force them to divest from CoD and probably Infinity Ward and Treyarch as primarily CoD companies. They'd have to find a buyer and set a price to those assets. Amazon, Google, and Apple will be the primary bidders along with Tencent and maybe Netflix.

Microsoft overpaid for Activision BECAUSE of CoD, that isn't a remedy they'll accept. They don't care about the rest of ABK.

If it comes down to divestiture, I agree with everything BUT the bolded part. If divestiture the leading option, Microsoft are going to fight very hard to make it work as best as possible for them. Selling COD & Activision off to Apple, Google, Amazon, Tencent or Netflix just kind of shifts the potentially problematic power of consolidation away from Microsoft and towards another big tech company or dominant service. And that company, whichever it'd be, didn't have to go through the process Microsoft is to get those divested assets. I think Microsoft would probably have a good case to argue against being forced to sell the divested assets to another company.

Personally I think what they would argue for, and what is probably the best overall option, is to just have the divested COD/Activision assets function as their own company. And in addition to that, Microsoft being allowed to retain some form of partial ownership. Otherwise however, the divested asset would operate completely independently, and I think that should allow for the following (building off some things I mentioned in other posts recently and also building on top of some ideas I've seen others ITT float):

Sell Publishing Rights To Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo: To knock off the marketing rights circus and nullify it as a factor going forward, just sell the console publishing rights to the respective platform holders. Sony gets the rights to publish COD on PlayStation consoles & storefronts, Microsoft gets the right to publish COD on Xbox consoles & storefronts, and Nintendo gets the right to publish COD on Switch consoles & storefronts. Each company is solely responsible for marketing the game on their respective products, and they get to retain 100% of the revenue. But, they have to re-up on publishing licenses every few years and pay for the development of the game for their respective platforms.

This wouldn't just need to be limited to COD, either: if, say, Sony want to get Tony Hawk for PlayStation and Microsoft wants Guitar Hero for Xbox, they can pay for development of versions for their platform in return to getting the publishing rights on those platforms. They CAN'T pay to lock those IP down exclusively to their platform, however, so if say Sony wanted to then fund Guitar Hero & Microsoft wanted to fund Tony Hawk for their platform, they'd be able to do so; just pay to cover the development costs and then you distribute the games on your own platform.

Let COD/Activision Publish COD (& Activision Games) On PC & Mobile: Meanwhile, the divested asset can publish the game (and fund development of the games) on PC storefronts like Steam, EGS and mobile storefronts like iOS. Obviously, the divested asset would need to fund these versions themselves; however in the scenario where Microsoft still retains partial ownership of the company, they would be incentivized to help cover the funding for these versions because they would get a good portion of the revenue directly. However if the divested asset would want to leverage additional means of funding, they can do so.

Set Baseline Costs For Day 1 Inclusion of Games Into Sub Services: These should be separate from the publishing licenses, and I'd imagine for anything like, say, Day 1 COD into a subscription service, it would cost a hell of a lot. Microsoft retaining partial ownership of the divested asset shouldn't give them discount pricing on this type of license, but I DO somewhat think it should be an option. I also think that to prevent certain cheekiness from going on, Day 1 licenses should come with some restrictions:

-Live Service Games: Users accessing the game through the service cannot buy or use MTX or DLC content on that version of the game​

​

-Non Live-Service Games: Users access the game through the service only get a portion of the full retail game, but can purchase the rest of the game​

in another chunk (or chunks) that may or may not sum to more than the standard cost of the game (maybe to offset this, if they remain subbed to​

the service they can unlock other portions of the game made available to them every couple of weeks or month or so at no extra cost, or those parts​

become available at a set price the user can pay for (think of it like pay installments) sooner. If they stay subbed this cost is less than if they un-subbed)​

Meanwhile, a license to bring the game to a service 12 months after would in general cost a lot less and not need to "gate" content on a time-based manner or type-based manner. And like with the other stuff, no company can buy exclusivity on a subscription contract for their game, or marketing exclusivity for a contract pertaining to hosting the game in their service. It's either other platform holders pay for the license of their own choosing, or they don't.

 

[feynoob]

 

[Baki]

Let's say that Tencent produces a console in 2025.

Any behavioral remedies would dictate that the game would have to be available on Tencent's console.

What happens if Google, Tencent, Apple, Amazon, and Netflix all come to market with a console or a cloud streaming service. Microsoft would be compelled to support them all and if they weren't compelled by behavioral structures, the behavioral structures would limit competition and be lacking.

There is no way around this for Microsoft but to give up the deal or at minimum sell the CoD IP, Infinity Ward, Treyarch, and any studios that have acted as support studios for CoD (which is basically every studio within Activision).

There is no way Microsoft agrees to do this. The sale of these properties would not give them what they want ultimately, nor would it make them whole. They'd have to sell to the highest bidder and no one is going to bid more than say 20-30 billion for CoD and Co.

This leaves Microsoft buying the rest of ABK, largely, BK for 40 billion dollars...

MS would have to close the deal first (pay all 69B for Activision) and then either sell COD to an independent 3rd party or spin out COD as an independent public company. The 2nd option is better for MS as they can retain a minority stake in the spin out and wait for the value to appreciate in a few years once the stock market is in a better place. COD on its own is only worth $10-12B or probably less. ABK as a whole would probably be priced at 40-45B if it wasn't for the MS buyout offer

 

[//DEVIL//]

Not according to the CMA, this deal will be bad for consumers

sorry, it's late. is this a sarcasm post or are you serious? I can no longer tell.

because CMA clearly gave MS multiple solutions for the deal to go through, one of them is giving COD a 10-year fair multiplatform parity on other platforms including the cloud. which is what exactly MS said they would do on day one.

this deal will go through 99.999999% with the CMA. LoL

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

because CMA clearly gave MS multiple solutions for the deal to go through, one of them is giving COD a 10-year fair multiplatform parity on other platforms including the cloud. which is what exactly MS said they would do on day one.

They did not give Microsoft that provision as a primary remedy at all, you are misinterpreting their report

 

[wolffy71]

People are putting a lot into the CMA but they still have to have the court agree with them. That's not exactly a good record to bade things on

 

[//DEVIL//]

They did not give Microsoft that provision as a primary remedy at all, you are misinterpreting their report

doesn't matter if its the primary remedy or not. it's one of the solutions ( if I am not mistaken, sorry I do not lose sleep over this so I don't know as much as the other expert lawyers in here lol )

if that remedy works with CMA, it should be a fine deal then.

 

[Iced Arcade]

Some of the CMA recommendations were structural remedies but they are also open to contractual behavioral remedies. That's it.

The last few pages is just comedy.

 

[HoofHearted]