Support NeoGAF

[Art The Clown]

Same thing I was wondering, heard about it a while back.

There it is!

 

[Panajev2001a]

And if Sony could do it, had the means and could get away with it they would do exactly the same thing.

…. And you would be against Sony doing that as you should. Aside from imagined whataboutism what is your point though?

 

[Ozzy Onya A2Z]

You conveniently ignored the part of Zenimax games no longer being multiplatform, against what MS said it would do.
After that you expect people to just believe they will let Activision games continue to be multiplatform?
If they lied once, what's stopping them from lying again?

No, you conveniently assume ownership of any and all new IPs deserve to be on Sony outright.

If your point was valid Sony don't get to gimp PC parity, deny crossplay, not dev Strert Fighter for Xbox, Minecraft on all platforms for a decade etc.

Again, you're just cherry picking.

 

[Jim Ryan other Clone]

No it's not, that's the spin Sony want on this.

The deal is far larger than Sony. The deal is about MS gaining talent, various IP, creating a competitor in mobile/streaming against Apple/Google all while bolstering studios, Gamepass, MTX, sales etc.

The reasons this is all happening? One, MS have huge profits to tax reduce and ActiBliz is a great strategy and alignment. Two, Xbox and Gamepass are going open platform, similar to Google's Pixel phones while still providing Android to other partners/manufacturers.

Here's a little refresher, why this Sony COD spin is horseshit.

Hogwarts day one surpassed COD, Apex Legends concurrent players on Steam. It will reflect similar in the console, mobile and streaming segments too.


This is the F2P market from 2020, source NewZoo.

Honor of Kings – $2.45 billion
Peacekeeper Elite – $2.32 billion
Roblox – $2.29 billion
Free Fire – $2.13 billion
Pokemon GO – $1.92 billion
League of Legends – $1.75 billion
Candy Crush Saga – $1.66 billion
AFK Arena – $1.45 billion
Gardenscapes: New Acres – $1.43 billion
Dungeon Fighter Online – $1.41 billion

COD the same year - $1.5 billion.

So Sony and the regulators may have a roadblock temporarily but when/if this goes to courts, which waz always likely, Sony/reg spin ain't gonna stand up to facts.

Also as I posted some time ago -

Is the deal big? Yes.

Does it create a monopoly? No.

Does it freeze out competition or price fixing etc? No.

There are too many players and segments currently for that. MS/Xbox won't even be number 1 after the ActiBliz deal, nor a deal of similar size in 2-5 years. Enough big players exist to push these market entrances or buyouts or mergers long term. So, what MS/Xbox buy King in the mobile space for example, Apple, Tencent, Google and streaming from various players all exist. If you include the Switch even at a half measure it's more competition for that segment.

Do the same with streaming e.g. Google, Amazon, MS/Xbox, nVidia etc. There's more than healthy competition there and large cash backed internationals who can spend or invest big in gaming.

Do the same with subs e.g. PS leading, Netflix entering, Ninty offering, Xbox growing. Healthy.

Do the same with consoles e.g. Switch, Sony, Xbox. Sprinkle in the history of Xbox bringing a third platform back to the console wars. Nintendo for thr last 5 out of 6 hardware releases have been traditional consoles, just like Sony and Xbox, or long dead Sega.

Pick any market segment and it's the same answer. Just because it's big and deserves to go through regulation does not mean it's a bad deal or harmful to the current or future industry and marketplace.

Phil's claim is true, not just for Xbox but for Nintendo as well. Sony want to dominate the console space, they all do. One doesn't get to call the other out when there's a room full of brands getting along. Nintendo just carves its own path. Sony and Xbox are more at heads, there is also a large cultural divide of East meets West in play.

Funny the regulators want to claim Nintendo data of 20 years but want to create a faux-duopoly for their own argument. Again when/if this goes to appeals/court Sony/regulators have a massive uphill battle, given the track record of such regulator rulings being overturned MS are not sweating anything right now. MS just proceed down the path of least resistance for now and at each phase.

You wrote a book saying absolutely nothing of substance. A bit more and you would want us to believe that Microsoft does all this for the benefits of the customer.

 

[Panajev2001a]

Imagine looking at someone his explanation objectively.. even his .. I can . Doesn't mean I like him, I don't .

He is still right on this account btw.

Sony is market leader , they should work from their strengths ..

Create a better COD for example . But they don't seem confident they can take MS on, if they merge .. that is what this is ..

Sony is working on its strengths, the other one is a $2 Trillion dollar corp buying all the biggest Multiplatform publishers and putting themselves in a position to use that as a bargaining tool against their competition… sure, the interest of a poor $2 Trillion dollar corp with almost $80 Billion to spend buying publishers in the span of a few years could not compete any other way, back to complaining that Sony bought Psygnosis for $60 Million almost 20 years ago?

 

[The_Mike]

Did he first realise that now?

 

[Ozzy Onya A2Z]

You wrote a book saying absolutely nothing of substance. A bit more and you would want us to believe that Microsoft does all this for the benefits of the customer.

Out of our two posts certainly one of them lacks substance. Good chat.

 

[Baki]

Regulators will make the best decision for the market/consumers.

Sony will try their hardest to convince them that this deal is bad for consumers. They don't know want to lose the #1 3rd party publisher

 

[Unknown?]

How is it absurd to think they will eventually pull Activision games from PlayStation? They pulled Elder Scrolls, Doom, and many others already.

 

[Jim Ryan other Clone]

Imagine looking at someone his explanation objectively.. even his .. I can . Doesn't mean I like him, I don't .

He is still right on this account btw.

Sony is market leader , they should work from their strengths ..

Create a better COD for example . But they don't seem confident they can take MS on, if they merge .. that is what this is ..

Why Microsoft does not create better COD and they just buy it or it's working only one way?

 

[Flutta]

And if Sony could do it, had the means and could get away with it they would do exactly the same thing.

And i would be against it. What's your issue?

 

[Heisenberg007]

If the deal doesn't go through then Bobby misses out on his big fat pay check, so where does this leave Sony's relationship with Activision once the dust has settled?

I wonder if Sony ever considered that Activision may make a CoD Game Pass deal down the line.

Sure. But will they?

If they could and if it would be so profitable, both Xbox and Activision would have done it already. They'll incur heavy, irreparable losses if they do this.

 

[Panajev2001a]

Sure. But will they?

If they could and if it would be so profitable, both Xbox and Activision would have done it already. They'll incur heavy, irreparable losses if they do this.

Again is it a lost or an investment trying to dominate the market but cutting the oxygen supply of your competition?

 

[Hero of Spielberg]

]

Sony is working on its strengths, the other one is a $2 Trillion dollar corp buying all the biggest Multiplatform publishers and putting themselves in a position to use that as a bargaining tool against their competition… sure, the interest of a poor $2 Trillion dollar corp with almost $80 Billion to spend buying publishers in the span of a few years could not compete any other way, back to complaining that Sony bought Psygnosis for $60 Million almost 20 years ago?

Wouldn't MS using its access to funds to expand its content offering also be working to its strengths? Are you crying for poor Sony? They're both massive business with nothing but profit margins in mind. It cones down to whether there will be an uncompetitive outcome or whether consumers will be denied access. This deal gets MS nowhere near a monopoly and contracts can ensure IPS are available across platforms.

 

[Slicker than your average]

Rich CEO who wants his billions payday if Microsoft buy Activision gee total shock he defends it.

 

[Hero of Spielberg]

Sure. But will they?

If they could and if it would be so profitable, both Xbox and Activision would have done it already. They'll incur heavy, irreparable losses if they do this.

Perhaps there are existing agreements that prevent it from going on GP? What would be the irreparable losses from it being on GP assuming MS is willing to pay what ActiBliz want?

 

[Ar¢tos]

No, you conveniently assume ownership of any and all new IPs deserve to be on Sony outright.

I'm sorry, but where dafuq did I say or even imply that?
Why do you assume I want Sony to get the IPs?
I want a 3rd party publisher to remain 3rd party.

If your point was valid Sony don't get to gimp PC parity, deny crossplay, not dev Strert Fighter for Xbox, Minecraft on all platforms for a decade etc.

Again, you're just cherry picking.

Gimp PC parity? PC versions of Sony games look and perform better than on consoles!

Deny crossplay? MS has been against crossplay a whole gen and when they conveniently change their policies they become martyrs?

Street Fighter 5 was partially funded Sony, Capcom said so.
Do you want Sony to pay other studios to make games for Xbox now?

---

Again, no answer on why we should believe MS isn't lying again.

Since you know so much, care to explain how MS has more studios than Sony, but makes less games? Is that Sony's fault too?
Some sort of sabotage scheme?

 

[Jim Ryan other Clone]

Company one: creates good games, beautiful and interesting, many genres and release them regularly. From time to time they buy studios but mostly studios that they work for years together. (Still a company not our friend and they don't try to pretend that they are)
Company two: release a game every other year with questionable quality, delays. They have more studios than the competition but still can't deliver regularly. Because they are worthless at their job (possibly manager fault) they resort to buy out two of the biggest publisher in the industry. (Pretend that they are our friend but you have to be from another planet or complete idiot or getting paid by them to believe it)

NeoGAF Poster: Sony haas toooo play one their streegth and maaake better COD.
What about Microsoft goes to find a better way to work because they don't have a clue and release games that are interesting to play and regularly? Why you don't advocate that and you are here trying to defend one of the most rich companies in the FUCKING world? And if you read some of the responses it's like a small start-up is getting bullied by a conglomerate.

 

[FIREKNIGHT2029]

]
Wouldn't MS using its access to funds to expand its content offering also be working to its strengths? Are you crying for poor Sony? They're both massive business with nothing but profit margins in mind. It cones down to whether there will be an uncompetitive outcome or whether consumers will be denied access. This deal gets MS nowhere near a monopoly and contracts can ensure IPS are available across platforms.

How do you enforce those contracts without extremely strong regulation and penalities?

Contracts only hold weight if you can enforce them or the consequences of breaking them is too harmful to the company that has signed them.

If you say you enforce them by imposing fines, how do you fine a multi-trillion company in a way that makes sense?


There's nothing stopping a stupidly rich company like MS from breaking contracts and easily paying fines that they can easily shrug off. That's why if you read the CMA's documents, they say they that behavioral concessions are hard to implement because companies routinely break them and pay off the fines. They are extremely difficult to enforce so no, signing contracts will not stop MS from creating a monopoly in the future when they decide they are done playing nice with the COD IP. That's why simply signing and agreeing to contracts won't be a simple solution to keep MS in check this time.

 

[GHG]

We stand with Kotick.

 

[Panajev2001a]

Wouldn't MS using its access to funds to expand its content offering also be working to its strengths? Are you crying for poor Sony? They're both massive business with nothing but profit margins in mind.

$0.06 Trillion vs $2 Trillion, one is at a greater risk of using money made from other monopolies (so not generated by their gaming division) to aggressively harm competition by buying out the biggest Multiplatform third parties to be in a position of having the power to content starve their direct competitor to their own advantage.

If you do not see a problem there fine showing true colore there, hopefully you have never cried about anti consumer anything before at least.

It cones down to whether there will be an uncompetitive outcome or whether consumers will be denied access. This deal gets MS nowhere near a monopoly and contracts can ensure IPS are available across platforms.

So, MS controlling two of the biggest if not the biggest Multiplatform publishers does not bring an uncompetitive advantage? Which planet do we live on? The contract you imagine will a.) never materialise or b.) it will be full of loopholes.

 

[Snake29]

He is right .. Sony should work from their strengths .. seems they are not confident of their own ability to create their future .

What Sony now does, is what losers do ..

Not very industry leader like .

Looks like MS isn't confident in their own strengths, so they need multiple publishers to "compete".

I think we all know the real story here.

 

[Ash Sparrow]

Its weird, kinda feel like when you make over 6 billion in one quarter, this is rich people business. You trying to buy a company for almost 70 billion, this is stuff that doesnt have to do with me, theres no little man in this scenario.

 

[Lyrical]

The same people saying this deal should go through would be the same people crying if it was Sony purchasing Activision instead of Microsoft. Acquisitions of this size needs to be banned. Simple.

 

[Hero of Spielberg]

$0.06 Trillion vs $2 Trillion, one is at a greater risk of using money made from other monopolies (so not generated by their gaming division) to aggressively harm competition by buying out the biggest Multiplatform third parties to be in a position of having the power to content starve their direct competitor to their own advantage.

If you do not see a problem there fine showing true colore there, hopefully you have never cried about anti consumer anything before at least.


So, MS controlling two of the biggest if not the biggest Multiplatform publishers does not bring an uncompetitive advantage? Which planet do we live on? The contract you imagine will a.) never materialise or b.) it will be full of loopholes.

Where's the content starvation? PS players feast by all accounts. Contracts are literally the fundamental underpinning of the capitalist system. But in this situation they're no good?

You talk about true colours and living on other planets … the irony.

 

[Physiognomonics]

Sure Sony is protecting their interest (the company's interest, not us). But Microsoft is already big enough as a videogame corporation. Such a bigger monopoly with Activision would be desastrous for gamers in the long term, Xbox players included.

No monopoly has ever helped consumers in any meaningfull way and MS / Activision games would be eventually worse, no better.

 

[Heisenberg007]

Perhaps there are existing agreements that prevent it from going on GP? What would be the irreparable losses from it being on GP assuming MS is willing to pay what ActiBliz want?

MS is free to strike a marketing agreement with Activision.

I mean, Sony's previous marketing agreement with Activision just expired a year or so before this acquisition started. Microsoft could have signed a marketing deal with Activision and put COD on Game Pass.

They didn't, however.

I'm sure they have so much money that they can even buyout Sony's marketing agreement from Activision (pay their penalties) and sign the deal today if they want to.

 

[GhostOfTsu]

Nintendo barely has 3rd party support, but they're doing rather well.
Does this mean Sony is heavily reliant on 3rd party support?

PC, Sony, MS, Google and Apple. Yes.

 

[Hero of Spielberg]

MS is free to strike a marketing agreement with Activision.

I mean, Sony's previous marketing agreement with Activision just expired a year or so before this acquisition started. Microsoft could have signed a marketing deal with Activision and put COD on Game Pass.

They didn't, however.

I'm sure they have so much money that they can even buyout Sony's marketing agreement from Activision (pay their penalties) and sign the deal today if they want to.

True. Perhaps they were hoping to get COD so it wouldn't be necessary.

 

[Hero of Spielberg]

Sure Sony is protecting their interest (the company's interest, not us). But Microsoft is already big enough as a videogame corporation. Such a bigger monopoly with Activision would be desastrous for gamers in the long term, Xbox players included.

No monopoly has ever helped consumers in any meaningfull way and MS / Activision games would be eventually worse, no better.

I think we need to include a definition of what a monopoly actually is as a sticky post on Gaf.

 

[Varteras]

 

[Rick Dangerous]

No it's not, that's the spin Sony want on this.

The deal is far larger than Sony. The deal is about MS gaining talent, various IP, creating a competitor in mobile/streaming against Apple/Google all while bolstering studios, Gamepass, MTX, sales etc.

The reasons this is all happening? One, MS have huge profits to tax reduce and ActiBliz is a great strategy and alignment. Two, Xbox and Gamepass are going open platform, similar to Google's Pixel phones while still providing Android to other partners/manufacturers.

Here's a little refresher, why this Sony COD spin is horseshit.

Hogwarts day one surpassed COD, Apex Legends concurrent players on Steam. It will reflect similar in the console, mobile and streaming segments too.


This is the F2P market from 2020, source NewZoo.

Honor of Kings – $2.45 billion
Peacekeeper Elite – $2.32 billion
Roblox – $2.29 billion
Free Fire – $2.13 billion
Pokemon GO – $1.92 billion
League of Legends – $1.75 billion
Candy Crush Saga – $1.66 billion
AFK Arena – $1.45 billion
Gardenscapes: New Acres – $1.43 billion
Dungeon Fighter Online – $1.41 billion

COD the same year - $1.5 billion.

So Sony and the regulators may have a roadblock temporarily but when/if this goes to courts, which waz always likely, Sony/reg spin ain't gonna stand up to facts.

Also as I posted some time ago -

Is the deal big? Yes.

Does it create a monopoly? No.

Does it freeze out competition or price fixing etc? No.

There are too many players and segments currently for that. MS/Xbox won't even be number 1 after the ActiBliz deal, nor a deal of similar size in 2-5 years. Enough big players exist to push these market entrances or buyouts or mergers long term. So, what MS/Xbox buy King in the mobile space for example, Apple, Tencent, Google and streaming from various players all exist. If you include the Switch even at a half measure it's more competition for that segment.

Do the same with streaming e.g. Google, Amazon, MS/Xbox, nVidia etc. There's more than healthy competition there and large cash backed internationals who can spend or invest big in gaming.

Do the same with subs e.g. PS leading, Netflix entering, Ninty offering, Xbox growing. Healthy.

Do the same with consoles e.g. Switch, Sony, Xbox. Sprinkle in the history of Xbox bringing a third platform back to the console wars. Nintendo for thr last 5 out of 6 hardware releases have been traditional consoles, just like Sony and Xbox, or long dead Sega.

Pick any market segment and it's the same answer. Just because it's big and deserves to go through regulation does not mean it's a bad deal or harmful to the current or future industry and marketplace.

Phil's claim is true, not just for Xbox but for Nintendo as well. Sony want to dominate the console space, they all do. One doesn't get to call the other out when there's a room full of brands getting along. Nintendo just carves its own path. Sony and Xbox are more at heads, there is also a large cultural divide of East meets West in play.

Funny the regulators want to claim Nintendo data of 20 years but want to create a faux-duopoly for their own argument. Again when/if this goes to appeals/court Sony/regulators have a massive uphill battle, given the track record of such regulator rulings being overturned MS are not sweating anything right now. MS just proceed down the path of least resistance for now and at each phase.

Pathetic analysis.

 

[Nocturno999]

Wasn't this garbage in Epsteins black book?

and Bill Gates.

 

[Fess]

This is getting awfully personal. Considering the tone, will Sony get the same deals, content, games after the deal break apart if Kotick is blaming Sony?

 

[sinnergy]

Why Microsoft does not create better COD and they just buy it or it's working only one way?

They don't cry about it … MS has halo .. (they fucked it up ) why did you think Sony bought Bungie

Why can't I play insomniac games on Xbox? Naughty Dog games ? I am a fan of these studios …

 

[sinnergy]

Looks like MS isn't confident in their own strengths, so they need multiple publishers to "compete".

I think we all know the real story here.

How is this different from Sony buying insomniac ? Bungie, Nixxes ? And others , if you have big money you buy large , if you have less money , you buy smaller .. that's how it works .

Otherwise we all would drive Bentley or Bugatti.

 

[winjer]

He is just worried about his big fat bonus for the buyout. Screw him.

 

[Bo_Hazem]

The guy already booked the island that he gonna buy and build his little empire until Jimbo "came" in.

 

[IllegalLemon]

Of course, we know what Bobby boy wants. He wants his hundred million dollar paycheck, that's what he wants. It was promised to him once the acquisition came to a close and Sony is getting in his way. All he cares about is the retirement money and extras he'd be paid once things were said and done, to sail off into the sunset and disappear, never to be seen again. Of course he had no idea things wouldn't go this smoothly at all.

 

[Snake29]

How is this different from Sony buying insomniac ? Bungie, Nixxes ? And others , if you have big money you buy large , if you have less money , you buy smaller .. that's how it works .

Otherwise we all would drive Bentley or Bugatti.

The difference is that Sony didn't took away a lot of franchises from their console, which is what MS is now doing with both Bethesda and ABK.

I mean read your own post and think again.

 

[Ar¢tos]

How is this different from Sony buying insomniac ? Bungie, Nixxes ? And others , if you have big money you buy large , if you have less money , you buy smaller .. that's how it works .

Otherwise we all would drive Bentley or Bugatti.

The studios Sony bought were making games almost exclusively for Playstation before, there was no impact on other platforms. Bungie is still multiplatform (but I can see that change if the Activision deal goes through).

 

[RoadHazard]

Of course they are, they obviously don't want it to happen.

But also, is he really supposed to be talking like that? He's the one being acquired, but he isn't yet, right now he's an independent third party.

 

[Hero of Spielberg]

The guy already booked the island that he gonna buy and build his little empire until Jimbo "came" in.

If you go into a meeting with Jim and there are folding chairs in the corner, you're fuckd

 

[BeardGawd]

This will backfire spectacularly on Sony. Marketing rights and exclusive game modes will come to Xbox once the current agreement with Sony is over. Versus the Parity that MS was offering... If COD is the king maker in the console space it would be wise to not piss off the developers.

 

[Fess]

Good Luck explaining to your shareholders why you won't make financial favorable deals with sony.

They've already done that when the shareholders voted for the deal to go through with the concern intact about how that would affect the Playstation output.

 

[Ar¢tos]

Of course they are, they obviously don't want it to happen.

But also, is he really supposed to be talking like that? He's the one being acquired, but he isn't yet, right now he's an independent third party.

The acquisition is good for him, if the condition of him remaining CEO is true. He gets paid the same and the problems with studios/publishing/whatever are now MS problems instead of his, he can just do the bare minimum and tell MS "I tried".

This merger as the potential to just add fuel to MS management problems. You don't go on a studio buying spree when you can't manage the ones you already own.
If you overmanage people get angry and problems start, if you undermanage people get lazy and effectiveness drops. MS needs to find balance before buying more studios.

This will backfire spectacularly on Sony. Marketing rights and exclusive game modes will come to Xbox once the current agreement with Sony is over. Versus the Parity that MS was offering... If COD is the king maker in the console space it would be wise to not piss off the developers.

Sony will just copy MS ps4/x1 gen move, and put the condition that games have to release on ps5/xsx at the same time with same content or not release on ps5 at all.

MS is already going to DRASTICALLY reduce profit of Zenimax games by cutting 100m potential buyers (i don't know the real number of ps4 + ps5 out there, I'm estimating one) and cutting it even more by putting them on game pass (2 months of gamepass to play the game is much cheaper than 70$).
Can they afford to do the same with Activision games? (and by afford, I mean justify the profit drops to shareholders, not afford $$$)

 

[ToadMan]

The deal is dead - the regulators stated their reasons. Call it sabotage if you like, but that's not a common use for the term.

When a competitor asks for a referee to check the rules for wrongdoing by an opponent, that's not normally called sabotage and it's fair in the competition rules.

 

[ToadMan]

This will backfire spectacularly on Sony. Marketing rights and exclusive game modes will come to Xbox once the current agreement with Sony is over. Versus the Parity that MS was offering... If COD is the king maker in the console space it would be wise to not piss off the developers.

That could have been done now without the need for an acquisition.

It's normal in the industry to compete for content which in turn improved the quality. MS tried to acquire content to remove competition. No one wants that.

Well no one who cares about quality, choice or innovation.

 

[KungFucius]

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

Most people aren't fanatics who want the other side to suffer, they just want things to be better for them. Getting a game they usually buy and other games they might try to be on a service they pay for is good for them. It's pretty whiny and entitled to point at people who would like a better deal with gamepass as making you a victim, as if that is the main motivator. You could buy an Xbox or sub gamepass on PC. It's not like there aren't people who buy Playstations just for the damn exclusives when they prefer to game on other platforms.

Full disclosure. I am a PC gamer and gamepass subscriber. I have been enjoying the service, especially the riskier AA games I would skip otherwise. I don't play COD, but I would like to see AB acquired by MS if it means they would be given the freedom to create some unique smaller games like Pentiment or Hi-Fi Rush. I dont think this will happen if they stay as independent publishers. I don't give a fuck where else their games are available, I just want good games for a good deal. If MS needs to make a deal to keep COD on all platforms then I want that if it means I might get a few gems on GP. I also have a PS5 & Switch for exclusives and used to buy Xboxes for exclusives.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

Just because the deal is going to fall through and suddenly blue members flock to this topic to gloat doesn't mean that it isn't true what I'm saying. This has been said since the beginning that it's mostly about mobile. Obviously the rest doesn't hurt but it's mobile where the biggest growth is and where Microsoft has nothing.

No worries you can still play cod with your bro's

It's been bullshit since the beginning. They're not paying $69 billion for fucking king you donkey