Microsoft / Activision Deal Approval Watch |OT| (MS/ABK close)

Do you believe the deal will be approved?


  • Total voters
    886
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
Bethesda's revenue is a joke compared to Activison's. Sony does not want that Microsoft becomes too powerful.

Bruh, just increasing their revenue is not what gives them a stronger foothold in the console market lmao.

Depends on how they are making it. Imagine the new game droping in 2027 and the 2025/2026 games will be heavily used for marketing the new game. Every COD player would know about it. Then a big marketing campaign in 2027 'The new game from the creators of the famous COD'.

I don't think this will happen, but maybe we will see who was right if Microsoft passes on COD or offers it forever. If Sony accepts then, i'm gonna eat my crow.

People don't give a shit about who the developers of COD are. We've seen them use that marketing gimmick multiple times and it doesn't work
 
Bruh, just increasing their revenue is not what gives them a stronger foothold in the console market lmao.

The games already exist on Xbox.

So how does someone make the Xbox version more attractive?

1. Marketing
2. Exclusive Content
3. Limiting platforms

Someone that's already playing those games on their platforms with no loss in content probably won't switch over. But if they can't play it at all they might.

I'm not seeing how increasing revenue convinces more people to invest in a platform.
 
- The 'Duty Calls' scenario will be something adressed by CMA because in their remedies proposal, they proposed (i) Divestiture of the business associated with Call of Duty; What is business associated with CoD? Is it just the IP, or also the development studios? Because in case they have to divest the IP, the studios can still develop Duty calls.

They have to divest everything associated with COD, that includes the IP, the tech and the studios that support its current existence.
 
And those terms will have to be negotiated. None of the workarounds you mentioned are actual workarounds though. What do they actually work around to?
- The 'Duty Calls' scenario will be something adressed by CMA because in their remedies proposal, they proposed (i) Divestiture of the business associated with Call of Duty; What is business associated with CoD? Is it just the IP, or also the development studios? Because in case they have to divest the IP, the studios can still develop Duty calls.
- The second point, reducing CoD output, what exactly does that work around to? Both Microsoft and both Sony will have a lesser number of CoDs and actually, fewer CoDs give more opportunity to competitors to take its space. By your logic, Microsoft release 2 CoD's in 10 years is somehow bad for Sony. Why?
If Microsoft has any ambition of leveraging CoD in the future, then they need to keep CoD relevant, not reduce its relevancy.
There's really no point arguing about what if's now.
 
The games already exist on Xbox.

So how does someone make the Xbox version more attractive?

1. Marketing
2. Exclusive Content
3. Limiting platforms

Someone that's already playing those games on their platforms with no loss in content probably won't switch over. But if they can't play it at all they might.

I'm not seeing how increasing revenue convinces more people to invest in a platform.
I think they'd get marketing, but aside from that they'd get Call of Duty day 1 on Gamepass. And as long as Call of Duty were available at fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory prices for other game subscription services, I think they would be the only GSS in the industry willing to cannibalize their B2P sales to get more subscribers.

The value proposition could convince some people. Not as much as an exclusivity strategy, but still some regardless.
 
After 10 years a lot of the people who are arguing about this on message boards probably won't even be gaming anymore.
All (semi) jokes aside, after 10 years they of course can leverage the deal. The 'unfair' advantage the authorities are concerned about should dissipate after 10 years.
- You give the cloud gaming market chance to develop
- Sony will have 10 years time to develop competition to CoD, while at same time retaining access to CoD. You're essentially giving Sony time 10 years to prevent CoD from hurting them IF it becomes exclusive (which it won't).

10 years is a long-ass time in gaming land. CoD could be irrelevant in 2 years, who knows? That's also one of the reasons why it's impossible to offer parity contracts forever.

Or it could be in 10 years that very little has changed with regards to COD and it remains the single most important IP every single year. So yeah, Sony very well may have to try and compete with a Microsoft-owned COD in 10 years, but they are certainly not going to just sit back and let that happen without a fight.
 
Last edited:
Or it could be in 10 years that very little has changed with regards to COD and it remains the single most important IP every single year. So yeah, Sony very well may have to try and compete with a Microsoft-owned COD in 10 years, but they are certainly not going to just sit back and let that happen without a fight.

Look how long Mario has lasted. Thing is some franchises can remain popular for an extremely long time. Sony can't risk COD being popular 10 plus years from now and have it exclusive to Xbox. I'm sure the regulators see this as well and know it would affect not only the competition but consumers as well.

To be fair if COD isn't that big of a deal for Microsoft they should just do what the regulators want and just divest it.
 
He's enjoying AoE 2


Girl Why Dont We Have Both GIF


Honestly I think he's just waiting a bit before he comments on the CMA. He definitely needs to say the correct thing here since the situation is delicate.

Edit: I believed I discussed this before with thicc_girls_are_teh_best thicc_girls_are_teh_best and it makes a lot of sense to me.
 
Last edited:
As someone who primarily plays on Xbox, personally, I don't play Call of Duty or any Blizzard property really. I view this acquisition as a chance for Xbox to scare Sony out of complacency. The generation where Sony was getting their ass kicked, saw them bounce back like never before.

A rising tide lifts all boats. I'm surprised more of you aren't worried at the trajectory of Sony regardless of this acquisition. 10 GaaS (in 5 years was it?), worked on by a lot of their best studios. Chasing trends. How many GaaS actually hit and how many shut down after like a year or 2?

Anyways, if this does go through, maybe I'll have fun checking out Call of Duty on Gamepass, but that's not important to me. But selfishly, I'd rather Microsoft acquire something like Devolver Digital, much more excited for what they show in their showcase every year than Call or Duty. Maybe it would be cool to see what else these studios could work on, give Toys for Bob a shot at Banjo Kazooie. Give IW or Treyarch a shot at a new IP or maybe even a AA game. As it currently stands Activision has like 6 studios just churning out Call of Duty. I think that would be different under Microsoft.

There was an interview Todd did that basically said he'll work til he dies lol. I assume Todd, after the 20+ years at Bethesda have some protégé that would carry the torch. But regardless, Todd dying and leaving Bethesda to whomever is a scenario that would be worrisome even if they were independent. I see a lot of people saying Starfield being delayed is mismanagement, but the delay is something they probably wouldn't be able to afford if they were independent. The narrative has always been Bethesda games come out buggy as fuck. They were on a a shaky path after FO4 and FO76, it was really do or die for them with Starfield if they stayed independent, and that pressure was still there maybe Starfield would be rushed out in a typical Bethesda state.

Regardless, I think we should wait to see how Starfield turns out before we assume they're being mismanaged. The mismanagement narrative in general is slightly off I think. By and large I think Microsoft has a hands off approach, let's studios have the time they need under as little pressure as possible. This definitely has it's negatives as we saw with Halo Infinite, but my assumption is the extra time for Starfield is a good thing. Giving studios that ability/incentive to make gems like Penitent, Grounded, HiFi Rush is a good thing.

I didn't pull the mismanagement out of thin air. Ex-343 employees said it after being fired and seeing how Halo Infinite turned into another forgettable title, I'm going to lean that they're not lying.

The problem is even if Starfield is good, it was a game they bought while it was thought of, approved, and started already. This is only a Microsoft title because they bought it, if that makes sense. Same with HiFi Rush (and you can fact check me because I didn't read much into this). When it comes to the dust has settled and it's up to the Phil administration, we end up with a bunch of mediocre titles. I'm not saying this as some "Sony better" troll. I want Microsoft to be great again and fans that sit by without going "ok Phil, put up or stfu" is part of the problem. Or maybe, given that Microsoft looks to be in abysmal last place yet had the most studios and the most money. You'd think they could figure something out. But encouraging them to just buy other studios which they don't have a solid record of buying a producing content just seems like a bad move on the Xbox fans side.

And maybe this is just me. If my wife came to me with some painting she did and it was crap, I'm not going to sugar coat it. I'm going to call it crap but tell her to try and get better. Sorry, rambled there for a second... There's a point in my verbal abuse of my terrific spouse.

Going up just a bit, the problem with claiming MS buying studios is good because of Sony's stupid GaaS junk doesn't make it better as MS is GaaS too. So all it would do is make the battle GaaS vs. GaaS. Corporations that do these types of battle just make the choices X vs. X, not X vs. Y. Either way, you're getting X. In this case, that variable is one of the worst Drama known to gamers as GaaS.

Now it's time to eat my burritos so I'll return later.
 
I didn't pull the mismanagement out of thin air. Ex-343 employees said it after being fired and seeing how Halo Infinite turned into another forgettable title, I'm going to lean that they're not lying.

The problem is even if Starfield is good, it was a game they bought while it was thought of, approved, and started already. This is only a Microsoft title because they bought it, if that makes sense. Same with HiFi Rush (and you can fact check me because I didn't read much into this). When it comes to the dust has settled and it's up to the Phil administration, we end up with a bunch of mediocre titles. I'm not saying this as some "Sony better" troll. I want Microsoft to be great again and fans that sit by without going "ok Phil, put up or stfu" is part of the problem. Or maybe, given that Microsoft looks to be in abysmal last place yet had the most studios and the most money. You'd think they could figure something out. But encouraging them to just buy other studios which they don't have a solid record of buying a producing content just seems like a bad move on the Xbox fans side.

And maybe this is just me. If my wife came to me with some painting she did and it was crap, I'm not going to sugar coat it. I'm going to call it crap but tell her to try and get better. Sorry, rambled there for a second... There's a point in my verbal abuse of my terrific spouse.

Going up just a bit, the problem with claiming MS buying studios is good because of Sony's stupid GaaS junk doesn't make it better as MS is GaaS too. So all it would do is make the battle GaaS vs. GaaS. Corporations that do these types of battle just make the choices X vs. X, not X vs. Y. Either way, you're getting X. In this case, that variable is one of the worst Drama known to gamers as GaaS.

Now it's time to eat my burritos so I'll return later.
I had to read that last part 3 times..😉
 
Nobody knows, COD could be dead in 5 years. Nobody makes forever deals, but i have a feeling that Sony would even decline a forever offer.
Honestly, COD releases look to be going away in favor of warzone FTP. I'm a little annoyed because I purchased MW2 (first one i've played since MW3 on the 360. ) It's a great game but just looking at the season 2 update and it's mainly for warzone which sucks.
 
Last edited:
The problem is even if Starfield is good, it was a game they bought while it was thought of, approved, and started already. This is only a Microsoft title because they bought it, if that makes sense. Same with HiFi Rush (and you can fact check me because I didn't read much into this).

No one really cares buddy. Hate to break the bad news. A great game is a great game. People don't care how the hell they get it. You think games like Forspoken, FF16, Kotor: Remake, Bungie's upcoming games, Deathloop, Ghostwire: Tokyo and all types of other games weren't "thought of" or "approved" and started already when Sony came knocking? People only want games. They don't care and their enjoyment of a game isn't affected by the behind the scenes buisness decisions that led to its release. You think Elder Scrolls fans will give a shit when they're playing Elder Scrolls 6? You think gamers excited for Starfield will give a damn? I would sure hope you don't believe so.

So what you're experiencing is a you thing or a general fanboy thing. It isn't something the general gaming audience concerns itself with, and why should they? They just play games where they are if they're interested. Case closed.
 
No one really cares buddy. Hate to break the bad news. A great game is a great game. People don't care how the hell they get it. You think games like Forspoken, FF16, Kotor: Remake, Bungie's upcoming games, Deathloop, Ghostwire: Tokyo and all types of other games weren't "thought of" or "approved" and started already when Sony came knocking? People only want games. They don't care and their enjoyment of a game isn't affected by the behind the scenes buisness decisions that led to its release. You think Elder Scrolls fans will give a shit when they're playing Elder Scrolls 6? You think gamers excited for Starfield will give a damn? I would sure hope you don't believe so.

I read this and I'm kinda shocked we actually agree on something :messenger_tears_of_joy:

The only issue I have is that I don't think Starfield is going to shift the debate. From that gameplay trailer, to me, it looked lacklustre. And XBOX needs a TLOU end of PS3 moment. A game that literally changes the conversation. While I know amongst the core XBOX guys Starfield is that, the metrics beyond that audience suggest the game hasn;t changed the conversation for XBOX. Obviously that can change...
 
Last edited:
I read this and I'm kinda shocked we actually agree on something :messenger_tears_of_joy:

The only issue I have is that I don't think Starfield is going to shift the debate. From that gameplay trailer, to me, it looked lacklustre. And XBOX needs a TLOU end of PS3 moment. A game that literally changes the conversation. While I know amongst the core XBOX guys Starfield is that, the metrics beyond that audience suggest the game hasn;t changed the conversation for XBOX. Obviously that can change...
Well we haven't seen the marketing campaign for starfield yet. Part of why I'm against the deal is because microsoft currently has more studios than Playstation or Nintendo. I don't really buy that they can't compete if they don't have more studios / ip's. They just need their games to actually start coming out.
 
No one really cares buddy. Hate to break the bad news. A great game is a great game. People don't care how the hell they get it. You think games like Forspoken, FF16, Kotor: Remake, Bungie's upcoming games, Deathloop, Ghostwire: Tokyo and all types of other games weren't "thought of" or "approved" and started already when Sony came knocking? People only want games. They don't care and their enjoyment of a game isn't affected by the behind the scenes buisness decisions that led to its release. You think Elder Scrolls fans will give a shit when they're playing Elder Scrolls 6? You think gamers excited for Starfield will give a damn? I would sure hope you don't believe so.

So what you're experiencing is a you thing or a general fanboy thing. It isn't something the general gaming audience concerns itself with, and why should they? They just play games where they are if they're interested. Case closed.
They will care if Starfield 2 starts sucking and no 1 is amazing. And don't come off with this fanboy talk. You enjoyed the Halo TV show so it seems lol.
 
No one really cares buddy. Hate to break the bad news. A great game is a great game. People don't care how the hell they get it. You think games like Forspoken, FF16, Kotor: Remake, Bungie's upcoming games, Deathloop, Ghostwire: Tokyo and all types of other games weren't "thought of" or "approved" and started already when Sony came knocking? People only want games. They don't care and their enjoyment of a game isn't affected by the behind the scenes buisness decisions that led to its release. You think Elder Scrolls fans will give a shit when they're playing Elder Scrolls 6? You think gamers excited for Starfield will give a damn? I would sure hope you don't believe so.

So what you're experiencing is a you thing or a general fanboy thing. It isn't something the general gaming audience concerns itself with, and why should they? They just play games where they are if they're interested. Case closed.

The more you post, the more unhinged you sound.
 
Not entirely a part of this conversation, so I might be missing context, but I see there's some confusion regarding monopoly.

To clarify, monopoly is not illegal, according to laws. It is the means that matter.

So PlayStation's larger market share is legal. However, Microsoft's purchase of Activision Blizzard King and the resultant increased market share would be illegal.

This is as per the FTC's laws.

F34in5y.jpg


In addition, the argument that "acquiring ABK will not make Xbox a monopoly" is also invalid.

That's because courts and regulators are not supposed to only look at literal monopolies. Attempts to monopolizing the industry and/or increasing the market share via anti-competitive means also fall under their jurisdiction.

Microsoft's ABK acquisition falls under this.

dRSPoxq.jpg
But isn't a large method of Playstation's larger market share due to acquisition (Insomniac), and exclusionary anti-competitive tactics (3rd part exclusivity deals) and exclusive marketing deals? This doesn't fall in the superior products or innovation, but could loosely be categorized by business acumen. But in that same vein, one could argue that ABK is in a similar category. They also have raised prices and excluded competitors from games (FF VII remakes, Forspoken, FF XVI, FFXII, etc.).

I don't think it is as simple as stated, and I think why MS's attempt and argument currently is focused on looking at SONY's own practices might be focused on bringing this to light. But in the end I don't care what happend, I just want someone to make Warcraft 4 and Starcraft 3 and would love have Diablo/WOW on gamepass. I think MS is more likely to make those games given they actually have made RTS recently (AOE4). Just divest and take blizzard/king and sell COD to EA. But I would also be okay with SONY also having to change some of their predatory tactics if the deal fails as well as I prefer to get things on gamepass than shell out 70 on my PS. I really only want to use my PS to play homegrown first party PS IP since it is my least favorite ecosystem.
 
Look how long Mario has lasted. Thing is some franchises can remain popular for an extremely long time. Sony can't risk COD being popular 10 plus years from now and have it exclusive to Xbox. I'm sure the regulators see this as well and know it would affect not only the competition but consumers as well.

To be fair if COD isn't that big of a deal for Microsoft they should just do what the regulators want and just divest it.
It absolutely is a big deal. Nothing else from ABK moves the needle for Xbox.
 
I read this and I'm kinda shocked we actually agree on something :messenger_tears_of_joy:

The only issue I have is that I don't think Starfield is going to shift the debate. From that gameplay trailer, to me, it looked lacklustre. And XBOX needs a TLOU end of PS3 moment. A game that literally changes the conversation. While I know amongst the core XBOX guys Starfield is that, the metrics beyond that audience suggest the game hasn;t changed the conversation for XBOX. Obviously that can change...

You have spoken like someone who isn't much of a fan of the kinds of worlds and RPGs that Bethesda Game Studios creates. If you are a fan, then you would know full well that what you saw is only just scratching the surface of a much larger, more epic experience. Hell, they literally showed you enough to confirm as much. All Bethesda RPGs are loaded with content and different ways to play and experience it all.

You look at what you saw, and to you it's lackluster, but I'm not sure I buy that claim and think the negative outlook has more to do with it being Xbox exclusive, which is a shame that this is what gaming has become. Drop your focus on "xbox guys" and focus instead on gamers who love Bethesda RPGs or ambitious open world RPG simulations in general. Focus instead on why it is so many people continue to play Bethesda's games for upwards of 10 years or close to it. Why would a sci-fi, space exploration focused open world RPG by the creators of Elder Scrolls Morrowind, Oblivion, Skyrim, Fallout 3 and Fallout 4 excite anybody? That's what you should be entertaining before which sets of console warriors are excited about it.

You're worried about how it "changes the conversation" for Xbox like this is a talk show where we discuss the 2024 presidential horse race. Nobody cares. We just want exciting looking games. Gamers who love RPGs are looking forward to Starfield. Playstation guys are looking forward to Starfield. Many of the "xbox guys" you reference are also Nintendo and Playstation guys as well. I sure as hell am. Many of the "xbox guys" people speak of also own PS5s.

Fans like myself watched the gameplay and can't help but think of all the freedom and possibilities. They showcased some brief combat, which looked great besides framerate, we saw small examples of how the world reacts to the player (ships came flying in and landing mid-combat, we saw a taste of what would happen if we shot an enemy's jetpack, we saw space flight and space combat, zero g combat, we saw we can clear a decent sized gap by using the jetpack, we saw ship customization, the ability to staff our ships, we saw building our own space settlements for resource generation with the ability to have characters we meet staff those also, we saw weapon/item crafting customization, the character creation, the backgrounds, the skills, traits that have positive effects and negative effects, the skill trees, we saw the different factions, we saw how they're handling persuasion, we saw the ability to board enemy ships, we saw some of the characters we will meet, got a sense of the some of the story and dialogue systems, we see the clear Oblivion influence, we saw multiple different locations and planets, we saw some impressive attention to visual detail, and graphically it really does look like a big visual jump from past Bethesda games. We know that there are quests designed to allow us to rid ourselves of specific traits and their negative effects, we saw our background choice impact how characters speak with us. We got to see some of the hostile or non hostile creatures that are on the planets.

Stop viewing games based on the console they're on and just based on looking like interesting games. Do you know there are people who would choose a game like Fallout or Elder Scrolls over a game like TLOU 10 times out of 10? And there are people who would choose a TLOU style game over Starfield? Just as there are people who would choose an Elden Ring over the next Spider-Man. Gamers are getting likely one of the games of the generation from Bethesda because they've never failed in making something memorable when they put their minds to making a great singleplayer rpg experience.
 
I read this and I'm kinda shocked we actually agree on something :messenger_tears_of_joy:

The only issue I have is that I don't think Starfield is going to shift the debate. From that gameplay trailer, to me, it looked lacklustre. And XBOX needs a TLOU end of PS3 moment. A game that literally changes the conversation. While I know amongst the core XBOX guys Starfield is that, the metrics beyond that audience suggest the game hasn;t changed the conversation for XBOX. Obviously that can change...

Objectively when was the last time Microsoft had a game like that? Halo? Halo 2?
 
But isn't a large method of Playstation's larger market share due to acquisition (Insomniac), and exclusionary anti-competitive tactics (3rd part exclusivity deals) and exclusive marketing deals? This doesn't fall in the superior products or innovation, but could loosely be categorized by business acumen. But in that same vein, one could argue that ABK is in a similar category. They also have raised prices and excluded competitors from games (FF VII remakes, Forspoken, FF XVI, FFXII, etc.).
Acquisitions like Insomniac aren't anti-competitive. EC determined that even Zenimax's acquisition was not anti-competitive. If a $7.5 billion publisher was not deemed anti-competitive, how is Insomniac (a $225 million studio) will be considered anti-competitive?

3rd-party exclusivity deals are also not usually reviewed by these regulatory bodies, whose main responsibility is to look into potentially anti-competitive mergers & acquisitions. Besides, both Microsoft and Sony pay money to get timed exclusivity on games, so that kind of settles off.

ABK is too big for any console platform holder to own and control. It's understandable what all 3 regulatory bodies are doing right now. We could all see it coming.
 
Bruh, just increasing their revenue is not what gives them a stronger foothold in the console market lmao.
Why not? There is an amount of money being spend in the console market, obviously if you buy a company that has x% of revenue in that market, and it is yours, you have a stronger foothold in the market.
 
You have spoken like someone who isn't much of a fan of the kinds of worlds and RPGs that Bethesda Game Studios creates. If you are a fan, then you would know full well that what you saw is only just scratching the surface of a much larger, more epic experience. Hell, they literally showed you enough to confirm as much. All Bethesda RPGs are loaded with content and different ways to play and experience it all.

You look at what you saw, and to you it's lackluster, but I'm not sure I buy that claim and think the negative outlook has more to do with it being Xbox exclusive, which is a shame that this is what gaming has become. Drop your focus on "xbox guys" and focus instead on gamers who love Bethesda RPGs or ambitious open world RPG simulations in general. Focus instead on why it is so many people continue to play Bethesda's games for upwards of 10 years or close to it. Why would a sci-fi, space exploration focused open world RPG by the creators of Elder Scrolls Morrowind, Oblivion, Skyrim, Fallout 3 and Fallout 4 excite anybody? That's what you should be entertaining before which sets of console warriors are excited about it.

You're worried about how it "changes the conversation" for Xbox like this is a talk show where we discuss the 2024 presidential horse race. Nobody cares. We just want exciting looking games. Gamers who love RPGs are looking forward to Starfield. Playstation guys are looking forward to Starfield. Many of the "xbox guys" you reference are also Nintendo and Playstation guys as well. I sure as hell am. Many of the "xbox guys" people speak of also own PS5s.

Fans like myself watched the gameplay and can't help but think of all the freedom and possibilities. They showcased some brief combat, which looked great besides framerate, we saw small examples of how the world reacts to the player (ships came flying in and landing mid-combat, we saw a taste of what would happen if we shot an enemy's jetpack, we saw space flight and space combat, zero g combat, we saw we can clear a decent sized gap by using the jetpack, we saw ship customization, the ability to staff our ships, we saw building our own space settlements for resource generation with the ability to have characters we meet staff those also, we saw weapon/item crafting customization, the character creation, the backgrounds, the skills, traits that have positive effects and negative effects, the skill trees, we saw the different factions, we saw how they're handling persuasion, we saw the ability to board enemy ships, we saw some of the characters we will meet, got a sense of the some of the story and dialogue systems, we see the clear Oblivion influence, we saw multiple different locations and planets, we saw some impressive attention to visual detail, and graphically it really does look like a big visual jump from past Bethesda games. We know that there are quests designed to allow us to rid ourselves of specific traits and their negative effects, we saw our background choice impact how characters speak with us. We got to see some of the hostile or non hostile creatures that are on the planets.

Stop viewing games based on the console they're on and just based on looking like interesting games. Do you know there are people who would choose a game like Fallout or Elder Scrolls over a game like TLOU 10 times out of 10? And there are people who would choose a TLOU style game over Starfield? Just as there are people who would choose an Elden Ring over the next Spider-Man. Gamers are getting likely one of the games of the generation from Bethesda because they've never failed in making something memorable when they put their minds to making a great singleplayer rpg experience.

I know bethesda open world games. I've played and tried to enjoy Morrowind, Skyrim, Fallout 3, 4 , 76 and believe it or not they were all lackluster and I never understood why these games were hyped so much.

To me they always felt lackluster. Their storytelling, dialogues and animations are simply not compelling at all. There are way better games out there.
So even though Starfield sounds and kinda looks compelling ( a sci-fi game with lots of worlds to explore ) seeing the gameplay footage so far it looks to have more of the same issues.

Therefore I doubt its gonna be a game that fits my taste.

And I really don't care that bethesda is now a Microsoft owned company. I always said and felt the same things about their open world games.

It will probably still sell good because there is an audience for their style of games and thats fine.

Hell I will probably try to enjoy it anyways if it releases on gamepass cause I have nothing to loose of I can play it for a month for a few €.

But thats it. Its most likely not gonna change anything for me regarding my perception of the xbox brand. 🤷🏼‍♂️
 
Last edited:
The more you post, the more unhinged you sound.

What, his post was on the money. Why are you trying to twist what he said?

99.9 percent of the general public only care about the game and is it on a system they own...if it isn't on the system what's the best and most economic way for them to play said game...and if its a game they really want they will obtain the way in which to play it.

I don't get the downplaying of starfield on here. Bethesda games and it's fans are just as invested as someone who is into the last of us. The constant downplaying ofnatarfield on this forum doesn't actually change the reality of the situation.
 
We live in a timeline where COD can essentially forclosure SIE.
Surprised Meme GIF

Not CoD alone. It's CoD + other Activision Blizzard + Bethesda/Zenimax + other recent acquisitions.
We still don't know the impact of Sony losing Starfield and Elder Scrolls 6, and Doom, future dishonored and Bioshock games.
They specifically mention Microsoft's established habit of cutting Playstation out of the games/franchises they purchase mid-development.

Microsoft seems to be sandbagging Bethesda's games to try to make them seem irrelevant for this case. We should be about a year away from the next Doom game and somehow it's all under wraps.
 
Has anyone heard from Phil?

Never seen him so quiet. Ever.
MS probably realized that all that PR talk from Phil actually had the opposite affect that they wanted.

Really, I'm questioning his future at Xbox. Series X/S sales are dropping YOY in several big regions, even though the Series S is heavily discounted and availability isn't much of an issue anymore. GamePass isn't meeting projections and is also causing a drop in SW sales. Xbox revenue is down across the board. And there has been a constant lack of high quality exclusives for years, now. I'm really doubting they are going to allow him to stick around if this deal falls through. Or maybe they'll just pay for him to get another award, lol.
 
For people claiming that ABK buyout will add more value to gamepass, MS will start to hike price of gamepass. The revenue will not be sustainable to keep making AAA games for Gamepass at current price point. They will try to force Xbox gamepass service on PlayStation and Nintendo too making it the only way to access those games on rival platforms. This deal is a bad thing for the gaming community.
 
Has anyone heard from Phil?

Never seen him so quiet. Ever.

Perhaps he's trawling the fanboy twitter posts to see if anyone can come up with a good spin he can put on this story. That tweet of yosp and colteatswood won't do at all

I don't envy the PR team that has to work out the message from all this.

But isn't a large method of Playstation's larger market share due to acquisition (Insomniac), and exclusionary anti-competitive tactics (3rd part exclusivity deals) and exclusive marketing deals? This doesn't fall in the superior products or innovation, but could loosely be categorized by business acumen. But in that same vein, one could argue that ABK is in a similar category. They also have raised prices and excluded competitors from games (FF VII remakes, Forspoken, FF XVI, FFXII, etc.).

I don't think it is as simple as stated, and I think why MS's attempt and argument currently is focused on looking at SONY's own practices might be focused on bringing this to light. But in the end I don't care what happend, I just want someone to make Warcraft 4 and Starcraft 3 and would love have Diablo/WOW on gamepass. I think MS is more likely to make those games given they actually have made RTS recently (AOE4). Just divest and take blizzard/king and sell COD to EA. But I would also be okay with SONY also having to change some of their predatory tactics if the deal fails as well as I prefer to get things on gamepass than shell out 70 on my PS. I really only want to use my PS to play homegrown first party PS IP since it is my least favorite ecosystem.

Depends if you look at this from a legal standpoint as a regulator, or as a consumer who is already happy with MS's offerings and want more.

If you're the latter, your opinion doesn't matter to the former.

The regulators are interested in customers of competing products or those who are not customers of any product. They want to determine the impact on these demographics of the acquisition.

For the regulators its pretty simple - they just consider what is legally "reasonable" in the market place.

Evidently they have decided it is not reasonable for the company that has not been selected as market leader by consumers, to acquire and therefore control without limit, some of the most valuable independent content. The regulators have concluded this could lead to a reduction of consumer choice going forward.

Those same regulators don't rule against exclusivity deals for content because those are reasonable and indeed customary practice in the videogame market. A practice that MS has availed themselves of at various times.

In fact content exclusivity deals are a principle applied across many markets, not just videogames and they occur precisely because regulators more often than not, don't care or regulate those - they do care and regulate acquisitions and mergers though.

So yeah - MS's attempted acquisition of ABK is unreasonable and not customary practice in the videogame market with the potential to harm consumer choice and it also happens to be a regulated element of business conduct. MS could've probably got long term exclusivity deals passed - acquisition, no.

As it happens regulators don't need a cut dried case - their decisions are based on a prediction using analysis of current conditions and that's enough for their purposes.

All the other stuff dragged into this thread about exclusives and studio purchases and various aggressive business practices are simply irrelevant for regulators.
 
Last edited:
Not entirely a part of this conversation, so I might be missing context, but I see there's some confusion regarding monopoly.

To clarify, monopoly is not illegal, according to laws. It is the means that matter.

So PlayStation's larger market share is legal. However, Microsoft's purchase of Activision Blizzard King and the resultant increased market share would be illegal.

This is as per the FTC's laws.

F34in5y.jpg


In addition, the argument that "acquiring ABK will not make Xbox a monopoly" is also invalid.

That's because courts and regulators are not supposed to only look at literal monopolies. Attempts to monopolizing the industry and/or increasing the market share via anti-competitive means also fall under their jurisdiction.

Microsoft's ABK acquisition falls under this.

dRSPoxq.jpg

I found where you got that info from the FTC and found the subsequent paragraph quite interesting

'Courts look at the firm's market share, but typically do not find monopoly power if the firm (or a group of firms acting in concert) has less than 50 percent of the sales of a particular product or service within a certain geographic area.'

It makes a lot of sense now to see why they have defined the 'high-performance' market to exclude Nintendo, as without it even if MS acquired all IP they wouldn't come close to that threshold. And if they can't be deemed to be 'monopolising' the industry by their own definition, then it would make a legal challenge against the acquisition difficult.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom