pasterpl
Member
In both scenarios Sony might then be looked at by CMA,FTC and EC trying to leverage their market share, leading market posting on to foreclosure competitor by limiting access to games on other platforms.
Microsoft / Activision Deal Approval Watch |OT| (MS/ABK close)
- Status
Ar¢tos
Member
Only on full exclusivity deals. Nobody can do anything about marketing deals or exclusive content. And it would take a lot of timed exclusivity deals before the CMA, FTC, etc would intervene, and the damage would already be done.
MasterCornholio
Member
Marketing deals are not illegal though. Even timed exclusives are not illegal.
Xbox has the financial backing of Microsoft so they can participate in those types of deals if they wish. And they do BTW.
thebigmanjosh
Member
It is/was an exploratory partnership. Sony/PS extensively use AWS for cloud services.
Either way, it’s irrelevant to the acquisition
Ar¢tos
Member
Gonna be harder after spending 70bn (plus possible re structuring and layoffs at Activision), with more mouths to feed, I would say Xbox budget is going to be tighter until money starts flowing in from Activision.
gothmog
Gold Member
There's nothing illegal about competing naturally.
PharaoTutAnchAmun
Member
Yes it is, i will put a lid on it from my side. Let agree to disagree.
Ar¢tos
Member
How is sony renting servers from MS different from renting from Amazon or whoever?
Did they get privileges for being Sony that other Azure clients didn't have?
Are you going to say next that the computers in Sony offices using Windows OS is also relevant this deal?
PharaoTutAnchAmun
Member
You are reading it wrong....i'am saying that it is inrelevant Sony does use Azure or not, it has nothing do with the MS Activision Blizzard deal. You must be in discussion with thebigmanjosh, he brought it up.
Last edited:
Ar¢tos
Member
You are both saying it is irrelevant. What a weird discussion!
Edmund
is waiting for Starfield 7
You're wrong. If the deal fails, gamers win.
X-Wing
Member
If the deal fails nothing changes. Activision will probably restructure, lose the higher ups that were responsible for the deal and put someone neutral that can build good relationships with all platform holders.
Microsoft will probably give Phil Spencer a slap on the wrist and just move to getting their studios to work hard on making games, taking another huge loss when it comes to consoles but growing with Game Pass in general.
PlayStation will be doing business as usual and working on reestablishing a good relationship with Activision because they know COD is too important to miss on.
This is actually the best scenario for gamers because Microsoft can grow with their Game Pass strategy, PlayStation can carry on as it now and Activision will remain a middle ground supplier of important IPs for all platforms.
Microsoft will probably give Phil Spencer a slap on the wrist and just move to getting their studios to work hard on making games, taking another huge loss when it comes to consoles but growing with Game Pass in general.
PlayStation will be doing business as usual and working on reestablishing a good relationship with Activision because they know COD is too important to miss on.
This is actually the best scenario for gamers because Microsoft can grow with their Game Pass strategy, PlayStation can carry on as it now and Activision will remain a middle ground supplier of important IPs for all platforms.
Last edited:
splattered
Member
So let me get this straight... some of you are now 100% convinced this deal is going to fail, Activision will totally restructure getting rid of all their top executives and jump into bed with Sony for some hardcore sloppy action, Sony is going to become "hyper aggressive" snatching up marketing and fulll on exclusivity rights everywhere they can, and poor ol Microsoft will have no choice but to throw in the towel and get out of the business? I want whatever you guys are smoking this weekend haha
I agree with you on all except for the phil spencer part, he’s guaranteed to get yeeted after failing MS’s- (ahem, tech!) biggest acquisition to date + losing them 3B$+ due to him running his mouth in the wrong places a bit too much,
at this point we should debate who’s gonna be his replacement, my money on either Sarah Bond (very likely) or Aaron Greenberg (less Likely)
Last edited:
Topher
Identifies as young
Wow. I had no idea Sony ultimately went with AWS.
X-Wing
Member
That may explain why I have a much better performance streaming from PS+ than on xCloud.
MasterCornholio
Member
Either Microsoft will drop it or it will go through with concessions. The only possibility I don't see is Microsoft getting the deal without any concessions.
Topher
Identifies as young
That sounds like a lot of different narratives cobbled together into one. I really have no idea who you are referring to here.
Because it is irrelevant. One guy brought it up for some reason, but it really has no bearing on anything as far as the acquisition. As an aside it is interesting, but nothing more.
Last edited:
The_Mike
I cry about SonyGaf from my chair in Redmond, WA
IIRC Microsoft earns around 70 billion each quarter, meaning they've already earned back what the deal did cost times 4
BlitzerRadic
Member
LOL this is ridiculous. Sony in no way is limiting games from xobx. Sony has no power over any of the big 3rd party publishers.
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
I mean, those are his principals and I respect them, but there's nothing inherently wrong with what Epic did. Just how there's nothing inherently wrong with Microsoft getting The Ascent, The Medium, or High on Life as Xbox exclusives, or Sony getting Final Fantasy VII and XVI as PlayStation exclusives. It's just part of the business.
Gabe probably responded the way he did because he knew even if EGS were getting those exclusives, they weren't going to do much for it anyway and vast majority of those games would sell on Steam once they became available there. I can see how someone looks at that and then could draw a parallel with Sony/PlayStation, but PlayStation has nowhere near the type of total market share dominance in console gaming (even if just looking at it as PS vs Xbox, let alone Nintendo) the way Steam does in PC gaming. There's no PC storefront that's 2nd place with the type of presence Xbox has in console gaming, so Sony (and Microsoft) still have an incentive to compete through getting 3P deals.
Also I understand how for PC gamers it may be annoying when Epic does those deals but it comes with the territory. At least you don't have to pay anything extra for EGS, it's not like buying multiple consoles.
Microsoft growing with their GP strategy has caveats. Like you said they still need the actual games to come out, and regularly, to stimulate growth particularly on console, but increasing MAUs means nothing if revenue is stalling or dropping. They'll have to finally start closing the loopholes, lower the redemption value on MS Reward points and maybe offer 1-year Game Pass & GPU plans to compensate, if they want growth where it really matters.
They're probably also afraid of a reality where, if they're forced to grow Game Pass with what they have, they lose a talking point in the case they ever wanted to try other gaming acquisitions, because they can't any longer say they need the acquisition to grow Game Pass. They'd be proving by then they can do it as-is. Which is the better outcome for us, but it'd require Microsoft to give something up and corporations generally don't like giving up any possible advantage, even if it's a theoretical one.
I think if the deal fails, it's ABK who need to reestablish a better working relationship with Sony, not the other way around. Sony doesn't really "need" ABK: Microsoft are technically right when they say that. However, ABK doesn't really "need" Microsoft, and the only instance where they would is if they completely burned the bridge with Sony. But that would only be at risk of happening due to Microsoft's involvement in something like say a drawn-out acquisition process that ends in failure. And by that point, ABK would need to figure out what they want long-term. Sony gives them a very stable ecosystem with signs of clear growth building on top of previous generational success. Microsoft gives them a struggling platform hoping to stabilize into something that can show healthy growth in the future, due to multiple generations of questionable success or outright failure.
Activision's brand grew thanks not just to COD but also COD's association with 360 back in 7th gen, and PS4 in 8th gen. I think Activision knows this well, and they can see that PS5 is clearly taking charge in the 10th-gen race between them and Xbox Series. Do Activision want to risk letting COD lose brand strength by not associating with the stronger console brand in marketing? Do they want to risk a competitor like EA possibly taking that spot with Battlefield? Again I know Microsoft have argued some of this in one form or another in the court battles, mainly to show why Sony doesn't "need" COD.
But Sony not "needing" COD is only half the story, because it's not that COD just ceases to exist in the market as a franchise: it's Microsoft who would then own COD and would have every reason to (eventually) use it for their chief benefit, why Sony would no longer have it. And all of the 3-year or 10-year licensing deals were going to lead to that reality anyway, otherwise why offer a licensing deal for a fixed amount of time in the first place?
Oh, and someone else (I don't know if it was here or not) made a good point asking about what the licensing deal is even for? It's Microsoft who would need a license to publish games on PlayStation and on the digital storefront. Did MS mean "licensing deal" as in marketing rights? Would they really have offered Sony up to 10 years of marketing rights (with the terms as they currently are, which prevent Day 1 release of COD into competing subscription services like Game Pass) beyond whatever Sony already have signed? I think if those were the terms Sony would probably not have an issue with the deal, but that also means Microsoft loses out on a central asset to their planned strategy with the acquired content.
But IMO it's not COD being gone off PS as to why that scenario would present serious problems for the brand. It's the fact that a direct competitor would have the game and could leverage it to aggressively push a game subscription service that only a company like them could justify strategy-wise for a long period (because gaming revenue is virtually nothing compared to the money they make from non-gaming parts of the company), and push smaller competitors to either step aside from that market altogether, or bleed out of money trying to match Microsoft's value/pricing proposition.
Aaron's barely competent at running a Twitter account, he'd be a disaster trying to run Xbox. Sarah actually runs the Game Pass side of things so they are a generally good close equivalent to Phil Spencer in terms of responsibilities, if I had to guess.
Last edited:
James Sawyer Ford
Member
Too tough to enforce, likely won’t happen
Banjo64
cumsessed
MasterCornholio
Member
From the regulators point of view making COD 3rd party means they have to rely on income from the game to stay in business. This means that excluding other platforms would hurt them pretty badly.
Now if that company was owned by a trillion dollar company that changes.
tpieman2029
Member
It would be bond or booty not greenburg lol
Sanepar
Member
So the deal will fail.
MasterCornholio
Member
Only if they are not willing to give up COD. Seems like that's the main focus of the regulators.
Last edited:
Cheezewizz
Banned
It's the kind of entertainment you can't find anywhere else. I figured that once the CMA announced that it wasn't on board with the acquisition, that the laughingstock would be those who were confident it would pass with no concessions, even moreso those who were in denial about it.
Instead, it's been those who were confident it wouldn't go through who became the laughingstock. The last several pages has been a hilarious mix of high fives and retellings of their Xbox collapse wetdreams.
It's pretty clear he's referring to the group of people who've suddenly become fortune tellers. It's all the same narrative for the most part, and it's abundantly clear who they're referring to... even to you. Otherwise you wouldn't know it's the cobbled together ramblings of a certain segment of people. You playing dumb doesn't make it any less obvious.
Topher
Identifies as young
Last edited:
bentanchorbolt
Banned
I don’t know enough about how these things work since I’ve chosen to focus on other aspects of life, but couldn’t they force MS to sell CoD if they fail to keep CoD multiplat?
Cheezewizz
Banned
I wasn't me who was playing dumb.
Topher
Identifies as young
Cheezewizz
Banned
Sounds like projecting to me.Sounded like a temper tantrum to me
Nothing1234
Banned
Marketing deals and third party exclusives are not illegal.
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
Most likely Sarah Bond or an externally hired person.
But, seriously, what I wouldn't give to see Aaron Greenberg be the head of Xbox
I never knew I needed this until now 
3liteDragon
Member
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
demigod
Member
When the deal gets blocked again on Tuesday, I can see you coming back saying "according to plan".
Nothing1234
Banned
I wonder how long it will be to know what remedies Microsoft offer to the CMA.
EDIT: Salt?
EDIT: Salt?
Last edited:
DrFigs
Member
This is extremely lame of him. Who cares if some guy is leaking this stuff on a forum.
Last edited:
pasterpl
Member
Did any of you read the post I was replying to?
pasterpl
Member
It is defo something stronger than weed /s
Ar¢tos
Member
Marketshare advantage, as in "I have 2x more consoles out there than Ms, you would have more sales by having your game associated with Playstation than with Xbox, so I'll do marketing of your game and give some funding to alleviate the pressure on your wallet, if you "focus the development effort on the ps5 version first"".
Nothing illegal in deals like this, immoral maybe.
Nobody said that, stop cherry picking sentences from several posts to have MS play poor helpless victim.
demigod
Member
Its not that big a leap really, FTC, CMA, EU have rubber stamped Sony as market leader and the aggressive anti consumer actions that helped them get into that position.
If you are Sony why wouldnt you continue snapping up studios and moneyhatting exclusivity deals to strangle your competitors further, back to business as usual.
Last edited:
MasterCornholio
Member
This was never about marketing deals or timed exclusives. The CMA focused on the impact of Microsoft buying an extremely large multiplatform publisher.
ArcaneNLSC
Member
That's all that I can think of. If the CMA, EC and FTC approved the deal without any concessions, I doubt they would be doing this.
Ass of Can Whooping
Gold Member
Smells like bad cheese to me. Poorly processed by a sore loser.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked