Little Chicken
Gold Member
"THIS ISN'T WHAT WE MEANT WHEN WE SAID COMPETITION!!!" - Sony.
Jim Ryan seething.
Jim Ryan seething.
Microsoft / Activision Deal Approval Watch |OT| (MS/ABK close)
- Status
Indeed not a good sign from them.
It means they're not willing to offer anything more than the 10 years thing which is considered to be not enough and far less than what CMA (and probably EU as well) asked.
I think it's just not the right parties, I think the bigger issue is still cloud streaming players.
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
That's the big takeaway -- that even after all the objections, Microsoft still doesn't want to offer anything beyond the 10-year deal. That's their limit for keeping COD multiplatform.
And since the CMA has already kind of rejected/downplayed this 10-year deal, it looks even more likely now that the deal will fail.
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
By the way, this deal was signed on December 07, 2022.
Brad sharing this on the eve of their meeting with EC, passing it as if this is something new, is just another attempt to manipulate the regulators and garner public sympathy in favor of the deal.
pasterpl
Member
One have nothing to do with the other. What these mass layoffs have to do with unions now? Worth MS will be spending 1.2b on severance packages for those laid off.
Companies with unions do lay off people as well, you know that? That’s why I don’t see connection.
User I was replying suggested that high % of this 10k people were from Xbox division. I would like to see link to that breakdown. Or we have got another made stats from this user just to spread his made up agenda.
Last edited:
DenchDeckard
Moderated wildly
Very clever move, if this was their intention from the beginning by signing in December it looks even more positive and brings this move to the forefront of people's minds just before they meet up.
Pretty genius really. Now everyone will be like, CMA has stopped cod on Nintendo etc and sided with Sony.
Banjo64
cumsessed
That’s outrageous.
MasterCornholio
Member
CMA hasn't stopped anything. Activision can still release COD on Nintendo platforms if they want to. They probably will if its possible and makes financial sense.
pasterpl
Member
I am sure that guy with CV like Brad Smith doesn’t know that he is doing. He should get his strategy and offer regulators stuff that was suggested in this thread.
TheGodfather07
Member
Did Microsoft not understand the CMA?
Banjo64
cumsessed
They’ve quoted Brad Samms in their submissions brother
Warablo
Member
A yearly released game will only get 3-4 games max? I dare say the ball park is more 7-9 games.
Nothing1234
Banned
Should be streamed live on Twitch.
PaintTinJr
Member
Giving more thought to "we need CoD to compete" against a claim of a 10year deal for a status quo for CoD - but owned by MSFT, instead - you have to wonder if Xbox's internal development cycle is 1 game every 11years, because with a 5year development cycle per new game they could be competing sooner by just making games with multiple teams at CoD or AC release cadence and still have 3years to spare from that 10years.
I just finished reading a really great book with a perfect AC like means of new bi-yearly game instalments - from an unknown author that ITV/BBC will probably sign and ruin with a poor production TV show - and I have to wonder if anyone in the gamepass team has an actual job of looking for material to drop $200m-500m on to let them compete even with Ubi/EA or Bethesda pre-acquisition, etc - IIRC the brilliant Death Stranding was based on a book Kojima read and music he was listening to.
It's probably very different for anyone that buys Xbox for Xbox's first party output they love, but even taking PlayStation output out of the equation I'd struggle to pickup an Xbox first, in preference to a 3rd party publisher console if competing with first party game content was the only thing to compare in an alternate market universe.
From what people have quoted from the CMA (current document) it seems the CMA are trying to make a similar point too. Hopefully if this deal fails - or passes symbolically with net zero impact to competition due to remedies - Xbox will finally take the hint to emulate and surpass PlayStation for delivering new game experiences/stories by taking regulators' criticisms onboard.
I just finished reading a really great book with a perfect AC like means of new bi-yearly game instalments - from an unknown author that ITV/BBC will probably sign and ruin with a poor production TV show - and I have to wonder if anyone in the gamepass team has an actual job of looking for material to drop $200m-500m on to let them compete even with Ubi/EA or Bethesda pre-acquisition, etc - IIRC the brilliant Death Stranding was based on a book Kojima read and music he was listening to.
It's probably very different for anyone that buys Xbox for Xbox's first party output they love, but even taking PlayStation output out of the equation I'd struggle to pickup an Xbox first, in preference to a 3rd party publisher console if competing with first party game content was the only thing to compare in an alternate market universe.
From what people have quoted from the CMA (current document) it seems the CMA are trying to make a similar point too. Hopefully if this deal fails - or passes symbolically with net zero impact to competition due to remedies - Xbox will finally take the hint to emulate and surpass PlayStation for delivering new game experiences/stories by taking regulators' criticisms onboard.
D A R K
Member
Microsoft's stealing of IPs has nothing to do with competition
Coulomb_Barrier
Member
MS continuing to play a PR game by publicly focusing on COD and ignoring the other glaring aspects of the CMA (and FTC, EC) concerns.
Like their cloud dominance. And the PC gaming OS monopoly, both have been specifically mentioned in the statements from the regulatory bodies. But it's easier for MS to make positive headlines by promising to put a franchise that you don't own on a console that you are not really competing with
Like their cloud dominance. And the PC gaming OS monopoly, both have been specifically mentioned in the statements from the regulatory bodies. But it's easier for MS to make positive headlines by promising to put a franchise that you don't own on a console that you are not really competing with
Ar¢tos
Member
Didn't they change to 2 years?
Adding eventual delays makes it 3-4 games.
Mr Moose
Member
There was a rumour Treyarchs would be a year later than it should be after Sledgehammers shit CoD, but then MW2 came out and broke records.
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
I know you are trying to be sarcastic, but they really don't know what they are doing. Otherwise, this would have been smooth sailing, wouldn't it?
Also, Brad Smith is the guy who compared Sony with Blockbuster (dead) and Microsoft/Xbox with Netflix (the killer of Blockbuster), which helped CMA establish that this acquisition is anti-competitive.
And Brad is also the guy that the CMA quoted twice -- and both instances damaged Microsoft's case.
The first statement threw out Microsoft's claim that this acquisition is primarily for King and the want to compete against Google and Apple. His second statement helped CMA discard Nintendo as a direct competitor, leaving only Sony as the affected party in the gaming console market. lol.
So, yeah, Brad really doesn't know what he is doing lol. That's why they are losing this case.
Last edited:
Clintizzle
Lord of Edge.
$60+ billion for IP's is definitely what I'd consider a "steal".
Absolute bargain. Practically free.
PaintTinJr
Member
Can you imagine trying to make an argument to regulators that buying ATVI isn't to foreclose competitors - that have listed theories of harm - while comparing the deal to the situation that foreclosed Blockbuster?
Nothing1234
Banned
That was a frightening lack of awareness.
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
Right? Absolutely genius that was.
Nothing1234
Banned
Please tell me Microsoft are not going to use “10 years of COD” as the only remedy.
Rick Dangerous
Banned
To think that Microsoft already owns Minecraft, Doom, fallout, TES is depressing.
But to think they could own COD, Starcraft, wow, overwatch and so many more is terrifying.
They just should not be able to buy any other company for 10 years min, the same should apply for the other GAFA to limit their power.
But to think they could own COD, Starcraft, wow, overwatch and so many more is terrifying.
They just should not be able to buy any other company for 10 years min, the same should apply for the other GAFA to limit their power.
The_Mike
I cry about SonyGaf from my chair in Redmond, WA
Steam already has call of duty.
Given Microsoft also released Halo Infinite and Age of Empires 2 DE and their other games day one on steam probably doesn't shake Gabes pants.
Microsoft doesn't see Steam as a competitor the same way they see Sony.
Funny that FH 4 costs 70 euro but 5 60 euro. They found out people on pc doesn't pay next gen tax.
Last edited:
DenchDeckard
Moderated wildly
Can we just fast forward this to court please.
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
Unknown Soldier
Member
LMAO 10 years OK.
So in 10 years MS stops developing CoD for Nintendo, not that Nintendo ever cared about CoD in the first place. MS must really think the regulators are stupid to think this would somehow convince them to let the acquisition go through when they weren't before. The regulators want something equivalent to MS guaranteeing multiplatform status for CoD in perpetuity, or divestment of all assets and studios related to CoD before acquisition closes. Promising to develop CoD for 10 years on Nintendo has literally nothing to do with what regulators actually want. They can't actually believe the regulators are this stupid, which suggests to me this is a pure PR stunt.
The question is why Nintendo agreed to go along with this dog and pony show. They have nothing to gain, Switch literally will never need CoD ever and MS knows it, Sony knows it, Nintendo knows it, and God knows the regulators know it.
So in 10 years MS stops developing CoD for Nintendo, not that Nintendo ever cared about CoD in the first place. MS must really think the regulators are stupid to think this would somehow convince them to let the acquisition go through when they weren't before. The regulators want something equivalent to MS guaranteeing multiplatform status for CoD in perpetuity, or divestment of all assets and studios related to CoD before acquisition closes. Promising to develop CoD for 10 years on Nintendo has literally nothing to do with what regulators actually want. They can't actually believe the regulators are this stupid, which suggests to me this is a pure PR stunt.
The question is why Nintendo agreed to go along with this dog and pony show. They have nothing to gain, Switch literally will never need CoD ever and MS knows it, Sony knows it, Nintendo knows it, and God knows the regulators know it.
ToadMan
Member
MS still have to play to all of us besides trying to play the regulators. I mean the deal as announced is dead.
Whatever happens next - a neutered deal or the whole thing called off - MS has to come out of it with a positive story to spin.
This Nintendo offer is a “good guy MS” play for social media and costs MS nothing right now. Promises of future performance are basically unenforceable.
The regulators won’t care - they already recognise that Nintendo isn’t MS competition today and is very unlikely to be in future.
Last edited:
ToadMan
Member
It’s worse than just that - this offer is itself fidlding the market.
MS put 10 years of COD on Nintendo creating an audience (which doesn’t exist today - the first reason this “deal” is irrelevant) who then, if they want to continue with the franchise, have to switch to MS platforms assuming MS doesn’t extend.
Last edited:
jm89
Member
I'd imagine whatever contract nintendo sign is one where they probably have to commit to nothing and offer nothing, it's more MS grovelling like dogs offering everything.
Last edited:
PaintTinJr
Member
Probably because when the deal fails and the dust settles, Nintendo customers will be in zero doubt who to blame for the lack of CoD on their consoles going forward.
This is a post failed acquisition strategy to get ATVI to release their games with parity on Nintendo's consoles if they can, and even if ATVI don't change to release on Nintendo's consoles no one will ever waste time tweeting Nintendo about why X big publisher game isn't releasing on their system IMHO.
GHG
Gold Member
Nintendo has nothing to lose in this situation.
MS went to them and basically said "we need to look good with regulators, are you ok if we bring COD to your platforms for 10 years if the deal is approved?"
And Nintendo obviously said "..ok?"
Of course the whole thing will be useless, it's not what regulators want from them and clearly asked for.
Little Chicken
Gold Member
"Stealing"..! When is FFXVI coming out on Xbox and Switch again?
phil_t98
#SonyToo
with Cod launching every year as they do now? that's 10 COD's
MasterCornholio
Member
Sony doesn't own FFXVI. Not the first time I've seen people confuse ownership with an exclusivity deal.
Last edited:
xHunter
Member
Confirmed, PC gamers dont enjoy CoD.
Also why is he saying "Xbox and Activision titles"? Does that mean we can expect more XGS games to come out on other platforms?
phil_t98
#SonyToo
its a 10 year deal with a company that currently does not have COD, we also don't k ow if it has clauses in it for it to roll past the 10 year mark
Thirty7ven
Banned
They keep doing this shit. MS believes power of twitter will be enough to win over regulators.
Last edited:
JLB
Banned
My favorite game last gen was Sunset Overdrive.
So bad you were not so active when Sony bought Insomniac and make it a spiderman line of production factory.
By the way, in that case there were not 10, but 0 years of commitment of releasing games on other platforms.
MasterCornholio
Member
I don't think Nintendo knows for sure either. But if the deal go's through they at least have a guarantee of COD for 10 years on their platform. They don't really lose anything by signing it.
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
Whenever Square Enix decides.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked