Microsoft / Activision Deal Approval Watch |OT| (MS/ABK close)
- Status
Captain Toad
Banned
That's not multi-billion dollar corporations work. Sorry.
Even if they thought it finacially smart to not release Call of Duty on its most popular platform, Microsoft (not just Xbox) would be seen as lying in order to get a deal passed. It would suddenly become even more difficult for the company when considering future acquisitions, even outside of gaming.
Snake29
Banned
And end of Xbox at the same time haha.
DrFigs
Member
Idk what the plan for xbox gamepass really is. I don't see why Sony and Nintendo wouldn't agree to this stripped down version of gamepass. There would be zero reason to buy an xbox though. I think you're right, but then that's not what MS is going for. They clearly want people to buy their consoles, even though they're pushing to get gamepass on tv's and phones, etc. it's very confused i think.
Last edited:
Topher
Identifies as young
I guess we will see if this was enough. If you are right then it won't be. I've always been of the opinion that the deal would get approved. Frankly, I think most regulators just want to show they did something. This will give them that.
Unknown Soldier
Member
Nydius
Member
LOL, please. This is nothing more than Microsoft in full desperation mode throwing whatever shit they have at the wall and hoping it sticks.
They know the respective trade commissions of the EU, UK, and US are opposed to this merger so they're in full on PR blitz mode.
Sony doesn't need to do anything. Every time Microsoft opens their mouth, they sound more desperate.
Generally speaking Jim Ryan has already won, if it wasn't for his bitching COD would have become a Xbox exclusive within 3 years as exposed by their initially proposed "deal".
And we wouldn't see the concessions MS was forced to make towards Nintendo and nVidia.
The worst case scenario for him is that at the very least he's going to get a 10 years deal on COD but he knows there's room for much more and he could get the deal fully blocked or get even more concessions about COD on PS+ and other stuff being included in the deal.
That's what they're fighting for.
The biggest development I see today (in a narrative that so far has as the only narrator Microsoft's PR because they're the only ones with their mouth always open even if it has backfired countless times), is that while the EU's receptivity towards these 10 years deals is currently unknown, it's sure that they're facing a seriously uphill battle with the CMA that has already made clear that these 10 years deals they're shopping around are not enough for them and they want a divestement or something equivalent. This is something Microsoft is not willing to give up and they made it clear today. A deal without controlling COD has no sense for them.
So how are they going to make them change their minds? With broken records argumentations?
Last edited:
Thirty7ven
Banned
Don’t know MS spreading their butt cheeks so wide here you gotta respect the sheer drive.
SneakersSO
Member
There are more nuances to getting GP onto the 3 big platform holdouts for it (Sony/Nintendo/Valve) than just giving them a 30% cut.
MS has already approached all 3 of them with offers on getting GP included. The points of contention aren't against GP, but more of just where the in-game dlc sales will go through (MS store or the platform holders store), what the cut % of all in-game purchases will be, and what the revenue split for total amount of users on the platform who use the service.
MS' positions for these 3 pain points are entirely in their favor in a way that these 3 do not find palatable. Again - Sony/Nintendo/Valve aren't opposed to game subscriptions not being owned by them being allowed on their platform, they just want it on terms that maximize the value for them. MS' terms right now are not the same sort of terms EA Play/Access or Ubisoft+ has presented.
Like i've said earlier - MS is fully aware that their long-term business goals will necessitate platform expansion, which means publishing on Nintendo/PS was always in the cards. They just want to do it with terms that benefit them the most; if MS were to agree to what Sony/Nintendo/Valve currently want, then they'd never be able to renegotiate favorable terms for themselves in the future after they got all that growth they sought.
Last edited:
TheGodfather07
Member
This is pure fanboy fantasy shit right here. peak N4G level.
Last edited:
sainraja
Member
How popular are the stream-only games on Switch that have been released?
I don't know if a stream-only option is going to be super attractive to those without an Xbox, for playing current and future Xbox games.
Microsoft has been put in a position where they have to answer to whatever the regulators are going to propose, but the bolder move in my eyes would have been to fully embrace putting their titles on Nintendo natively (if they were even bolder, they could do that on the PS too).
They have the money to make it happen (of course they will also benefit from the sales on any platform), and what they have been trying to say, "play anywhere you want" would be more true. I don't think this will happen and the closest thing to that has been the Bungie deal with Sony (never saw that coming either).
Last edited:
splattered
Member
If you recall from the epic vs apple case it was revealed that Ms is actively trying to get Gamepass everywhere they can including switch and ps. In no way is Ms signing contracts like this a loss in their eyes, it's a long term goal for them. This whole deal may even be helping them get there faster for whatever reason. I guess Ms has already started winning in some ways before the ActiBlizz purchase has even been approved.
Hendrick's
If only my penis was as big as my GamerScore!
HeisenbergFX4
Gold Member
I just don't get why people keep thinking MS will take COD away from PS as it makes a ton of money there
All MS needs to do is have nice incentives to play on an Xbox and many of the very hardcore COD fans will migrate to Xbox and still keep a huge PS base paying them money
DarkBatman
SBI’s Employee of the Year
Starfield would have made huge bucks on the PS5 as well. But that didn't stop MS from canceling it right after the Bethesda Acquisition.
Yoboman
Member
I mean that was always a possibility early on but the CMA wording was far far harsher than anyone expected. Essentially sell COD or provide the equivalent in behavioural remedies, which they also said they most likely won't look at because of potential loopholes. That's definitely not for show
MS right now is hoping that a favourable result in the EU can swing back influence on the US and UK market regulators. And at this point have said they won't consider the level of remedy that the CMA wants
They are in last ditch effort territory and I'm not sure their last ditch effort here is enough. Today they showed the market share that regulators would already be aware of and reiterated the same 10 year deals they've been talking about for months. Not sure that's going to be enough to sway anyone
Last edited:
HeisenbergFX4
Gold Member
Most likely but COD is already established on PS like Minecraft who they didn't take away from PS
Orbital2060
Member
10 years is an unprecedented offer afaik. Market conditions change all of the time, and you shouldnt make a deal for longer than you can see. Ten years ago CoD was not in the position it is right now. In another ten years things might have changed radically and no one even cares about CoD.
So the 10 year offer should be more than enough for Sony to compete with innovative first party, or make other deals with third parties to compete.
FoxMcChief
Gold Member
I don’t get why some think MS would take CoD away from Sony. They want to make money off those suckers.
sainraja
Member
The thing is, if that was their only goal, there were simpler ways to achieve it. They could have published/announced Xbox only games on third-party platforms (Switch/2 + PS5) which would have established good faith and then acquired A&B. Perhaps they are looking for better negotiating power at the table but given it is MS, I don't think they were planning this. Yes, they want Game Pass, but for competing platforms they were likely planning to offer cloud only.
EDIT
To clarify, they want to push Game Pass and their ecosystem they have created. If getting Game Pass everywhere was the only goal, they could have worked towards doing that earlier, even before A&B were an option for them to buy.
Last edited:
ChorizoPicozo
Member
fear
Varteras
Member
Considering that the Nintendo deal is just Microsoft reiterating a deal they made months ago, meaning the recent Nvidia announcement is the only new ammunition they publicly walked in with, do you think regulators were swayed by this at all? Brad Smith's comments seem to make it clear that Microsoft is not taking this deal if they have to divest CoD. Which you pointed out earlier in this thread was exactly what the CMA was angling on. To put the ball in Microsoft's court and force them to more or less show their hand. The 10-year deals were clearly not enough for them and this recent move shows Microsoft is not interested in going beyond that timeframe. Now, the EC has seemed to be the most likely to agree to less strict remedies and I think there has already been a feeling they would okay the deal if Microsoft made any kind of concessions. But the CMA and FTC are clearly more opposed.
Last edited:
Yoboman
Member
MS can go through the regular publishing channels if they want to put their games on other systems, nobody is blocking them from that and they'd be allowed Gamepass in the vein of EA Play on PS5
MS aren't about to do that though and give a cut of revenue for GP subs to Sony
Thirty7ven
Banned
It’s perfectly reasonable to doubt MS. Minecraft is a game as a platform, it’s not really a game. It has no sequels.
MS could simply stop releasing COD sequels on PlayStation. In fact the initial wording was leaving it open. All these concessions are not what MS meant when they announced the deal.
If Sony announced they were buying T2 you can bet your ass everyone would be thinking GTA was done for on Xbox, now or later, even if Destiny is staying.
Last edited:
FoxMcChief
Gold Member
I put fear in the same place I put my shit and soiled toilet paper with my million toilet paper babies. The potty.
Topher
Identifies as young
FoxMcChief
Gold Member
I need this on my gravestone. Or urn.
Varteras
Member
or urinal
ToadMan
Member
Another side to this is gain vs loss.
Nintendo signed up with MS because for them its a gain - no COD vs COD for a while at least. From Nintendo’s perspective they may as well take the deal.
But Sony is currently only losing with this - they already have COD and it’s a big deal for them.
Now they’re being offered only 10 years and that under MS control, no access to marketing deals and potentially a loss of consumers who decamp to MS platforms because “thats where its made now”.
Until MS can put something on the table that is a gain for sony vs the status quo of today, there is zero reason for them to approve.
Not that it necessarily matters even if Sony does approve.
freefornow
Gold Member
That is the banner that Sony has raised for the army to rally to.
Yoboman
Member
While true they bought that before Gamepass existed and while their entire generational business plan had been thrown out post Xbox One reveal, and we're absolutely needing to maintain the good guy facade
Who knows if they would have done the same if they'd bought Mojang at any other time. The rest of their acquisition history suggests not
Because that's what Phil exposed they wanted to do? 3 years guaranteed COD on Playstation and stop.
He also thought he was generous and that this kind of deal surpassed common business practices, these were his words on twitter
Now he went from that to 10 years for everyone *at the very least*. Things didn't turn out quite like he imagined.
Also the fact that taking away COD from Sony would cost them a lot of money so they wouldn't do it, is a pretty weak guarantee, they would do it if they considered it a long term investement that can damage the competition to the point where the long term reward for them is a dominant position in gaming.
They're losing a lot of money also by not releasing Starfield or ESVI on Playstation but they made that choice anyway.
FoxMcChief
Gold Member
Who told you about my weekends on Fire island!?
Thirty7ven
Banned
The whole “wouldn’t make business sense” is such bs.
When are they getting roi on this 69B deal?
When are they getting roi on this 69B deal?
HeisenbergFX4
Gold Member
I don't remember 3 years and stop as the offerBecause that's what Phil exposed they wanted to do? 3 years guaranteed COD on Playstation and stop.
He also thought he was generous and that this kind of deal surpassed common business practices, these were his words on twitter
Now he went from that to 10 years for everyone *at the very least*. Things didn't turn out quite like he imagined.
Also the fact that taking away COD from Sony would cost them a lot of money so they wouldn't do it, is a pretty weak guarantee, they would do it if they considered it a long term investement that can damage the competition to the point where the long term reward for them is a dominant position in gaming.
They're losing a lot of money also by not releasing Starfield or ESVI on Playstation but they made that choice anyway.
I remember the initial offer was 3 years after the current contract expires and since Phil has said as long as there was a Playstation they would ship COD to it
You mean after sony attempted to take Starfield away first. Don't be pissed Microsoft actually beat them to the punch. Its like walking up to someone punching them in the face and cry when they beat you down. Zenimax is on jimbo for forcing Microsoft to do something by moneyhatting every next generation Zenimax game.
phil_t98
#SonyToo
Because that's what Phil exposed they wanted to do? 3 years guaranteed COD on Playstation and stop.
He also thought he was generous and that this kind of deal surpassed common business practices, these were his words on twitter
Now he went from that to 10 years for everyone *at the very least*. Things didn't turn out quite like he imagined.
Also the fact that taking away COD from Sony would cost them a lot of money so they wouldn't do it, is a pretty weak guarantee, they would do it if they considered it a long term investement that can damage the competition to the point where the long term reward for them is a dominant position in gaming.
They're losing a lot of money also by not releasing Starfield or ESVI on Playstation but they made that choice anyway.
It would cost them money to take it away from Sony but putting it on the other platforms would definatly make them Moby so it’s what would you loose vs what would you gain
HeisenbergFX4
Gold Member
That makes zero sense to take it away from Sony and put it on other platforms
phil_t98
#SonyToo
Yes it does make zero sense I agree. It’s going on other platforms as well.
Draugoth
Gold Member
- Software giant in Brussels showdown with EU officials
- President Brad Smith speaks after day-long hearing on deal
Brad Smith, the current president of Microsoft, said he had rejected the proposal presented by the regulator. According to him, there will be no acquisition of Activision Blizzard without the presence of Call of Duty:
According to Smith: "now it is up to the agency to block the purchase or approve the acquisition with the necessary concessions so that Activision Blizzard games can reach more than 150 million people worldwide" Meanwhile, it seems that Sony has returned to oppose the acquisition, not accepting the 10 years of Call of Duty on PlayStation offered by Microsoft.
Last edited:
Initial deal was just 3 years after current marketing contracts.
And the irony is that Spencer on Twitter was also considering it a sign of fair play.
The intention was to make COD exclusive after a few years. That is abundantly clear.
They just had to revise their goals progressively as the deal faced an uphill battle and now it has become 10 years pretty much for everyone.
Mr Moose
Member
Now do Titanfall.
HerpDerpstreit
Member
Warzone reportedly was make just shy of 2 billion a year a couple of years ago. With that IP alone 30-40 years. I don't think that is the reason this deal was initiated, it's not like M$ needs the money. Market cap to market cap, Sony is worth around 0.05% of Microsoft. as of Feb '23 they are only worth $30 billion more than what is being offered for ABK.
HeisenbergFX4
Gold Member
Yeah well I am sorry I just simply don't get into what a companies intentions are 3-5 years from now
And no it wasn't abundantly clear that is 100% team blue Twitter parroting BS
Anyhow you believe your stuff I will believe my stuff and we will call it a day
SneakersSO
Member
Honestly, the EC has been weird. Some of the language they've used seems super critical of MS, but like the CMA only to a higher degree, they seem far more accepting of behavioral remedies. However, the last things the EC put on the table indicated their impact areas are cloud, console, and subscription services; one of the things the CMA's PF did is they specified that they don't feel subscription services represent a completely new way for consumers to access software, aka its not an entirely independent sub-market of the pre-existing markets they have defined, like console and Cloud.
The issue here is if the EC is still considering subscription services an emerging market they think this deal will competitively impact, that means that they could want a remedy that address that - nothing announced today speaks to that core issue. Getting NVidia on board speaks to the Cloud market concerns both the CMA and the EC outlined in their own ways, but the CMA also specified their concern in the Cloud market goes beyond the participants that are in the market today (Sony/MS/Google (RIP)/Amazon/Nvidia), but also to any potential future entrants into the market, so while the NVidia deal does get them closer on the EC and CMA's concern, it doesn't offer a remedy in offering any new market entrants in cloud.
Finally theres the console market, which seems to be the vector MS wanted to speak to specifically with their points regarding marketshare. The issue here is the one I specifically pointed out: MS cannot simply say "we want to put ATVI's games on MORE platforms" while also saying "There is no way for us to compete against Sony's marketshare lead" - how does this purchase make you more competitive in the console marketshare while you're also doing everything to signal you plan on getting no major exclusivity from this deal? Further, CMA's issue pertaining to the console market specifically speak to the amount of users both they and Sony feel would immediately leave the ecosystem purely if this deal were made and CoD were to somehow go exclusive.
Now, heres the way I look at it: given that Sony had 30m today to explain their position and MS was given 15m (ATVI was also given 15 I believe?), this means that what Brad Smith did in their public display was more than likely more or less what they presented to the regulators today. If thats the case, I doubt the regulators were swayed - these are the same exact arguments MS has been making for 4+ months, at minimum. These were the same arguments they've been making that still led them into these regulatory hurdles, so if these same arguments didn't sway them before, I highly doubt regulators would be swayed now. The fact that MS has tried these last 2 weeks or so to get Sony to the table somehow tells me that MS is fully aware they need to get opposition on board lest the deal gets killed.
Considering MS has been using the public PR angle as their primary pressure tool against their opposition on the deal, I imagine that if MS had curated better terms for Sony, they'd have said so today. In fact, it was MS who has been leaking terms of their deals thus far, so i'm 100% positive if they had created a more 'fair' deal for Sony, they would've shouted it from the rooftops today to add to the public PR pressure campaign. That must mean that a 10-year deal is their ceiling. Not sure if the regulators are gonna bite on that timetable; doesn't seem like the CMA or EC was particularly interested in that before.
Last edited:
ChorizoPicozo
Member
of course is not the money (well it is) but right now is about growing for the gaming division (MAU)
Yoboman
Member
3 year offer was revealed Sep 2022 based on an agreement provided in January 2022, the Spencer statement it "will ship as long as there is a PlayStation" was October 2022
This was all before switching up to 10 year agreement in November 2022
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked