Support NeoGAF

[Astray]

If we're seeing this level of contentiousness today, what will happen when we reach April 18th?

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

Phil Spencer has been leading Xbox Studios since March 2014. That's 9 years now.

Nah, he got promoted and started reporting directly to Nadella in 2017 or 2018. That’s when he actually started calling the shots and that’s when you started to see a shift in the vision of Xbox.

When are you going to stop manufacturing apologies for almost a decade of Phil Spencer running the show on everything Xbox?

I wasn’t aware pointing out facts and correcting you = “making excuses”. Maybe you’re unaware of how corporate structure works. It explains your ignorance but doesn’t excuse it.

Let me guess, you think all the failures on Halo Infinite after being delayed for a full year, Fable being in development hell and having nothing to show after 5 years in the making, Perfect Dark having nothing to show 3 years after the first official teaser trailer, The Coalition not having anything to show 4 years after Gears 5, Starfield getting delayed by (at least) a year, etc. and Phil Spencer apologizing and promising "this year was bad but next year is going to be great" for 7 years straight.. was all Don Mattrick's fault.

I blame Halo on the people who made the game. It’s the only thing that actually released and can be judged. And even with the issues, it was quite good. The rest of that is just nonsense based on tales from your ass.

No, you're missing the point. Throwing money is what Microsoft has been doing to buy new studios with established IPs, while being shit at managing their studios. They need to stop being shit at managing their studios because then they wouldn't even need to throw more money at new studios.

They aren’t shit at managing the studios though. Also, they are going to be acquiring studios regardless. As recently as six years ago they barely had anything. Unless you want each of their tiny number of studios to have five teams?

They'd stop being shit at managing their studios if they changed their culture of massive usage of subcontractors, which messes with task continuity and knowledge retention, and over-reliance on government subsidies / public funding which messes with milestones because they stall waiting for call results. This has been reported by several former developers that worked for Xbox Studios.

And we’ve had plenty of devs from their studios say positive things. More tales from your ass.

It's a corporate culture of maximizing returns on cheaper development (public funding) and low risk (subcontractors) that messes with any form of project management, and Phil Spencer is very much guilty of following that culture for 9 years.

Literally every company wants to lessen risk and maximize returns.

But can warriors here please pick a narrative and stick with it? Xbox is too intrusive, Xbox is too hands off. Xbox is too linear in their vision, Xbox teams have no idea what they want to make. Xbox needs to stop showing games that aren’t ready. Hey Xbox, where are all these games that are still a ways off? Xbox is going to just have small GamePass cheap filler. Hey Xbox, why are you taking a long time making these big games and using contractors and such? Xbox should focus on their own studios and stop buying others!! Hey Xbox, why has Coalition been supporting other studios and not making a game? That’s horrible management!

I could go on and on. They are literally never going to satisfy some of you here so why do you keep up the charade?

And if you think this isn't going to infect Activision's studios the same way it's already begun infecting Bethesda's, because of all those "lifetime achievement awards" that Phil Spencer keeps buying I mean winning, I have a bridge to sell you.

It affected Bethesda how? Because their game got delayed? Jesus fucking Christ

Also since when is contracting work out on a game a bad thing? Did anyone care when over 1,000 people worked on Last of Us 2? I’ve never seen someone complain about that. Is this another one of those things that is terrible when MS does it but when Sony does, thatwasdifferent.gif?

 

[Thirty7ven]

A PS5 version would never be allowed to outperform a Series version for starters. They would be incentivized to shift tech priorities to focus on what Xbox does better for example. They would have no interest in spending resources to explore PlayStation specific features.

Possibility of PSVR2 support for a COD title would be instantly eliminated.

CMA and FTC showing intent on blocking or full blown structural remedies says it all. Hell there’s still the possibility EC demands behavioral remedies for all AB games. There are so many alarm bells being raised and we got peeps online saying “Trust Ms bro”

 

[Heisenberg007]

The developer/publisher of the game so as not to receive refund requests for a product they're selling.

The whole line of argument is petty and defending it is borderline nihilism.

The only way Sony can say something like that with even the remotest of confidence is if it happens for games they put out on multiple platforms and they can say with first hand experience.

lol, the publisher of the game would be Microsoft. There is a conflict of interest there, and an incentive to make Xbox versions better. Sony has already addressed it in the doc.

Besides, that's not even the point. The point is that compliance with behavioral remedies has to be ensured by regulatory bodies approving said behavioral remedies. So my question, once again, is: who will ensure compliance if there are bugs in COD PS5? The CMA, right? And are they expected to play the game every time a new game and patch is released?

 

[DeepEnigma]

lol, the publisher of the game would be Microsoft. There is a conflict of interest there, and an incentive to make Xbox versions better. Sony has already addressed it in the doc.

Besides, that's not even the point. The point is that compliance with behavioral remedies has to be ensured by regulatory bodies approving said behavioral remedies. So my question, once again, is: who will ensure compliance if there are bugs in COD PS5? The CMA, right? And are they expected to play the game every time a new game and patch is released?

This publisher,

Microsoft Wants Bethesda Games 'First or Better or Best' on Xbox - IGN

Microsoft says that Bethesda games coming to cross-platform will be 'first or better or best' on an Xbox console or platform.

www.ign.com

They only have themselves to blame for putting this out into the public when they did.

 

[Heisenberg007]

If we're seeing this level of contentiousness today, what will happen when we reach April 18th?

 

[Heisenberg007]

This publisher,

Microsoft Wants Bethesda Games 'First or Better or Best' on Xbox - IGN

Microsoft says that Bethesda games coming to cross-platform will be 'first or better or best' on an Xbox console or platform.

www.ign.com

Exactly!

I swear, this acquisition, if blocked, will be because of all these Microsoft statements after Zenimax's acquisition lol.

 

[Astray]

The developer/publisher of the game so as not to receive refund requests for a product they're selling.

What if you are a trillion dollar company that doesn't really get affected by said refund requests though?

 

[Kenshin775]

Nobody ever disputed that, it's how the business has always operated (its how many industries operate in fact - ever wonder why certain fast food chains only offer Coca Cola products and not Pepsi ones?).

So if they wanted to do that kind of deal they've always had the opportunity to try.

Fair enough.

For everyone else that asked my point of that post was to point out its part of the regulatory organizations job to determine if this deal would harm consumers obviously. Keeping games multiplatform(with a signed agreement to ensure there are no shenanigans) doesn't harm consumers as much as blocking deals would. So it doesn't make much sense to allow blocking deals but deny this deal.

 

[laynelane]

As I've said all along. This is a battle against Game Pass or services like it. Sony does not want to change their business model to compete, yet somehow MS should? It's such a weak argument.

It's MS that needs to be able to compete which is why they should be allowed to buy as many publishers as they want. It's their only path to success, not Game Pass. Don't you remember that?

 

[adamsapple]

lol, the publisher of the game would be Microsoft. There is a conflict of interest there, and an incentive to make Xbox versions better. Sony has already addressed it in the doc.

But they're selling a product, why would they deliberately sell a worse version to a big portion of the audience. It's not like any meaningful number of PS owners will buy Xbox just because of the possibility of bugs in the final level of CoD.

So my question, once again, is: who will ensure compliance if there are bugs in COD PS5? The CMA, right? And are they expected to play the game every time a new game and patch is released?

Oh I'm sure if there's even a single digit percentage difference in performance if CoD is published by MS, people will let CMA/FTC/EU know all about it via multiple public mediums.

What if you are a trillion dollar company that doesn't really get affected by said refund requests though?

The CoD games sell enough that mass incident reports will be a big issue, we know that.

 

[Astray]

This publisher,

Microsoft Wants Bethesda Games 'First or Better or Best' on Xbox - IGN

Microsoft says that Bethesda games coming to cross-platform will be 'first or better or best' on an Xbox console or platform.

www.ign.com

They only have themselves to blame for putting this out into the public when they did.

I genuinely believe that if this ATVI deal dies, the Bethesda deal (and how MS/Spencer handled it) is gonna be the direct cause.

In that case, Starfield better sell a loooooot of them consoles.

 

[Heisenberg007]

Fair enough.

For everyone else that asked my point of that post was to point out its part of the regulatory organizations job to determine if this deal would harm consumers obviously. Keeping games multiplatform(with a signed agreement to ensure there are no shenanigans) doesn't harm consumers as much as blocking deals would. So it doesn't make much sense to allow blocking deals but deny this deal.

Timed exclusivity deals for one-off games here and there =/= Buying ABK and potentially making COD permanent exclusive.

I'm sure if Sony or MS attempts to make Call of Duty a permanent exclusive (or even a timed exclusive) via a marketing deal, they will face similar problems. But they of course won't face those problems when they are making Sifu or High On Life timed exclusives.

 

[GHG]

That's like saying you're not allowed to let customers at least be advised that in 10 years they may have to switch brands, but its ok to do it months before.

That's got nothing to do with it, mutually beneficial contracts happen across the industry all the time.

But if you're saying that in 10 years consumers will be forced to switch brands because of Microsoft opting to purchase activision outright instead of attempting to get the game on gamepass (or even exclusive) via means that are 100% legal in business terms and in a way that would allow other industry participants a fair opportunity to negotiate with Activision in similar fashion, then that's exactly why the deal is being given the scrutiny it currently is.

 

[Elios83]

https://www.equityreport.co.uk/cma-...icrosoft-activision-blizzard-merger-decision/

CMA prepared to diverge from other regulators conclusions on the Activision deal.
Not good a sign for MS.

 

[Astray]

The CoD games sell enough that mass incident reports will be a big issue, we know that.

Dude we are talking about a trillion dollar company here, they will deploy the PR army and immediately drown out all opposition.

You can see it happening in the ChatGPT criticism storm that's happening.

 

[Ozriel]

Buying up the largest third party publishers to play takeaway of games they would already have, does.

Hard to 'extinguish' the competition with Bethesda games (regulators certainly don't think that), and a multiplatform Call of Duty.

That's ... not even the point.

If there are bugs in the PS5 version, who would ensure compliance for parity between the two platforms, and how? Will the CMA play the game after release and every time a patch is released?

We've had a decade of Minecraft performing just as well on PS as on Xbox. Not to mention Deathloop and Ghostwire, or even DLC for Fallout 76, Doom Eternal and ESO.

If there are egregious bugs only in the Playstation release, reviewers, consumers and Sony would pick that up and file a complaint with the 3rd party monitoring entity...and Microsoft would face penalties.

What if you are a trillion dollar company that doesn't really get affected by said refund requests though?

Trillion dollar companies don't like getting raked over the coals by regulators.


Now to sit back and await my next LOL emoji from Ezekiel_ . Don't delay!

 

[Heisenberg007]

But they're selling a product, why would they deliberately sell a worse version to a big portion of the audience. It's not like any meaningful number of PS owners will buy Xbox just because of the possibility of bugs in the final level of CoD.

Oh I'm sure if there's even a single digit percentage difference in performance if CoD is published by MS, people will let CMA/FTC/EU know all about it via multiple public mediums.

The CoD games sell enough that mass incident reports will be a big issue, we know that.

There is nothing about sabotaging the games deliberately. Sony never said that. They are only talking about the possibility that there may be bugs in the PS5 versions, which can go undetected.

Remember, this document is not Sony convincing the CMA to block the deal. It's about them convincing that behavioral remedies are not a good option and that the CMA should stick with their original decision, i.e., divestment or prohibition. On the other hand, MS is convincing the CMA, through this document, that behavioral remedies is a viable option.

Look at it from that perspective.

This is just Sony saying that bugs is one of the reasons why behavioral remedies is not a good option, as ensuring compliance would be a challenge for the CMA. And Sony is right. The CMA can't play and verify the PS5 version every time a patch is released. That's not sustainable.

 

[Heisenberg007]

We've had a decade of Minecraft performing just as well on PS as on Xbox. Not to mention Deathloop and Ghostwire, or even DLC for Fallout 76, Doom Eternal and ESO.

If there are egregious bugs only in the Playstation release, reviewers, consumers and Sony would pick that up and file a complaint with the 3rd party monitoring entity...and Microsoft would face penalties.

Minecraft was never subject to behavioral remedies that a regulatory body would have to ensure parity compliance for.

There is nothing about sabotaging the games deliberately. Sony never said that. They are only talking about the possibility that there may be bugs in the PS5 versions, which can go undetected.

Remember, this document is not Sony convincing the CMA to block the deal. It's about them convincing that behavioral remedies are not a good option and that the CMA should stick with their original decision, i.e., divestment or prohibition. On the other hand, MS is convincing the CMA, through this document, that behavioral remedies is a viable option.

Look at it from that perspective.

This is just Sony saying that bugs is one of the reasons why behavioral remedies is not a good option, as ensuring compliance would be a challenge for the CMA. And Sony is right. The CMA can't play and verify the PS5 version every time a patch is released. That's not sustainable.

 

[adamsapple]

There is nothing about sabotaging the games deliberately. Sony never said that. They are only talking about the possibility that there may be bugs in the PS5 versions, which can go undetected.

But, again, that is a very common part of game development. Almost all multi-platform games have some unknown variables in either version. No game ever released is 100% identical and 100% bug free on any platform.

It is an unreasonable ask from any publisher or developer.

Remember, this document is not Sony convincing the CMA to block the deal. It's about them convincing that behavioral remedies are not a good option and that the CMA should stick with their original decision, i.e., divestment or prohibition. On the other hand, MS is convincing the CMA, through this document, that behavioral remedies is a viable option.

Look at it from that perspective.

This is just Sony saying that bugs is one of the reasons why behavioral remedies is not a good option, as ensuring compliance would be a challenge for the CMA. And Sony is right. The CMA can't play and verify the PS5 version every time a patch is released. That's not sustainable.

I may be mistaken but IIRC the wording from Sony in todays documents says either the deal should be opposed or structural remedies must be ensured, I might be mistaken but it sounds like they're open to it if reasonable enough structural remedies are applied.

To address the competitive damage caused to consoles and the cloud, the transaction must be prohibited or subject to a structural remedy."

 

[DeepEnigma]

As I've said all along. This is a battle against Game Pass or services like it. Sony does not want to change their business model to compete, yet somehow MS should? It's such a weak argument.

So the "market leader™" has to change to the race to the bottom tactics of the "last place, 3rd place, 4th or 5th, who's counting, Staya clearly isn't company™," not the other way around? MS should not expect to do better and not play takeaway with Windows money?

You are better than this.

Indeed.

 

[Gobjuduck]

Bobby is not the negotiating party here, Microsoft are.

You keep swinging and missing. Kotick doesn’t work for MS.

Never said he did… also, yet

"Suddenly, Sony's entire leadership team stopped talking to anyone at Microsoft. I think this is all Sony just trying to sabotage the transaction. The whole idea that we are not going to support a PlayStation or that Microsoft would not support the PlayStation, it is absurd.” -kotik

 

[silent head]

Mr. Spencer

 

[DarkMage619]

But you're saying that there are evidences of Microsoft breaking other contracts and getting fined for those, right?

Name one gaming contract broken sir. Just one. I've named several contracts and agreements they've honored.

 

[demigod]

err, yeah? that’s been going on forever, what’s your point here exactly? Xbox does it too and still does (STALKER 2, etc.) + IIRC they started the practice of keeping content exclusive back on 360? do people not remember the whole play the new Call of Duty map packs first on Xbox 360 marketing?

IIRC, it was 30 days first on 360.

 

[Ozriel]

Minecraft was never subject to behavioral remedies that a regulatory body would have to ensure parity compliance for.

Right. and the conversation was about slipping major bugs in a popular multiplatform title owned by Xbox to push customers to their ecosystem.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Hard to 'extinguish' the competition with Bethesda games (regulators certainly don't think that), and a multiplatform Call of Duty.

They bought Bethesda (one of the largest), they are buying the very largest 3rd party publisher with tons of storied IPs, and they went on record prior to this saying they weren't going to stop there. EEE is alive and well.

 

[Heisenberg007]

But, again, that is a very common part of game development. Almost all multi-platform games have some unknown variables in either version. No game ever released is 100% identical and 100% bug free on any platform.

It is an unreasonable ask from any publisher or developer.



I may be mistaken but IIRC the wording from Sony in todays documents says either the deal should be opposed or structural remedies must be ensured, I might be mistaken but it sounds like they're open to it if reasonable enough structural remedies are applied.

To address the competitive damage caused to consoles and the cloud, the transaction must be prohibited or subject to a structural remedy."

Structural remedy is divestment.

So they are saying either prohibit or stick with structural remedy (divestment).

 

[jm89]

https://www.equityreport.co.uk/cma-...icrosoft-activision-blizzard-merger-decision/

CMA prepared to diverge from other regulators conclusions on the Activision deal.
Not good a sign for MS.

CMA "hold the liiiiiine

 

[GHG]

Mr. Spencer

 

[adamsapple]

...............................

 

[GHG]

...............................

Your future wife after Phil gets the boot.

 

[Heisenberg007]

Right. and the conversation was about slipping major bugs in a popular multiplatform title owned by Xbox to push customers to their ecosystem.

It's not about "slipping major bugs." Sony's point stands even if bugs appear on the PS5 version unintentionally, which is a common thing.

If the CMA approves this with behavioral remedies, it will be their responsibility to make sure that both these versions have parity, and bugs aren't only appearing on the PS5. They will have to play the PS5 game every time a new patch is released to ensure that and sign-off that, "yes, patch 1.09 of COD PS5 still maintains parity with COD 1.09 on Xbox Series X."

That's not practically possible, according to Sony, and would be a challenge.

 

[adamsapple]

Your future wife after Phil gets the boot.

See that mountain, you can climb it.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Never said he did… also, yet

"Suddenly, Sony's entire leadership team stopped talking to anyone at Microsoft. I think this is all Sony just trying to sabotage the transaction. The whole idea that we are not going to support a PlayStation or that Microsoft would not support the PlayStation, it is absurd.” -kotik

"We trust Bobby when we don't."

 

[NickFire]

https://www.equityreport.co.uk/cma-...icrosoft-activision-blizzard-merger-decision/

CMA prepared to diverge from other regulators conclusions on the Activision deal.
Not good a sign for MS.

I wonder if it was a coincide that we got Starfield's release date on the same day this article dropped a week after MS and CMA met?

 

[GHG]

See that mountain, you can climb it.

And my cave opening is waiting to be explored.

 

[Gobjuduck]

"We trust Bobby when we don't."

Why would bobby lie. Sony could have easily made a response saying they’ve been trying to negotiate with ABK and Microsoft. Sony is the difficult party, anything else is a lie

 

[DeepEnigma]

Why would bobby lie.

Saint Bobby, the man who was a piece of shit lying ass cunt that MS needed to rescue his employees from. Stick to a script.

 

[Hendrick's]

 

[Hendrick's]

It's MS that needs to be able to compete which is why they should be allowed to buy as many publishers as they want. It's their only path to success, not Game Pass. Don't you remember that?

That's my point. Let them both compete the way they want.

 

[bender]

Mr. Spencer

 

[Elios83]

I wonder if it was a coincide that we got Starfield's release date on the same day this article dropped a week after MS and CMA met?

I don't think Starfield's release date can have any impact on regulators in either sense. Its exclusivity status certainly had a negative impact though.
I think the release date announcement was just a necessity, we're in March, they couldn't hide the delay for much longer with just 3 months until the end of the promised 1H2023.

 

[DeepEnigma]

 

[Topher]

 

[Hendrick's]

So the "market leader™" has to change to the race to the bottom tactics of the "last place, 3rd place, 4th or 5th, who's counting, Staya clearly isn't company™," not the other way around? MS should not expect to do better and not play takeaway with Windows money?

Indeed.

See my last post. Not what I said.

 

[adamsapple]

 

[Helghan]

That's ... not even the point.

If there are bugs in the PS5 version, who would ensure compliance for parity between the two platforms, and how? Will the CMA play the game after release and every time a patch is released?

Well Microsoft since they said they would… if you can’t trust the parties if the contact than anything can be thrown away. Then they could also just not release cod on PlayStation…

This whole argument is just so ridiculous

 

[Gobjuduck]

Saint Bobby, the man who was a piece of shit lying ass cunt that MS needed to rescue his employees from. Stick to a script.

and I get the mod warning for clowning around.. lol

 

[DeepEnigma]

and I get the mod warning for clowning around.. lol

I am only repeating the very arguments that were used in this thread with the PR script kept getting updated on the fly. Fans were saying Bobby Kotick is a lying piece of shit who covers ups scandals and treats his very employees like shit and that MS needed to buy ABK to better their conditions. But he says something something BS PR about Sony, then, In Bobby We Trust.

Your post that you got warned for was just retarded.