Support NeoGAF

[Varteras]

Told everyone. She is the AOC persona for this political like situation to drum up the emotionally dependents.

Absolutely and you watch these Twitter drones, who wouldn't have given any kind of shit about her existence previously, rallying in support of her unprofessional behavior. Simply because she is slinging mud at someone possibly costing her money and it's the rival of their favorite company. You know that the moment this deal doesn't pass and she's not on Team Green's payroll, or anyone's payroll after this, they'll go back to not even knowing who the hell she is. So she's getting the reception she wants but it's probably not getting the results where it matters like she hoped. I wouldn't be surprised if next she tries a #MeToo moment because Jim Ryan coughed next to her.

 

[SneakersSO]

I think they said the Microsoft proposals were 'nowhere near good enough'? That would suggest something else could be… But it seems not.

They seem to be posturing that they will kill the deal with a block in this case. MS was able to offer behavioral remedies, something the CMA already said in their PF that they are not particularly interested in seeing unless it approximates their stated Structural Remedies, which are divestment of CoD (or divestment of Blizzard & Activision).

MS' proposed behavioral remedies seem to be the 10 year licensing agreement that they've shown to the EC, as well as offering to financially form a 3rd party group to assess technical parity. If the CMA is signaling privately that this isn't enough, and the leak from the outlet I just posted backs that up, then its clear their remedies aren't meeting the bar.

Also not sure why you are so dismissive of an independent group funded by Microsoft - it directly answers their main objection to not accepting a behavioural remedy (too difficult to administer).

Do you think they are so incompetent to propose something as patently ridiculous as you believe it be? Or is there any chance that they have had offline conversations that might give them hope it might fly?

I'm dismissive of an independent group funded by MS because it doesn't speak to any of the findings the CMA actually listed in their PF.

The CMA had 3 primary issues.

1. Impact this deal will have on the nascent cloud market
2. Impact this deal will have on Gaming Subscription Market
3. Impact this deal will have on the console market.

For the 3rd point, the CMA used studies that they had a 3rd party go out and conduct, as well as one Sony provided. MS seemed to have done a study of their own and seemed to have presented it last week to address the point about the console market, but the CMA is not going to take the word of the organization they are assessing over their own findings.

As for point 2, in the PF, the CMA said that they no longer feel that Gaming Subscription Services represent a wholly new way for consumers to get access to gaming software, and is more an extension of the current software distribution paradigm, so this point already resolved itself.

Now as for point 1, MS didn't offer anything to address this. And no - NVidia signing the 10 year deal doesn't do anything for this, because there are a bunch of complexities regarding GeForce Now and whether they are even considered a competitor in the cloud gaming market, since their service is entirely rental based.

The CMA proposed Structural Remedies specifically because they didn't see any other form of remedies that would address their concern. MS effectively ruled this out back in February when they said, during their presentation to the EC, that they will not go through with the purchase if it meant divesting CoD. The formation of an independent group doesn't even begin to address the other ways that MS could easily get around it, stuff that the CMA specifically cited as their reasoning why divestment is the preferred option.

MS needed to create a set of remedies that could begin to approximate the structural remedies the CMA proposed. The 10 year deal and the independent technical assessment group were what they presented. That isn't enough. Heck, one of the things that could've allowed MS to get this deal through even now is if they agreed to have a public licensing agreement that anyone can purchase that would give that entity access rights to CoD, no matter what service or platform you are, at a cost that is determined to be a Fair Wage value. That would cut to the heart of this without having to divest. MS didn't go this route cause it would remove MS' ability to promote CoD as being exclusive to the GP service or xCloud. MS also could've agreed to not remove any development resource currently working on CoD, which again, wasn't offered.

That isn't to say MS is incompetent - never once said that. But its clear what value they are seeking to derive from this deal, based purely on the behavioral agreements they are not willing to offer to get it over the finish line.

 

[Aguero9320]

They seem to be posturing that they will kill the deal with a block in this case. MS was able to offer behavioral remedies, something the CMA already said in their PF that they are not particularly interested in seeing unless it approximates their stated Structural Remedies, which are divestment of CoD (or divestment of Blizzard & Activision).

MS' proposed behavioral remedies seem to be the 10 year licensing agreement that they've shown to the EC, as well as offering to financially form a 3rd party group to assess technical parity. If the CMA is signaling privately that this isn't enough, and the leak from the outlet I just posted backs that up, then its clear their remedies aren't meeting the bar.


I'm dismissive of an independent group funded by MS because it doesn't speak to any of the findings the CMA actually listed in their PF.

The CMA had 3 primary issues.

1. Impact this deal will have on the nascent cloud market
2. Impact this deal will have on Gaming Subscription Market
3. Impact this deal will have on the console market.

For the 3rd point, the CMA used studies that they had a 3rd party go out and conduct, as well as one Sony provided. MS seemed to have done a study of their own and seemed to have presented it last week to address the point about the console market, but the CMA is not going to take the word of the organization they are assessing over their own findings.

As for point 2, in the PF, the CMA said that they no longer feel that Gaming Subscription Services represent a wholly new way for consumers to get access to gaming software, and is more an extension of the current software distribution paradigm, so this point already resolved itself.

Now as for point 1, MS didn't offer anything to address this. And no - NVidia signing the 10 year deal doesn't do anything for this, because there are a bunch of complexities regarding GeForce Now and whether they are even considered a competitor in the cloud gaming market, since their service is entirely rental based.

The CMA proposed Structural Remedies specifically because they didn't see any other form of remedies that would address their concern. MS effectively ruled this out back in February when they said, during their presentation to the EC, that they will not go through with the purchase if it meant divesting CoD. The formation of an independent group doesn't even begin to address the other ways that MS could easily get around it, stuff that the CMA specifically cited as their reasoning why divestment is the preferred option.

MS needed to create a set of remedies that could begin to approximate the structural remedies the CMA proposed. The 10 year deal and the independent technical assessment group were what they presented. That isn't enough. Heck, one of the things that could've allowed MS to get this deal through even now is if they agreed to have a public licensing agreement that anyone can purchase that would give that entity access rights to CoD, no matter what service or platform you are, at a cost that is determined to be a Fair Wage value. That would cut to the heart of this without having to divest. MS didn't go this route cause it would remove MS' ability to promote CoD as being exclusive to the GP service or xCloud. MS also could've agreed to not remove any development resource currently working on CoD to do so, which again, wasn't offered.

That isn't to say MS is incompetent - never once said that. But its clear what value they are seeking to derive from this deal, based purely on the behavioral agreements they are not willing to offer to get it over the finish line.

That's a long (and reasoned) reply and I apologise for not responding in kind (outta time) but I just wanted to say I would agree with you on the independent group if it was the only remedy proposed. But it's not. It's part of a package.

From my reading of the provisional findings Microsoft have put forward a very strong multi pointed proposal that should address all of their concerns, or at least enable further negotiation. Whether they bite, we'll have to wait and see - they have been a bit maverick lately, but that can go in either direction!

 

[Topher]

I could see there being a credibility issue because of her interest and the way she has been criticizing Sony has been unproffessional. But she would get sued for libel if what she said was untrue and so far she hasn't taken down that tweet.

Also Jim Ryan did reveal details of a private meeting when he revealed MS only offered 3 yrs beyond the current deal for CoD. So it seems these kind of leaks are fair game? I dunno

Jim Ryan only spoke publicly on the matter after Phil Spencer did.

"I hadn't intended to comment on what I understood to be a private business discussion, but I feel the need to set the record straight because Phil Spencer brought this into the public forum."

More than likely Jim Ryan did say something to someone, but whether or not Lulu is accurately relaying what was said is anyone's guess. In either case, Sony should expect anything said in private or otherwise to be broadcast across social media by Lulu in the future.

 

[SneakersSO]

I hear you but this is literally hurting the pockets of anyone at Activision that holds shares in the company. Management, directors, long term employees, large shareholders. And it's plain to see that Sony is lying that losing COD would mean they couldn't compete just to block the deal. Now we have confirmation that Jim was never negotiating in good faith. I just don't see how Sony comes out of this unscathed.

Sony never indicated that they were trying to negotiate in 'good faith'. That whole good faith argument probably went out the door when Spencer went out in public and spilled the beans on what the negotiation was between him and Sony in private before anything had been signed.

The regulators are fully aware that Sony doesn't want the deal to go through. Sony isn't publicly opposing the deal and not signing terms MS is offering because they are seeking some negotiated outcome. Heck, if its true that Jim said this in the private meeting with the EC - it just goes to show you just how opposed to it they are, and they clearly have no issue with say they are opposed to this deal going through over how it could (and has) affected them.

Sony's opposition to this merger was never, not once, contingent on it being done only if case some 'good faith' negotiation were to take place. Not a single regulator asked Sony and MS to come to terms. So again, i'm not sure why some folks seem to think this is a big deal, cause its not.

 

[Varteras]

They seem to be posturing that they will kill the deal with a block in this case. MS was able to offer behavioral remedies, something the CMA already said in their PF that they are not particularly interested in seeing unless it approximates their stated Structural Remedies, which are divestment of CoD (or divestment of Blizzard & Activision).

MS' proposed behavioral remedies seem to be the 10 year licensing agreement that they've shown to the EC, as well as offering to financially form a 3rd party group to assess technical parity. If the CMA is signaling privately that this isn't enough, and the leak from the outlet I just posted backs that up, then its clear their remedies aren't meeting the bar.


I'm dismissive of an independent group funded by MS because it doesn't speak to any of the findings the CMA actually listed in their PF.

The CMA had 3 primary issues.

1. Impact this deal will have on the nascent cloud market
2. Impact this deal will have on Gaming Subscription Market
3. Impact this deal will have on the console market.

For the 3rd point, the CMA used studies that they had a 3rd party go out and conduct, as well as one Sony provided. MS seemed to have done a study of their own and seemed to have presented it last week to address the point about the console market, but the CMA is not going to take the word of the organization they are assessing over their own findings.

As for point 2, in the PF, the CMA said that they no longer feel that Gaming Subscription Services represent a wholly new way for consumers to get access to gaming software, and is more an extension of the current software distribution paradigm, so this point already resolved itself.

Now as for point 1, MS didn't offer anything to address this. And no - NVidia signing the 10 year deal doesn't do anything for this, because there are a bunch of complexities regarding GeForce Now and whether they are even considered a competitor in the cloud gaming market, since their service is entirely rental based.

The CMA proposed Structural Remedies specifically because they didn't see any other form of remedies that would address their concern. MS effectively ruled this out back in February when they said, during their presentation to the EC, that they will not go through with the purchase if it meant divesting CoD. The formation of an independent group doesn't even begin to address the other ways that MS could easily get around it, stuff that the CMA specifically cited as their reasoning why divestment is the preferred option.

MS needed to create a set of remedies that could begin to approximate the structural remedies the CMA proposed. The 10 year deal and the independent technical assessment group were what they presented. That isn't enough. Heck, one of the things that could've allowed MS to get this deal through even now is if they agreed to have a public licensing agreement that anyone can purchase that would give that entity access rights to CoD, no matter what service or platform you are, at a cost that is determined to be a Fair Wage value. That would cut to the heart of this without having to divest. MS didn't go this route cause it would remove MS' ability to promote CoD as being exclusive to the GP service or xCloud. MS also could've agreed to not remove any development resource currently working on CoD, which again, wasn't offered.

That isn't to say MS is incompetent - never once said that. But its clear what value they are seeking to derive from this deal, based purely on the behavioral agreements they are not willing to offer to get it over the finish line.

And I don't think people grasp this. The CMA isn't interested in allowing any situation where CoD could ever be used as leverage at any point in the future. Because in order to be safe, they have to assume that CoD will always have the impact it does today. So MS's insistence on nothing beyond 10 years is already a sticking point. A watchdog group doesn't tackle that concern at all and the CMA has already voiced a lack of confidence, based on Microsoft's past behavior, that they won't look for ways around that even if Microsoft offered a greater timeframe. At the end of the day, the CMA offered MS the chance to surprise them with something they hadn't thought of but realistically they don't really see any way forward that involves MS owning CoD.

 

[SneakersSO]

That's a long (and reasoned) reply and I apologise for not responding in kind (outta time) but I just wanted to say I would agree with you on the independent group if it was the only remedy proposed. But it's not. It's part of a package.

From my reading of the provisional findings Microsoft have put forward a very strong multi pointed proposal that should address all of their concerns, or at least enable further negotiation. Whether they bite, we'll have to wait and see - they have been a bit maverick lately, but that can go in either direction!

The thing is, MS' behavioral remedies really don't speak to the 2 stated issues at play here. A 10 year deal doesn't alleviate all the potential other routes that MS could easily pursue to get maximum value from this deal without having to offer anything to Sony.

Heres a perfect example, and i've stated this in here before cause not only did the CMA indicate this as a potentiality, but its something MS hasn't proposed anything to address: what would stop MS from taking the sizeable resources devoted to CoD, and creating a new IP that is Duty of Call, a new military FPS; a new title which doesn't have any of these behavioral remedies affecting it. Gaming is one where audiences can and do follow developers to spiritual successor IP (See: Demons' Souls -> Dark Souls). This is precisely why the CMA stated in their proposed structural remedies that divesting CoD was not just that they had to sell off the CoD IP, but also had to sell off all the studios that have worked on CoD. Nothing MS has done addresses this.

The CMA was also very heavy on their outlook on what this will do to the cloud sector. A perpetual licensing access for CoD would solve this, but MS didn't offer it. Instead, they feel the 10 year deal with Nvidia will suffice, but NVidia is not considered a full competitor in the cloud gaming market because they are not selling software. In fact, the CMA specifically cited that one of the reasons Stadia died was due to the already dominant position MS has in the Cloud Gaming sector - it was pretty strong language they used, and one of the other known opponents to this deal is in fact Google!

There isn't a remedy MS is going to offer that can guarantee that the % of players who indicated in the CMA/Sony's study that would likely switch will not do so. A 10 year deal for CoD doesn't solve the specter of MS just taking the CoD studios and putting out a new IP. Heck, there isn't even a guarantee that MS will maintain the current release cadence of CoD for the duration of those 10 years, and to be fair to Microsoft, they shouldn't be on the hook for that either! Like, if ATVI is releasing yearly CoD, their partners are getting massive revenue streams due to those yearly releases, why should MS have to be on the hook to ensure they are releasing some form of CoD yearly for 10 years? I'm positive these are the sort of scenarios Sony is using to highlight just why this merger is far too impactful to them to be allowed to go through.

 

[Sanepar]

The deal is over right or MS will try to go on without UK and will insist on pressure to make cma rollback?

 

[Topher]

The deal is over right or MS will try to go on without UK and will insist on pressure to make cma rollback?

Deal is far from over. I still think it will go through, personally. FTC is going to get overruled. EU seems fine with current concessions. Getting to a middle ground with CMA is going to be the challenge. But no, there is no going on without the UK.

 

[dorkimoe]

I wanna see Microsoft keep it on ps and just charge like 10-20$ more haha

 

[SneakersSO]

The deal is over right or MS will try to go on without UK and will insist on pressure to make cma rollback?

As has been stated in this thread multiple times, the purchasing agreement between MS and ATVI stipulates that 4 specific regulators must approve in order for the buy to happen; 3 of those regulators are the FTC, the CMA, and the EC. If any of them move to block, then thats that.

With that said though, this ordeal still has at least until April before we actually know if its dead. But there is no world in which MS goes through with this deal and just cuts out the UK. Won't happen.

 

[IFireflyl]

I hear you but this is literally hurting the pockets of anyone at Activision that holds shares in the company. Management, directors, long term employees, large shareholders.

Spoiler: I know this will shock you, but...

Nobody gives a shit.

 

[Topher]

You were there, huh?

Imagine someone actually believing....wait.....what's this.....

 

[BeardGawd]

Spoiler: I know this will shock you, but...

Nobody gives a shit.

I'm sure the people putting in the work to make the game. Care about losing money.

 

[SneakersSO]

I'm sure the people putting in the work to make the game. Care about losing money.

The overwhelming majority of devs working on CoD will not see any benefit from the outcome of this deal no matter which way it goes

 

[Drell]

I'm sure the people putting in the work to make the game. Care about losing money.

I'm gonna cry

 

[thismeinteil]

Messing with phil was one thing, but messing with lulu you gone too far jim!!!!

Someone doesn't want a future career. If this deal doesn't go through, she'll be the first one canned.

 

[BeardGawd]

The overwhelming majority of devs working on CoD will not see any benefit from the outcome of this deal no matter which way it goes

Agreed. But the ones that are affected will overwhelming be the ones in power. Managers, diectors, large share holders, board members, etc.

 

[drganon]

The deal is over right or MS will try to go on without UK and will insist on pressure to make cma rollback?

No. Just go sit in a corner and wait till someone taps you on the shoulder when it's actually over.

 

[IFireflyl]

Deal is far from over. I still think it will go through, personally. FTC is going to get overruled. EU seems fine with current concessions. Getting to a middle ground with CMA is going to be the challenge. But no, there is no going on without the UK.

I'm 50/50 on whether it is approved or not, but my only hang-up is the CMA. If the CMA allows it with whatever concessions that Microsoft has offered then I don't think there is any chance of it being stopped by the FTC. Their arguments, up to this point, have been extremely weak.

 

[IFireflyl]

Agreed. But the ones that are affected will overwhelming be the ones in power. Managers, diectors, large share holders, board members, etc.

You mean the people that are alleged to have engaged in and/or covered up employee abuse, harassment (sexual and otherwise), and threats of violence? Or do you mean the wealthy shareholders and executives that don't participate in the day-to-day operations? I think I'd sleep just fine at night knowing that those people didn't become more wealthy than they already are.

 

[MasterCornholio]

"I don't want a new Call of Duty deal. I just want to block your merger."

Is this supposed to be some appalling statement that we're all outraged by?

It means there will be no COD if the merger gets blocked.

 

[MasterCornholio]

Based Jim

Lulu wins

 

[Kurimao]

Someone doesn't want a future career. If this deal doesn't go through, she'll be the first one canned.

No guts, no glory.

 

[MasterCornholio]

I find the thought of Jim saying this in a one to one conversation with this unhinged whack job in a quiet corridor absolutely hilarious.

Maybe don't see him saying this directly to the regulators. At least not in that way.

 

[Baki]

you were talking about worms and so did I, I just found that a weird coincidence.

 

[The Tourmaline Gorilla]

Someone doesn't want a future career. If this deal doesn't go through, she'll be the first one canned.

She'll be fine. She's been very vocal since this deal became a possibility (in her support of it), and she often uses the words "us" and "we" to refer to Activision, and not her just herself. She's been a very vocal person before this. It's absolutely evident that the key players in Activision want this deal to go through; both MS and Activision want it. Sony doesn't, and they're clinging to their market lead and position, using any means necessary - they 100% see this deal as a threat to the landscape (the landscape they dominate). Sony's interest in this deal not going through is absolutely not rooted in "What's best for gamers/consumers" - anyone with an iota of common sense can see that.

All that said, if this deal doesn't go through, I think the playing field will look very different than it does today. MS will not play nicely, as it has been doing for the past several years; they will go to war against Sony, and they'll have the money to do it. Where it concerns Activision, MS and Activision will have a common "enemy" at that point, which is Sony.

I just hope Jim knows he's in for a huge uphill battle, if this deal doesn't go through. In some warped, coincidental way his attempts to block the deal (granted he's successful) could possibly turn out to be a big mistake for Sony. But, such will only be revealed in hindsight. Let's see how this plays out...

 

[IFireflyl]

All that said, if this deal doesn't go through, I think the playing field will look very different than it does today. MS will not play nicely, as it has been doing for the past several years; they will go to war against Sony, and they'll have the money to do it. Where it concerns Activision, MS and Activision will have a common "enemy" at that point, which is Sony.

I just hope Jim knows he's in for a huge uphill battle, if this deal doesn't go through. In some warped, coincidental way his attempts to block the deal (granted he's successful) could possibly turn out to be a big mistake for Sony. But, such will only be revealed in hindsight. Let's see how this plays out...

You don't know how companies work, do you? If this deal falls through, Activision isn't going to alienate Sony, who is a huge bag of money to them. Additionally, Microsoft has had two decades to "go to war" against Sony. The issue isn't their money. It's their competency (or rather, their incompetency) with their studios. If this acquisition falls through, there will be more acquisitions. Exactly like what would happen if this acquisition gets approved. Not much will change.

 

[Clintizzle]

If I find out Jim Ryan was rude to my girl Lulu in anyway there is going be a problem.

I'm f*cking serious. I'll cancel PS+

 

[Varteras]

If I find out Jim Ryan was rude to my girl Lulu in anyway there is going be a problem.

I'm f*cking serious. I'll cancel PS+

Gonna walk up like

 

[ChiefDada]

I have confirmation he said the exact words from his mouth.

All that said, if this deal doesn't go through, I think the playing field will look very different than it does today. MS will not play nicely, as it has been doing for the past several years; they will go to war against Sony, and they'll have the money to do it. Where it concerns Activision, MS and Activision will have a common "enemy" at that point, which is Sony.

How old are you?

 

[The Tourmaline Gorilla]

You don't know how companies work, do you? If this deal falls through, Activision isn't going to alienate Sony, who is a huge bag of money to them. Additionally, Microsoft has had two decades to "go to war" against Sony. The issue isn't their money. It's their competency (or rather, their incompetency) with their studios. If this acquisition falls through, there will be more acquisitions. Exactly like what would happen if this acquisition gets approved. Not much will change.

Did I say alienate them? I never said that. If that's what you interpreted, then that's on you. I said that, both MS and Activision both want the same thing. They have vested interest. The deal going through means a huge payout for the guys on top in Activision - whether it's just business or not, they want that pay out, and MS wants the talent, IP, resources and customers.

"Two decades to go to war", forget two decades. Instead, what you should be focusing on, is right now. Was such a purchase or move made by MS in this two decade period? No. Did Game Pass exist two decades ago? It was a different time, and a different climate. The mere fact that they're willing to spend 70 billion dollars NOW, is indication enough that this isn't comparative to their efforts two decades ago, is it? And you really think MS would simply...just go "Oh, it didn't work. Welp! We tried our best. Oh well... Let's just go back to doing what we've been doing before." You really think that'll be the sentiment for MS, going forward? You don't think that 70 billion allocation won't be a factor anymore?

Sony has had CoD preference for years, whether it be through marketing, DLC, etc. Of course it wasn't a favour; Sony had to exchange money for those preferences. Does Sony have even... 30 billion dollars to money hat a seriously battered Microsoft? No, they don't. Do you know who has that money though? Microsoft. You really think MS is going to stand idly by, and let Sony continue to be market leaders, because they lost this particular battle? Seriously? From being willing to spend 70 billion to put them in a really strong competitive place, to just throwing their arms up and admitting defeat because the market leader got their way? Then no, it is you who doesn't understand business.

As far as Activision is concerned, I'm pretty sure they'd be way more willing to listen to MS's offers over PS's (at least, at this point). But that might just be a personal take, due to Sony's interference in the big boys being able to get a handsome payout - they may not like that, very much. But hey, business is business, and money talks... Let good sense prevail. Of course, PS is the market leader, so it won't be wise to ignore the market leader... Unless they're offered enough money or "incentive" for it to make business sense. They'll just do what's good for their business, and sell exclusivity (timed), marketing deals, extras, DLC, etc to the highest bidder. And right now, the person with the fattest pockets and who's clearly willing to spend that money, is Microsoft.

 

[X-Wing]

Yep, that's definitely gonna put a damper on future Sony/MS deals like continued Azure usage for gaming services and stuff. Jim 'bridge burner' at it.

They use AWS and Lulu is most likely lying.

 

[Rac3r]

She'll be fine. She's been very vocal since this deal became a possibility (in her support of it), and she often uses the words "us" and "we" to refer to Activision, and not her just herself. She's been a very vocal person before this. It's absolutely evident that the key players in Activision want this deal to go through; both MS and Activision want it. Sony doesn't, and they're clinging to their market lead and position, using any means necessary - they 100% see this deal as a threat to the landscape (the landscape they dominate). Sony's interest in this deal not going through is absolutely not rooted in "What's best for gamers/consumers" - anyone with an iota of common sense can see that.

All that said, if this deal doesn't go through, I think the playing field will look very different than it does today. MS will not play nicely, as it has been doing for the past several years; they will go to war against Sony, and they'll have the money to do it. Where it concerns Activision, MS and Activision will have a common "enemy" at that point, which is Sony.

I just hope Jim knows he's in for a huge uphill battle, if this deal doesn't go through. In some warped, coincidental way his attempts to block the deal (granted he's successful) could possibly turn out to be a big mistake for Sony. But, such will only be revealed in hindsight. Let's see how this plays out...

I noticed this as well. Very strange that the chief communications officer is using her personal account to make public statements on behalf of her company. So is it a work account or is she crazy???

 

[The Tourmaline Gorilla]

To all the people insinuating that I might be a child and don't know how businesses are run, let me ask you, if you were willing to spend 70 billion dollars (the highest in an industry's history, by a huge margin) to become stronger competitors or even dethrone the market leader, and the heads of the company you wanted to purchase were all for it. And the market leader somehow blocks you, you'd just...give up?

You'd turn the other cheek? How would you, honestly, handle that situation going forward? What? You'd no longer want to be the market leader or put your business in a much stronger competitive position? What would your new strategy be, and by chance, would any of that 70 billion be a part of that strategy? No?

 

[X-Wing]

I like that Sony is quiet, only talks when asked and in the meantime just keeps doing their thing while Microsoft and Activision executives are on suicide watch on Twitter while making everything just worse for themselves and everyone else. Shows the difference in the maturity level of the people ahead of those companies…

 

[DeaDPo0L84]

MS will not play nicely, as it has been doing for the past several years;

What does that mean, they'll release two good games a year versus one?

 

[FUBARx89]

Did I say alienate them? I never said that. If that's what you interpreted, then that's on you. I said that, both MS and Activision both want the same thing. They have vested interest. The deal going through means a huge payout for the guys on top in Activision - whether it's just business or not, they want that pay out, and MS wants the talent, IP, resources and customers.

"Two decades to go to war", forget two decades. Instead, what you should be focusing on, is right now. Was such a purchase or move made by MS in this two decade period? No. Did Game Pass exist two decades ago? It was a different time, and a different climate. The mere fact that they're willing to spend 70 billion dollars NOW, is indication enough that this isn't comparative to their efforts two decades ago, is it? And you really think MS would simply...just go "Oh, it didn't work. Welp! We tried our best. Oh well... Let's just go back to doing what we've been doing before." You really think that'll be the sentiment for MS, going forward? You don't think that 70 billion allocation won't be a factor anymore?

Sony has had CoD preference for years, whether it be through marketing, DLC, etc. Of course it wasn't a favour; Sony had to exchange money for those preferences. Does Sony have even... 30 billion dollars to money hat a seriously battered Microsoft? No, they don't. Do you know who has that money though? Microsoft. You really think MS is going to stand idly by, and let Sony continue to be market leaders, because they lost this particular battle? Seriously? From being willing to spend 70 billion to put them in a really strong competitive place, to just throwing their arms up and admitting defeat because the market leader got their way? Then no, it is you who doesn't understand business.

As far as Activision is concerned, I'm pretty sure they'd be way more willing to listen to MS's offers over PS's (at least, at this point). But that might just be a personal take, due to Sony's interference in the big boys being able to get a handsome payout - they may not like that, very much. But hey, business is business, and money talks... Let good sense prevail. Of course, PS is the market leader, so it won't be wise to ignore the market leader... Unless they're offered enough money or "incentive" for it to make business sense. They'll just do what's good for their business, and sell exclusivity (timed), marketing deals, extras, DLC, etc to the highest bidder. And right now, the person with the fattest pockets and who's clearly willing to spend that money, is Microsoft.

Bro, what fucking drugs are you on? Can I have some?

Also, I hate this dullard narrative of "Activision won't deal with Sony for exclusive content wah wah"

Sony has the same marketing and dlc crap MS had for CoD in the 360 days when MS was the leader of that generation. They go with the money and install base.

The "warchest" stuff is stupid as shit too. Didn't work out for the Zune nor did it work out for Microsoft Mobile or whatever they branded it after buying Nokia.

 

[Banjo64]

Not if it undercuts your legal arguments. Which it does - to say there's no terms that can be offered which would change your mind is not going to play well in a process built around acceptable remedies.

It is for the CMA to decide acceptable remedies. Sony do not have to want any terms. Sony's position from the start is that they don't want the deal to go through, from their initial submissions. This hasn't undercut anything, never mind their own position.

 

[Nothing1234]

Waiting on that UK Xbox/PS Pie chart Microsoft.

 

[Varteras]

Waiting on that UK Xbox/PS Pie chart Microsoft.

You damn well know that ain't gonna happen.

 

[Nothing1234]

You damn well know that ain't gonna happen.

Oh, I thought they'd have one for every regulator. Silly me.

 

[The Tourmaline Gorilla]

Bro, what fucking drugs are you on? Can I have some?

Also, I hate this dullard narrative of "Activision won't deal with Sony for exclusive content wah wah"

Sony has the same marketing and dlc crap MS had for CoD in the 360 days when MS was the leader of that generation. They go with the money and install base.

I never said Activision won't deal with Sony for exclusive content. I said, Activision will deal with whoever can afford or bid the highest, for exclusive content - and right now, I think that might be MS.

Are you people competent readers, or do you skim through and pick out the parts that you think you can build an argument around, while ignoring everything else?

 

[Varteras]

Oh, I thought they'd have one for every regulator. Silly me.

Silly goose. Those aren't for regulators. Those are for average Joes during PR stunts.

 

[Heisenberg007]

She'll be fine. She's been very vocal since this deal became a possibility (in her support of it), and she often uses the words "us" and "we" to refer to Activision, and not her just herself. She's been a very vocal person before this. It's absolutely evident that the key players in Activision want this deal to go through; both MS and Activision want it. Sony doesn't, and they're clinging to their market lead and position, using any means necessary - they 100% see this deal as a threat to the landscape (the landscape they dominate). Sony's interest in this deal not going through is absolutely not rooted in "What's best for gamers/consumers" - anyone with an iota of common sense can see that.

All that said, if this deal doesn't go through, I think the playing field will look very different than it does today. MS will not play nicely, as it has been doing for the past several years; they will go to war against Sony, and they'll have the money to do it. Where it concerns Activision, MS and Activision will have a common "enemy" at that point, which is Sony.

I just hope Jim knows he's in for a huge uphill battle, if this deal doesn't go through. In some warped, coincidental way his attempts to block the deal (granted he's successful) could possibly turn out to be a big mistake for Sony. But, such will only be revealed in hindsight. Let's see how this plays out...

If this deal falls through, the first thing Activision will do is contact Sony and repair the relationship and talk about their next marketing deal, most likely at a slightly discounted price.

Sony helps sell more units of COD with their top-notch marketing and biggest user base and literally helps Activision (and its executives) make more money.

And Microsoft will continue to buy studios (as they have been), but they will also have to pay $2.5-$3 billion in penalty. And if Zenimax didn't move the needle for them, it's unlikely another independent studio (or even a publisher on the scale of Zenimax) will do much. In that case, why would they even spend a boatload of money on acquisitions if they continue to lose market share?

 

[ToadMan]

Seems like if Sony wants to keep CoD, they need to make the 10 year deal. I dont see ABK working with sony on good terms if the deal dies.

Wrong.

In MS response to the CMA, they have committed to CoD on PS.

The way it's written, without signing anything, MS will be bringing COD to PS indefinitely - ie there's no arbitrary 10 year limit on the commitment MS makes to the CMA in that document.

 

[ChiefDada]

To all the people insinuating that I might be a child and don't know how businesses are run, let me ask you, if you were willing to spend 70 billion dollars (the highest in an industry's history, by a huge margin) to become stronger competitors or even dethrone the market leader, and the heads of the company you wanted to purchase were all for it. And the market leader somehow blocks you, you'd just...give up?

You'd turn the other cheek? How would you, honestly, handle that situation going forward? What? You'd no longer want to be the market leader or put your business in a much stronger competitive position? What would your new strategy be, and by chance, would any of that 70 billion be a part of that strategy? No?

Hate to say it, but your perspective is something I would expect from a child. "You, you, you"... We are talking about global, blue-chip public companies with millions of shareholders; not private companies and/or silicon valley startup types. There is no "you" in this scenario; C-Suite is beholden to shareholders, and they would get rid of any exec with a mindset so vindictive to the point where they allow it to dictate their business decisions.

 

[Helghan]

No one said that Ryan is honest, you are literally creating a strawman.

My problem is that whatever argument I give you say that those people might be lying. Then what's the point of joining the discussion? You clearly don't believe that people can tell the truth, or will be held accountable if they don't, which means everything and nothing can be true. That's no point to start a discussion from.

 

[Banjo64]

Waiting on that UK Xbox/PS Pie chart Microsoft.

'The UK is very different to continental Europe…'

 

[KWAB]

I have confirmation he said the exact words from his mouth.

I'm always so impressed with you. You exposed the lack of raytracing hardware in the PS5, you have sources in the European Commission... Pulitzer Prize when?