Support NeoGAF

[FUBARx89]

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?

Mate, ya massive walls of text read like a tweakers note about god on a public bathroom wall so I wouldn't be surprised if people skim it.

But ya have pretty much implied it. I'm not the only one to think that's what you're saying with whatever word vomit you wrote out using speech to text software.

 

[The Tourmaline Gorilla]

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?

I appreciate an actually thoughtful and practical response, thank you.

While I don't speak to certainty about what Activision will do, I do know for a fact that MS is very serious about improving their competitive position in the console space, and that they'd have roughly 70 billion dollars to do it, over a period of time, obviously.

And I do know, with absolute certainty, that Sony doesn't have nearly as much, to use as a tool. Sony's strongest tool (and it's no slouch) is their market share. But market share doesn't always mean you can't lose something (as has been seen all the time, in this industry); whether it be through exclusivity (timed or otherwise) for established IPs, or publishing and helping to develop new IPs by established developers, granted some measure of safety can be afforded.

 

[Nothing1234]

I appreciate an actually thoughtful and practical response, thank you.

While I don't speak to certainty about what Activision will do, I do know for a fact that MS is very serious about improving their competitive position in the console space, and that they'd have roughly 70 billion dollars to do it, over a period of time, obviously.

And I do know, with absolute certainty, that Sony doesn't have nearly as much, to use as a tool. Sony's strongest tool (and it's no slouch) is their market share. But market share doesn't always mean you can't lose something (as has been seen all the time, in this industry); whether it be through exclusivity (timed or otherwise) for established IPs, or publishing and helping to develop new IPs by established developers, granted some measure of safety can be afforded.

$70B for ABK does not mean the same amount for anything else.

 

[PropellerEar]

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...

One of the most asinine posts on the thread.
Gobjuduck your gobbledygook now has some serious competition.

 

[Heisenberg007]

I appreciate an actually thoughtful and practical response, thank you.

While I don't speak to certainty about what Activision will do, I do know for a fact that MS is very serious about improving their competitive position in the console space, and that they'd have roughly 70 billion dollars to do it, over a period of time, obviously.

And I do know, with absolute certainty, that Sony doesn't have nearly as much, to use as a tool. Sony's strongest tool (and it's no slouch) is their market share. But market share doesn't always mean you can't lose something (as has been seen all the time, in this industry); whether it be through exclusivity (timed or otherwise) for established IPs, or publishing and helping to develop new IPs by established developers, granted some measure of safety can be afforded.

It wasn't just about console space though. ABK is not just for Xbox. It is also supposed to help (1) mobile gaming, (2) MAU and user data, and (3) Metaverse.

For console space, Microsoft has spent nearly $10 billion on Xbox in the last 5 years. But that hasn't helped them improve Xbox market share. If anything, Xbox has lost market share in the US, compared to previous generation. And Series S|X is selling roughly the same amount of consoles as Xbox One, launch aligned.

So even after spending $10 billion, they haven't seen any benefits yet. But the ROI would likely have taken a big hit.

So there's only so much and for so long Microsoft would try with Xbox. The more aggressive they become with their spending on Xbox, the faster they will scale everything back if it doesn't work out in their favor.

 

[Helghan]

It wasn't just about console space though. ABK is not just for Xbox. It is also supposed to help (1) mobile gaming, (2) MAU and user data, and (3) Metaverse.

For console space, Microsoft has spent nearly $10 billion on Xbox in the last 5 years. But that hasn't helped them improve Xbox market share. If anything, Xbox has lost market share in the US, compared to previous generation. And Series S|X is selling roughly the same amount of consoles as Xbox One, launch aligned.

So even after spending $10 billion, they haven't seen any benefits yet. But the ROI would likely have taken a big hit.

So there's only so much and for so long Microsoft would try with Xbox. The more aggressive they become with their spending on Xbox, the faster they will scale everything back if it doesn't work out in their favor.

Didn't the revenue of the total Xbox division increase the past 10 years?

 

[ToadMan]

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.

600 pages and people are still confused.

MS is trying to make a deal with the CMA not Sony. Sony signing anything is so MS can present that to the CMA in support of their acquisition.

 

[The Tourmaline Gorilla]

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.

You answered not one question.

Replace the word "you" with 'X'. In fact, let's replace MS and Sony with Hyundai and Toyota. Toyota are the market leaders. Hyundai wants to better compete, and put their company in a much stronger position to do so, to even possibly dethrone the market leaders. How do we know this? Because they willing to spend 100 billion dollars to do so. They want to increase their offerings, and put them in a stronger position to compete or dominate. That 100 billion dollar purchase/investment is easily the largest any automaker has ever made in the industry's history.

Hyundai's deal falls through. Is the deal falling through, indication that their goal also falls through, or is it indication that that specific/particular strategy falls through? And what happens with the 100 billion dollars? Does any of that allocated resource be used, by other means, to help achieve their goal? Or does Hyundai just...completely back down, and scrap any dreams or visions of bolstering their offerings and getting a larger piece of the market pie? Also, would it be far removed from Hyundai to use whatever resources they have (perhaps some of that 100 billion dollars) to undercut or outbid their competition for certain...technologies, or anything that is up for grabs, that helps strengthen their position?

Simple questions. Not rooted in personal attacks, or personal agenda (Phil hating Jim, or in this case, Hyundai CEO hating Toyota's CEO). But rather, simple questions rooted in Hyundai's very evident desire to greatly increase its market strength, based on the notion of their 100 billion dollar gamble, and their many statements from their CEO, indicating such a commitment. Is my question that unreasonable? Impracticable?

 

[Heisenberg007]

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.

I almost guarantee he wouldn't be allowed to say that publicly, and I think there's a chance someone got under his skin and he lost his cool a bit (as seems to have been intimated, who knows if accurately). "Why won't you talk to us about a deal Mr. Ryan?' Etc.

The wording is a little personal - I just want to block your merger. He doesn't get to block anything, and I'd imagine he knows that… Which is why it's being used against him now by the opposition.

Not a fatal error, but IMO, not an insignificant one either. This thing just keeps on going. I love and hate it.

Is Sony obligated to sign a deal? No.

Did Sony request the regulatory bodies to get them a good deal? No.

Sony requested the regulatory bodies to block the merger. Jim Ryan's stance, if true, is still the same, i.e., we don't want any deal. We want to block this merger. That stance has not changed since the beginning.

It's Microsoft who wants to sign a deal so it's easier to persuade regulators. Moreover, don't forget that regulators can ignore all signed deals and still block the acquisition. They are not obligated to pass the deal just because a couple of companies signed a few papers.

 

[Topher]

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?

No. The people who are put in charge of one of the most valuable companies in the world are going to have cooler heads than that. If this deal falls through then that $70 billion goes back into the vault. Microsoft isn't going to burn $70 billion as revenge money.

 

[The Tourmaline Gorilla]

It wasn't just about console space though. ABK is not just for Xbox. It is also supposed to help (1) mobile gaming, (2) MAU and user data, and (3) Metaverse.

For console space, Microsoft has spent nearly $10 billion on Xbox in the last 5 years. But that hasn't helped them improve Xbox market share. If anything, Xbox has lost market share in the US, compared to previous generation. And Series S|X is selling roughly the same amount of consoles as Xbox One, launch aligned.

So even after spending $10 billion, they haven't seen any benefits yet. But the ROI would likely have taken a big hit.

So there's only so much and for so long Microsoft would try with Xbox. The more aggressive they become with their spending on Xbox, the faster they will scale everything back if it doesn't work out in their favor.

This makes sense, but I don't see MS doing that just yet. Console and gaming, I think, is very important to MS. This deal is indicative of such. Even before this deal was approved, it had to be presented. It had to be scrutinised, and looked at carefully. It was under grave consideration before the higher-ups signed off on it. And one of the points of measure used in making that decision, is questioning whether such a deal aligns with their goals. The fact that it was approved means it does align with their goals. And seeing a return on 70 billion dollars doesn't happen overnight. It means, their goals are very much rooted in the long-term; Game Pass is another indication of that.

So, yes, your assessment is right on. Eventually, if MS aren't seeing enough favour on their gambles or investments, they will have no choice but to either dial back or call it quits. However, I don't think that time is anywhere near. Again, thank you for your sincere, intelligent and thoughtful response.

 

[ToadMan]

I don't really know who she is (only dip in and out of the thread, it's too much) but I've seen her pop up from time to time.

It might not have any bearing, but it could, which is why he shouldn't have said it. It lowers Sony's voice at the table IMO, and lessens their arguments against behavioural remedies because they seem to be coming from an obstinate place. Microsoft and Activision can just shrug their shoulders and roll their eyes in exasperation. Claim they're being unreasonable.

I don't think how we found out about it matters, because I'm presuming it was said in front of people in that behind closed doors hearing. Otherwise however crazy she may or may not be, she wouldn't have said it so confidently.

CMA already stated and have precedent that behavioral remedies are insufficient.

Sony agreeing or not with such remedies is not the pivot point for the CMA any more than the Nintendo or Nvidia arrangements are.

CMA want divestiture or no acquisition and Sony have publicly agreed with that position, and Jim has said it loud and clear in case there was any doubt.

 

[Gobjuduck]

One of the most asinine posts on the thread.

Still time for jim to grab that rubber hose

 

[The Tourmaline Gorilla]

No. The people who are put in charge of one of the most valuable companies in the world are going to have cooler heads than that. If this deal falls through then that $70 billion goes back into the vault. Microsoft isn't going to burn $70 billion as revenge money.

This would make sense, if you thought they'd just shift over the 70 billion dollars towards another thing, that is worth 70 billion dollars. It's not going to go like that, obviously. Even the return on such a gamble would take them quite a while, and this is a risky bet. But the fact that they made it, means they have intentions of competing at a much larger capacity, no?

So, when I say that they have 70 billion dollars as a resource, I do not mean tomorrow. I mean, with careful consideration and over a period of time, they have the funds needed/necessary to help them achieve their goal of becoming more competitive, or bolserting their offerings to consumers, in an attempt to increase their market share. Does that make more sense now? Should I word it differently?

 

[Gobjuduck]

divestiture or no acquisition and Sony have publicly agreed with that position, and Jim has said it loud and clear in case there was any doubt.

Not a reasonable option. That will never stand.

 

[ToadMan]

Okay, so you didn't 'hear' that they are standing firm. Thought I'd missed something (and I had seen that link). That's been the CMA's default since Brexit btw. They consider themselves independent of the EC. Which they are.

Except, MS specifically entreated the CMA to consider the international dimension and referred to the EU review (presumably MS think behavioral remedies will be enough for the EU).

And then, the same day, this article was published effectively saying the CMA will not simply fall in line with other authorities.

So yes - it's fair to say the indicators are that the CMA are standing firm with their original assessment.

 

[Topher]

This would make sense, if you thought they'd just shift over the 70 billion dollars towards another thing, that is worth 70 billion dollars. It's not going to go like that, obviously. Even the return on such a gamble would take them quite a while, and this is a risky bet. But the fact that they made it, means they have intentions of competing at a much larger capacity, no?

So, when I say that they have 70 billion dollars as a resource, I do not mean tomorrow. I mean, with careful consideration and over a period of time, they have the funds needed/necessary to help them achieve their goal of becoming more competitive, or bolserting their offerings to consumers, in an attempt to increase their market share. Does that make more sense now? Should I word it differently?

No, that's fine, but you were using phrases like "turning the other cheek" as if their motivation now turned towards getting payback on Sony. If that isn't what you meant then no problem.

I agree that Microsoft is still motivated to invest in their gaming segment, but I don't think they are going to attempt any massive purchases like this one again. Not in the current regulatory climate anyway.

 

[ToadMan]

Not a reasonable option. That will never stand.

You're right, so the acquisition will be prohibited.

 

[ToadMan]

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

There is an appeal process in the UK and I kind of got the feeling reading MS's document yesterday that they were already laying out the case for that appeal in anticipation the acquisition would be prohibited.

MS can appeal the way the CMA reached a decision - not the decision itself. So their appeal hinges on showing that the CMA acted "irrationally", unreasonably or broke the procedural rules.

The document a few times swiped at the CMA as acting in a way that was unreasonable so maybe MS will line up an appeal if they believe the UK is the only prohibited region.

But the FTC will still be ongoing at that time so depends on how lucky MS feels.

 

[The Tourmaline Gorilla]

No, that's fine, but you were using phrases like "turning the other cheek" as if their motivation now turned towards getting payback on Sony. If that isn't what you meant then no problem.

I agree that Microsoft is still motivated to invest in their gaming segment, but I don't think they are going to attempt any massive purchases like this one again. Not in the current regulatory climate anyway.

Turning the other cheek literally means "not retaliating". And when I say retaliating, I'm not talking about retaliating against Sony, I mean... Just letting it go. Not retaliating means just that; doing nothing. Why would they now do nothing? That's what I meant.

I think people are misinterpreting what this means to MS (and that might be my own fault). This isn't a plan of attack against Sony, per say. It is a plan of attack, in executing their desires to be market leaders in the console space, or be much stronger competitors, in the console space. It just so happens, their leading competitor is Sony. They're not trying to destroy Sony. They're trying to dominate the market; although on the surface, those two things might look or even sound alike; they're not. If it wasn't Sony, it would be someone else, is what I'm trying to say.

So as I said before, they have a goal. They have a plan. 70 billion dollars is part of that plan. If the plan fails, it doesn't mean the goal fails. It means we change the plan, is what I was trying to say. And they have the resources to do that, is what I was also trying to say. I can see how some of my terms can be interpreted as juvenile, but I've never been one to care too much about how something sounds, over what it means (outside of a business setting, obviously).

No offence to you, either. I'm just clarifying what might be misinterpreted.

I do not think MS is just going to bow out, if this deal falls through. They have a goal, and they more-than-have the means of attempting to see that through. Will they though? Time will tell, but I know it won't stop here.

 

[skit_data]

I don't know why but I read "a new CoD deal" as the marketing agreement, but if it refers to some type of deal regarding CoDs future on Playstation it makes even less sense that some people are shouting this from the rooftops as if it was something controversial.

 

[Banjo64]

There is an appeal process in the UK and I kind of got the feeling reading MS's document yesterday that they were already laying out the case for that appeal in anticipation the acquisition would be prohibited.

MS can appeal the way the CMA reached a decision - not the decision itself. So their appeal hinges on showing that the CMA acted "irrationally", unreasonably or broke the procedural rules.

The document a few times swiped at the CMA as acting in a way that was unreasonable so maybe MS will line up an appeal if they believe the UK is the only prohibited region.

But the FTC will still be ongoing at that time so depends on how lucky MS feels.

They haven't though, so it won't even go back to the CMA for re-review. Just a smear campaign from MS who don't like where this is going.

 

[Topher]

Turning the other cheek literally means "not retaliating". And when I say retaliating, I'm not talking about retaliating against Sony, I mean... Just letting it go. Not retaliating means just that; doing nothing. Why would they now do nothing? That's what I meant.

I think people are misinterpreting what this means to MS. This isn't a plan of attack against Sony, per say. It is a plan of attack, in executing their desires to be market leaders in the console space, or be much stronger competitors, in the console space. It just so happens, their leading competitor is Sony. They're not trying to destroy Sony. They're trying to dominate the market; although on the surface, those two things might look or even sound alike; they're not. If it wasn't Sony, it would be someone else, is what I'm trying to say.

So as I said before, they have a goal. They have a plan. 70 billion dollars is part of that plan. If the plan fails, it doesn't mean the goal fails. It means we change the plan, is what I was trying to say. And they have the resources to do that, is what I was also trying to say. I can see how some of my terms can be interpreted as juvenile, but I've never been one to care too much about how something sounds, over what it means (outside of a business setting, obviously).

No offence to you, either. I'm just clarifying what might be misinterpreted.

I do not think MS is just going to bow out, if this deal falls through. They have a goal, and they more-than-have the means of attempting to see that through. Will they though? Time will tell, but I know it won't stop here.

Fair enough. I misunderstood your point on "turning the other cheek". I don't necessarily disagree with anything else you've said.

 

[ToadMan]

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.

Um, MS have been after Sony for 20 years now. They haven't been playing "nice" ever.

We've all seen how that goes down.

MS should try making innovative products and content to attract consumers, and give the console warring a rest.

 

[Topher]

Um, MS have been after Sony for 20 years now. They haven't been playing "nice" ever.

We've all seen how that goes down.

MS should try making innovative products and content to attract consumers, and give the console warring a rest.

Agree. Sony and Microsoft have been playing from the same shady playbook from the beginning. exclusives, timed exclusives, marketing contracts, exclusive content, and on and on. You name it, they have both done it.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

It wasn't just about console space though. ABK is not just for Xbox. It is also supposed to help (1) mobile gaming, (2) MAU and user data, and (3) Metaverse.

For console space, Microsoft has spent nearly $10 billion on Xbox in the last 5 years. But that hasn't helped them improve Xbox market share. If anything, Xbox has lost market share in the US, compared to previous generation. And Series S|X is selling roughly the same amount of consoles as Xbox One, launch aligned.

So even after spending $10 billion, they haven't seen any benefits yet. But the ROI would likely have taken a big hit.

So there's only so much and for so long Microsoft would try with Xbox. The more aggressive they become with their spending on Xbox, the faster they will scale everything back if it doesn't work out in their favor.

There was a ton of problems involved in buying Zenimax

1) They already had games under agreement with Sony
2) Games take forever to develop, so the ability to get fast ROI is limited
3) Zenimax's value based on its revenue was based on being a multiplatform publisher. While they were probably more aligned with the xbox platform there is an offset here. Microsoft gets all of Zenimax's revenue but loses out on the 30% royalties they were ALREADY going to get, as well as any revenue from PlayStation.
4) With Microsoft's model of PC support AND gamepass, they aren't likely to drive console sales due to Zenimax at all.

10 billion dollars to not increase your market share is a tough pill to swallow.

Sony on the other hand bought Insomniac for 229 million and while we don't know what Spider-Man costs them, I'd wager that the insomniac buy and whatever deal they have with Marvel was more fruitful in driving revenue and console sales than the 10 billion Microsoft spent on Zenimax.

 

[ToadMan]

They haven't though, so it won't even go back to the CMA for re-review. Just a smear campaign from MS who don't like where this is going.

Well yes I would say the CMA has completed it's process in a reasonable way.

But lawyers love money so they'll try to convince MS to roll the dice again in an appeal.

I noted that MS referred to the CMA assessments themselves as incorrect and also drew out the argument that the CMA, by insisting on divestment was requiring an onerous and costly remedy that would be more expensive than the SLC. MS also said that Sony currently holds an anticompetitive advantage so they claim a "right the wrong" argument.

To me these kind of arguments are the basis of an appeal against the CMA itself - to claim they're breaking their own policies on competitive analysis.

Whether that will hold weight is another question.

 

[DenchDeckard]

No. The people who are put in charge of one of the most valuable companies in the world are going to have cooler heads than that. If this deal falls through then that $70 billion goes back into the vault. Microsoft isn't going to burn $70 billion as revenge money.

You honestly think they just all walk away and go "oh well"...like their is seriously no competition between these corps and no malice held by all the people involved that are set to win from this deal going through?

That sounds off to me.

 

[ToadMan]

and that they'd have roughly 70 billion dollars to do it, over a period of time, obviously.

MS claim they don't have 70bn for this purpose in their own documents.

They'll buy a corp for 70bn - but they plead poverty in trying to compete with Sony in the content market.

Who to believe…. ?

 

[bitbydeath]

You honestly think they just all walk away and go "oh well"...like their is seriously no competition between these corps and no malice held by all the people involved that are set to win from this deal going through?

That sounds off to me.

They'll need to re-evaluate, they've told the world how badly everything is going from Hardware sales to GamePass profits, and no doubt their shareholders will have many questions for them once the deal is officially off the table.

 

[Mr Reasonable]

$70B for ABK does not mean the same amount for anything else.

100% correct, imo.

People's focus on Xbox Vs PlayStation has made them think that the purchase is all about that and as far as I can tell, it definitely isn't.

It's more - as has been said a number of times - money that Microsoft have on hand to invest and can give them a return and is part of the industry that they operate in.

Activision as a money making entity and as a player in the software market is not the same thing as ten $7Bn purchases. If Microsoft want to invest the money, and it seems they do, it could be just as likely to put it into a software company that doesn't benefit Xbox at all, imo.

I think that Microsoft's ten year guarantees around COD are the longest they can reasonably offer and that they have no intention of reducing the income that COD brings in by cutting out other platforms. The whole deal would not make sense if it was intended merely to bolster Xbox, if COD were to go exclusive, they might lure some people to change hardware, but the game would still bring in less overall.

It's nonsense that Sony couldn't compete without COD, imo, but I don't see why it's in Microsoft's favour to take COD off their platform. That plan would almost certainly mean that Microsoft's executives would not have approved the deal, on the basis that they could get a better return on their investment elsewhere.

 

[ToadMan]

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?

His Pulitzer is hidden next to the GPU in the power supply.

 

[Topher]

You honestly think they just all walk away and go "oh well"...like their is seriously no competition between these corps and no malice held by all the people involved that are set to win from this deal going through?

That sounds off to me.

There is a difference between being pissed off about it (which I'm sure they would be) and letting butthurt feelings dictate business decisions.

 

[ToadMan]

I can see how some of my terms can be interpreted as juvenile, but I've never been one to care too much about how something sounds, over what it means (outside of a business setting, obviously).

Is that you LuLu?

 

[DenchDeckard]

There is a difference between being pissed off about it (which I'm sure they would be) and letting butthurt feelings dictate business decisions.

Oh, yeah absolutely. I've deffo seen competitiveness and pissed off with competition "unlock funds" to bolster campaigns or decisions in my business years though.

Doubt, very much that it will be any different here. Current Sony has obviously openly burnt bridges here, we will see how it plays out.

 

[ToadMan]

You honestly think they just all walk away and go "oh well"...like their is seriously no competition between these corps and no malice held by all the people involved that are set to win from this deal going through?

That sounds off to me.

The precedent will be that publisher acquisitions by first parties are off the table.

In fact, given the zenimax focus from regulators I think it'll be fair to say all first party acquisitions of third party studios will be scrutinised more carefully.

The Bungie model will be the only approved acquisition method. Corp can buy, but corp makes them third party and independent.

So with that context in mind, MS is welcome to run the regulatory gauntlet again. But usually corps count how much money they lost in a failed attempt and decide to go look for greener pastures in other markets.

 

[BlitzerRadic]

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.

You are dumb. These are publicly traded companies, not the mafia.

 

[Topher]

Oh, yeah absolutely. I've deffo seen competitiveness and pissed off with competition "unlock funds" to bolster campaigns or decisions in my business years though.

Doubt, very much that it will be any different here. Current Sony has obviously openly burnt bridges here, we will see how it plays out.

If unlocking funds means Microsoft makes better games then great. Will be nice to finally see some competition that actually favors gamers. If folks think Microsoft is going to go nuts buying exclusives like some have hinted then I'm afraid they are going to be disappointed and rightfully so.

 

[Ozriel]

1. We know that the gaming revenue generated by Microsoft's Xbox division is tiny compared to the revenue generated by other divisions within the company.

this is a liability that hurts MS Overall Performance. Thus, creates pressure to make it bigger or get rid of it.

2.Listening to Windows Weekly i learned MS's obsession to have a more "consumer appealing brand" (not enterprises)...Xbox fits this purpose.

3. The Gaming Industry/market can be categorized in four bubbles.
a)Consoles
b)Nintendo
c)PC
d)Mobile
each of these have their own idiosyncrasies.

4. MS has a presence in two of those categories. One of which they have 70%+ of market share....(sounds familiar?) and yet; has failed to capitalize on it.

5.We know Xbox (hardware) has never being profitable and of course they haven't been able to significantly compete against PlayStation.

6. we also know MS (and sony) were competing in mobile but they lost that battle against Android.

7. what is the common denominator in each of those bubbles?...yep...The Digital Store.

So, here you have a fucking triple trillion dollar company as a sore loser in each of those bubbles.

8.A Digital Store can only thrive by the number of people who buys from it. This creates the crux of the situation for MS.

So, for Xbox is imperative to find a way to attract more consumers...Enter Game Pass.

and then you can say...MS doesn't care about consoles; its about subscribers....Well.... and how the fuck you grow subscribers when the only way is increasing your market share of hardware? (in the console market segment. aka taking market share from PlayStation).

9. "No one buys from an empty store"
Call Of Duty exists in three market bubbles (Consoles, PC, Mobile). you can't with a straight face tell me those bubbles have the same idiosyncrasies. From those three...Only Play Station has the incentive to compete...and they will....and they are...and who is PlayStation's main competitor?....yep, Xbox.

this creates a fascinating tug of war (in the console bubble) PlayStation CAN'T and WILL NOT remain idle. REGARDLESS of MS's acquisitions.

Therefore the only guarantee for PlayStation are structural remedies.

And here is where the rubber hits the road. the plan is not to extinguish no one. That's not what PARASITES do.

What does any of this rambling narrative have to do with what we were discussing…namely your claims that MS is on an insidious path to 'extinguish' the competition with the Bethesda and Activision acquisitions?

In the three bubbles you cite - PC, Mobile and Consoles - these deals will not give them any form of dominance.

 

[Heisenberg007]

Well yes I would say the CMA has completed it's process in a reasonable way.

But lawyers love money so they'll try to convince MS to roll the dice again in an appeal.

I noted that MS referred to the CMA assessments themselves as incorrect and also drew out the argument that the CMA, by insisting on divestment was requiring an onerous and costly remedy that would be more expensive than the SLC. MS also said that Sony currently holds an anticompetitive advantage so they claim a "right the wrong" argument.

To me these kind of arguments are the basis of an appeal against the CMA itself - to claim they're breaking their own policies on competitive analysis.

Whether that will hold weight is another question.

How will they even say it with a straight face in a court of law and then present the UK market console share that's 60:40 for PS and Xbox and the UK cloud gaming share that's 70:15 for Xbox and PS.

 

[ChiefDada]

You answered not one question.

Replace the word "you" with 'X'. In fact, let's replace MS and Sony with Hyundai and Toyota. Toyota are the market leaders. Hyundai wants to better compete, and put their company in a much stronger position to do so, to even possibly dethrone the market leaders. How do we know this? Because they willing to spend 100 billion dollars to do so. They want to increase their offerings, and put them in a stronger position to compete or dominate.

All companies compete for market share and positioning.

That 100 billion dollar purchase/investment is easily the largest any automaker has ever made in the industry's history.

So what?

Hyundai's deal falls through. Is the deal falling through, indication that their goal also falls through, or is it indication that that specific/particular strategy falls through? And what happens with the 100 billion dollars? Does any of that allocated resource be used, by other means, to help achieve their goal? Or does Hyundai just...completely back down, and scrap any dreams or visions of bolstering their offerings and getting a larger piece of the market pie? Also, would it be far removed from Hyundai to use whatever resources they have (perhaps some of that 100 billion dollars) to undercut or outbid their competition for certain...technologies, or anything that is up for grabs, that helps strengthen their position?

Simple questions. Not rooted in personal attacks, or personal agenda (Phil hating Jim, or in this case, Hyundai CEO hating Toyota's CEO). But rather, simple questions rooted in Hyundai's very evident desire to greatly increase its market strength, based on the notion of their 100 billion dollar gamble, and their many statements from their CEO, indicating such a commitment. Is my question that unreasonable? Impracticable?

I doubt either of us knows what your question is at this point.

 

[ChiefDada]

You honestly think they just all walk away and go "oh well"...like their is seriously no competition between these corps and no malice held by all the people involved that are set to win from this deal going through?

That sounds off to me.

Pretty much, yeah. Isn't that what they've effectively been doing over the past decade?

 

[PropellerEar]

Still time for jim to grab that rubber hose

Or a well oiled weiner?

 

[Gone]

Is Sony obligated to sign a deal? No.

Did Sony request the regulatory bodies to get them a good deal? No.

Sony requested the regulatory bodies to block the merger. Jim Ryan's stance, if true, is still the same, i.e., we don't want any deal. We want to block this merger. That stance has not changed since the beginning.

It's Microsoft who wants to sign a deal so it's easier to persuade regulators. Moreover, don't forget that regulators can ignore all signed deals and still block the acquisition. They are not obligated to pass the deal just because a couple of companies signed a few papers.

Then the regulators aren't acting on what's good for consumers basis.

They have concerns, MS signed contracts to ease or remove these concerns.

Concerned about the Cloud? Signed a deal with Nvidia.

Concerned about the console market? MS signed a deal with Nintendo and are offering a 15 years deal to Sony.


Also, the consumers getting a good deal on Cod with hundreds more games for "free" with Gamepass is and will always be better than paying 70$ for each game individually, how's no one talking about that? Or is the regulators duty is just to keep Sony in its place?

 

[DenchDeckard]

Pretty much, yeah. Isn't that what they've effectively been doing over the past decade?

Haha, really? When has ms been spending 70 billion on gaming in the last 10 years?

This is huge and not like anything ever seen before.

I would be surprised if they act like that.

 

[Jim Ryan other Clone]

Oh, yeah absolutely. I've deffo seen competitiveness and pissed off with competition "unlock funds" to bolster campaigns or decisions in my business years though.

Doubt, very much that it will be any different here. Current Sony has obviously openly burnt bridges here, we will see how it plays out.

Who vandalized your beautiful profile picture with whatever that is?

 

[ChiefDada]

Haha, really? When has ms been spending 70 billion on gaming in the last 10 years?

We were discussing actions Microsoft would take if this deal fails to materialize. Similar to The Tourmaline Gorilla , you're insinuating Microsoft will execute strategies influenced by spite. I say they'll do no such thing. Hopefully they attempt to be more efficient with their in-house studios but I won't hold my breath.

 

[POKEYCLYDE]

The precedent will be that publisher acquisitions by first parties are off the table.

In fact, given the zenimax focus from regulators I think it'll be fair to say all first party acquisitions of third party studios will be scrutinised more carefully.

The Bungie model will be the only approved acquisition method. Corp can buy, but corp makes them third party and independent.

So with that context in mind, MS is welcome to run the regulatory gauntlet again. But usually corps count how much money they lost in a failed attempt and decide to go look for greener pastures in other markets.

The precedent being set (if the acquisition is blocked) is that titular titles like Call of Duty will be off the table, not publishers or 3rd party studios.

If 3rd party publishers were off the table you'd see the CMA block without possibility of divestment. The fact that Microsoft could acquire the BK of ABK proves this.

There is no stink being brought up about Overwatch or Diablo. Just Call of Duty. It's the only title that would have material impact on a competitor if it were made exclusive. Some don't even believe it would have a material impact.

The fact that Call of Duty or any megalithic IP like Fifa or GTA in recent years hasn't been exclusive gives reasonable thought to the idea that these titles being made exclusive would cause material harm on competitors.

However, other publishers that have had exclusivity deals with their flagship IP will be fair game. Because those titles being exclusive hasn't had a material impact/hasn't foreclosed the competitors being excluded.

For example, if Square Enix were to be bought, any theory of harm about exclusivity would be rebutted with the fact that multiple Final Fantasy titles being exclusive hasn't foreclosed Xbox. And my assumption would be anything on the same level of commercial success as Final Fantasy would be fair game.

The multitude of 3rd party exclusivity deals Sony engages in will hurt any chance of stopping future smaller acquisitions attempted by Microsoft. That's already the precedent that is set.

 

[Astray]

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.

I don't believe anybody here is telling the truth, they are all invested people and not neutral observers, what I do is I read the documents and skip the media posturing.

 

[DenchDeckard]

We were discussing actions Microsoft would take if this deal fails to materialize. Similar to The Tourmaline Gorilla , you're insinuating Microsoft will execute strategies influenced by spite. I say they'll do no such thing. Hopefully they attempt to be more efficient with their in-house studios but I won't hold my breath.

I'm not saying spite. It is not spite to be extremely frustrated with a competing business who has on record said they just want to block your Merger and do not want a deal.

This is not a spiteful decision, it would be tactical decisions inspired by frustration at a company blocking your very serious intention to close the biggest deal in gaming history that would affect your revenue and plans for more than 20 years.

It's beyond some little, oh OK.l.well we tried...never mind, hey?

I'm surprised at the people who think that MS and Activision would just take this on the chin and be fine with it.