Support NeoGAF

[DenchDeckard]

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.

If Microsoft cement their commitment to gaming, I feel we will absolutely see them secure exclusives and exclusive content.

If the governing bodies set clear boundaries of how this business landscape has to be played, and that is by securing third party deals on content and games.If, and I say If Microsoft are serious about gaming they will absolutely see Sony on their own terms and look to go that route.

Why wouldn't they? They've attempted something different and if it doesn't work, they will re evaluate. I honestly think they will do everything they can to get this to court in the US to make sure everyone subpoenas are fulfilled and information is out to the lawyers etc who matter so they can shape their future business plans accordingly.

 

[Astray]

One thing ppl gotta keep in mind is: This generation IS Xbox/Microsoft flexing its financial muscle, and with extremely mixed results to boot. What more can even be done in the line of acquisitions?

I genuinely think that it's been an extremely misguided approach, they need to rebuild the general public's trust in the brand and stop pandering to the hardcore console warriors, they are the worst product evangelists out there and actively make people dislike the brand.

 

[ZehDon]

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

I've seen this stated a couple of times, and I'm not following, sorry. According to Ampere Analysis, Microsoft has (marginally) improved their market share as of 2022. And, from their Zenimax purchase, I believe zero AAA exclusive games have been released, so, not sure why we're expecting that to be driving a shift in console market yet. There's a reason Starfield is considered an incredibly important title for Microsoft: it's success or failure will speak to the acquisition's ability to deliver sorely needed first party content that will drive console sales and Game Pass subscriptions. If I've missed a step here, feel free to educate me.

 

[Helghan]

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.

And the document says there will be parity. And you're like: "nope they are lying"

 

[L*][*N*K]

At this point I feel like it is a lost cause, even if Microsoft agrees to an indefinite deal Sony will still ask for more, this is basically Munich.

 

[Mr Reasonable]

One thing ppl gotta keep in mind is: This generation IS Xbox/Microsoft flexing its financial muscle, and with extremely mixed results to boot. What more can even be done in the line of acquisitions?

I genuinely think that it's been an extremely misguided approach, they need to rebuild the general public's trust in the brand and stop pandering to the hardcore console warriors, they are the worst product evangelists out there and actively make people dislike the brand.

I think what you've got to bear in mind is that Microsoft have this money in cash to invest.

They're not pandering to hardcore console warriors, they're buying into a business that delivers revenue and operates in an area they also operate in. Microsoft don't care about hardcore console warriors. I don't think Xbox do either, but even if they did, they wouldn't be able to make a compelling argument for Microsoft to unlock $70bn so Xbox could raise a flag for hardcore console warriors. This money is Microsoft's money, not Xbox's. The purchase has to benefit Microsoft. Taking Activision's products away from their customers would not benefit Activision or whoever owned them.

In this deal, Xbox is not the primary driver for it happening.

 

[ToadMan]

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.

Well MS has played this whole process using what is self evidently a distortion of the truth.

I don't think it'll bother them to keep distorting things if they think they can gain from it.

Getting in front of a court is a roll of the dice and an opportunity to plead victim more.

If the acquisition is ultimately prohibited by the CMA, they may decide that die roll is better than the alternative - that being an embarrassing reversal of the deal and a PR nightmare to spin it into good news for xbox.

 

[intheinbetween]

At this point I feel like it is a lost cause, even if Microsoft agrees to an indefinite deal Sony will still ask for more, this is basically Munich.

This is a no brainer for Sony, just a plain NO. Just think about it, most of the revenue of the sales of every CoD title (games and DLCs) would go straight to their competitor, then the competitor would offer CoD day 1 on their subscription service while they would have to pay for that if they wanted any CoD title to be available on their subscription service, also the competitor would be the one identified with CoD instead of Sony, meaning no exclusive partnership anymore.

By the way, lets not forget MS would be paying almost 70bn for this, so it's not for free as some might claim.

Sad part is it seems most of the ABK portfolio is completely forgotten by Sony, they are only raising their voice because of CoD, they couldn't care less about the rest of the ips.

 

[Astray]

And the document says there will be parity. And you're like: "nope they are lying"

Um.. no?

One party is promising parity, the other is saying it will degrade the game or access to it.

Most likely one or both is lying. CMA's decision will ultimately be the one that matters.

 

[ToadMan]

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.

You should read the CMA findings more carefully.

They are well aware of the distinction between first and third party, mutliplatform support and publishers vs studios.

Given all of these factors are on the table, the precedent will have longer term ramifications on all acquisitions and mergers in gaming - that much is certain - regardless of what MS ends up conceding to get it over the line.

 

[Elios83]

And the document says there will be parity. And you're like: "nope they are lying"

Sony wants to send the message that behavioral remedies are not good enough because it's impossible to make sure that they will be respected.
If you promise parity you commit to the same exact experience but that in practice is hard to achieve because the platforms are different, you might end up with a different set of bugs (such a thing is absolutely common, just look at the DF threads), different performance due to different hardware and so on.
The whole point is about suggesting and enforcing the theory that structural remedies are needed and so far CMA has come to the same conclusion.

 

[ToadMan]

This is a no brainer for Sony, just a plain NO. Just think about it, most of the revenue of the sales of every CoD title (games and DLCs) would go straight to their competitor, then the competitor would offer CoD day 1 on their subscription service while they would have to pay for that if they wanted any CoD title to be available on their subscription service, also the competitor would be the one identified with CoD instead of Sony, meaning no exclusive partnership anymore.

By the way, lets not forget MS would be paying almost 70bn for this, so it's not for free as some might claim.

Sad part is it seems most of the ABK portfolio is completely forgotten by Sony, they are only raising their voice because of CoD, they couldn't care less about the rest of the ips.

Sony do refer to other content and not just CoD in their filing as did the CMA. Sony did specifically refer to WoW too.

But yeah - I find the fact this is centering on CoD a little distasteful too.

I think MS likes it to focus on that rather than the general principle of 1st party purchases of major 3rd party multiplat publishers.

 

[reksveks]

Sony apparently meeting CMA today according to Mlex.

Hoping for some tidbits re that meeting

 

[Banjo64]

Sony apparently meeting CMA today according to Mlex.

Hoping for some tidbits re that meeting

I doubt we'll get anything considering how tightly lipped Sony and the CMA have been. If Microsoft aren't involved we won't be getting any leaks.

 

[ToadMan]

Sony apparently meeting CMA today according to Mlex.

Hoping for some tidbits re that meeting

According to the CMA there is an optional hearing for these responses scheduled for late March.

I'm not sure what the optionality is based on - but perhaps we'll hear over the next few days if they will indeed take place.

 

[reksveks]

I doubt we'll get anything considering how tightly lipped Sony and the CMA have been. If Microsoft aren't involved we won't be getting any leaks.

Yeah, don't have high hopes but you know, can always hope a little bit.

 

[Greggy]

Well MS has played this whole process using what is self evidently a distortion of the truth.

I don't think it'll bother them to keep distorting things if they think they can gain from it.

Getting in front of a court is a roll of the dice and an opportunity to plead victim more.

If the acquisition is ultimately prohibited by the CMA, they may decide that die roll is better than the alternative - that being an embarrassing reversal of the deal and a PR nightmare to spin it into good news for xbox.

What is the distortion of truth that MS has been using, if you don't mind me asking? Not that I would suspect you of using a distortion of truth to accuse someone else of a distortion of truth, I'm really just curious.

 

[POKEYCLYDE]

You should read the CMA findings more carefully.

They are well aware of the distinction between first and third party, mutliplatform support and publishers vs studios.

Given all of these factors are on the table, the precedent will have longer term ramifications on all acquisitions and mergers in gaming - that much is certain - regardless of what MS ends up conceding to get it over the line.

Why haven't any theories of harm been discussing other IP? Why has the sole focus been on Call of Duty? The simplest explanation is Call of Duty is the only IP that could have a material impact if made exclusive, at least in the eyes of the regulators.

I don't think whatever precedent is set reaches as far as you think it will. As any theory of harm discussing the possibility of smaller publisher's IP (even flagship IP) becoming exclusive, would be rebutted with hard numbers and precedent.

Triple A IP like Final Fantasy, Silent Hill, Street Fighter, Baldur's Gate, Tomb Raider, Mass Effect, Titanfall, probably Redfall, Starfield and Elder Scrolls have shown and will show that IP of that caliber have not had and will not have a materially impact on competitors if made exclusive.

 

[Melchiah]

It's begun

Except those eastern European, Asian, and emerging countries Microsoft ignores, unlike Sony. No official presence, including localisation, online store, Xcloud, and Gamepass.

Xbox fans conveniently overlook that crucial matter.

"When everyone plays, we all win." is just a hollow PR slogan.

 

[ManaByte]

The fact that Sony refuses to offer COD on PS+ shows that it's just about the game being the #1 seller on PSN every year:

https://assets.publishing.service.g...on_Remedies_Notice__Revised_NCV__redacted.pdf

 

[Lyrical]

The fact that Sony refuses to offer COD on PS+ shows that it's just about the game being the #1 seller on PSN every year:

https://assets.publishing.service.g...on_Remedies_Notice__Revised_NCV__redacted.pdf

Or they know Microsoft would charge them a stupid amount to let Sony put COD on PS+.

 

[Nothing1234]

Except those eastern European, Asian, and emerging countries Microsoft ignores, unlike Sony. No official presence, including localisation, online store, Xcloud, and Gamepass.

Xbox fans conveniently overlook that crucial matter.

"When everyone plays, we all win." is just a hollow PR slogan.

Xbox world wide presence is laughable and they wonder why they get beaten world wide 2:1.

 

[ToadMan]

What is the distortion of truth that MS has been using, if you don't mind me asking? Not that I would suspect you of using a distortion of truth to accuse someone else of a distortion of truth, I'm really just curious.

Amongst others…

 

[Nothing1234]

Amongst others…

I need to see the same for the UK and US Mr Smith.

 

[b6a6es]

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.

Just like Microsoft & Nvidia/ARM deal, and look what happened nowadays

 

[DForce]

The fact that Sony refuses to offer COD on PS+ shows that it's just about the game being the #1 seller on PSN every year:

https://assets.publishing.service.g...on_Remedies_Notice__Revised_NCV__redacted.pdf

They'll lose billions of dollars if it hits PS+ so yeah, they'll prefer it not to be on the subscription service.

 

[Sanepar]

If I was Sony I would accept this deal and move on. Imagina MS with taste for revenge and 69bn to make better aquisitions than abk. Like they can take cdpr next day with 2bn and Sony would lose all relevants wrpgs...

 

[Ar¢tos]

If Microsoft cement their commitment to gaming, I feel we will absolutely see them secure exclusives and exclusive content.

If the governing bodies set clear boundaries of how this business landscape has to be played, and that is by securing third party deals on content and games.If, and I say If Microsoft are serious about gaming they will absolutely see Sony on their own terms and look to go that route.

Why wouldn't they? They've attempted something different and if it doesn't work, they will re evaluate. I honestly think they will do everything they can to get this to court in the US to make sure everyone subpoenas are fulfilled and information is out to the lawyers etc who matter so they can shape their future business plans accordingly.

The price for exclusive content and timed exclusivity would be big for MS due to the install base difference. Are shareholders willing to open their wallets and give the Xbox division money for that and then risking the PlayStation version ending up selling better anyway just because of the size of the install base difference?

 

[MDSLKTR]

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?

Senjutsubro also had exclusive access to Avowed before anyone else in the world

 

[OmegaSupreme]

Jim Ryan be like

Someone with the skills should put Jim's face on Conan lmao

 

[Bonsaibäumchen]

Yes, it would look bad, but he absolutely said it from his mouth. This isn't a paraphrase, it isn't her trying to be cute. Jim Ryan said those exact words from his mouth, and she isn't the only person with the ability to confirm its accuracy. Other executive-level people at Microsoft and Activision can confirm he said it, and it has been shared with anyone who is relevant to the merger's approval/disapproval.

Jim was upset.

Are you trying to suggest you are relevant to the mergers approval?

 

[Mibu no ookami]

I've seen this stated a couple of times, and I'm not following, sorry. According to Ampere Analysis, Microsoft has (marginally) improved their market share as of 2022. And, from their Zenimax purchase, I believe zero AAA exclusive games have been released, so, not sure why we're expecting that to be driving a shift in console market yet. There's a reason Starfield is considered an incredibly important title for Microsoft: it's success or failure will speak to the acquisition's ability to deliver sorely needed first party content that will drive console sales and Game Pass subscriptions. If I've missed a step here, feel free to educate me.

It's key that you didn't read the whole post that I made. One key is the length in time to make games and that the initial games weren't exclusive.

Their market share is *marginally* up due to ps5 supply shortages, but by the end of the year will be significantly worse.

As for Starfield, again, it has to overcome the model. Someone can play starfield for a dollar on PC on gamepass and then quit after the first month.

They don't have to buy an xbox at all. That's a model that will be difficult to drive Xbox sales regardless of the game's quality. This is a reality that people are ignoring now, but will use to defend the platform in a year or two.

 

[Snake29]

The fact that Sony refuses to offer COD on PS+ shows that it's just about the game being the #1 seller on PSN every year:

https://assets.publishing.service.g...on_Remedies_Notice__Revised_NCV__redacted.pdf

"There is more than meets the eyes". Microsoft is the one here that constantly seeks out the media, letting out only what looks good to them. But as soon as you start reading the documents, it is suddenly a completely different story.

But it is clear that MS has won public opinion and is good at some kind of propaganda because everyone swallows everything from them, what they shout in the media.

 

[Nemesisuuu]

Except those eastern European, Asian, and emerging countries Microsoft ignores, unlike Sony. No official presence, including localisation, online store, Xcloud, and Gamepass.

Xbox fans conveniently overlook that crucial matter.

"When everyone plays, we all win." is just a hollow PR slogan.

While Sony has presence here in Croatia, store is still in hrvatska kuna, three months after we changed our currency to euro. Let's not start at all that you can't buy anything on the store with your card since 01.01.23. lol.

So that presence doesn't seem like it matters since Sony obviously doesn't give a shit about it's users.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

The price for exclusive content and timed exclusivity would be big for MS due to the install base difference. Are shareholders willing to open their wallets and give the Xbox division money for that and then risking the PlayStation version ending up selling better anyway just because of the size of the install base difference?

There is a reason we don't see many exclusive xbox games. It's bad for both parties.

Really expensive for Microsoft, doesn't drive the console sales by themselves, and difficult for brand value for the companies offering the deals.

Tomb Raider took a huge step backwards with diminished sales of Rise of the Tomb Raider. Resident Evil took a huge step back with Code Veronica, Resident Evil 0, and Resident Evil 4 until those were ported to PS2.

 

[GHG]

Yes, it would look bad, but he absolutely said it from his mouth. This isn't a paraphrase, it isn't her trying to be cute. Jim Ryan said those exact words from his mouth, and she isn't the only person with the ability to confirm its accuracy. Other executive-level people at Microsoft and Activision can confirm he said it, and it has been shared with anyone who is relevant to the merger's approval/disapproval.

Jim was upset.

Ah yes, the circle of Microsoft and Activision executives involved in this deal all group together to play the "he said, she said" game.

Sounds really credible and not desperate at all.

 

[Snake29]

It's like the whole world is against Sony right now because MS has brainwashed the media a lot. But soon people will see the real MS again after this acqusition. Only thing Microsoft calls every week is that they will continue to offer Sony those 10 years. But we don't hear at all what finacial picture is involved. There's a reason Sony won't go along with this, and I don't feel Microsoft is reasonable at all in this.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

Jesus, that Lulu girl seems desperate...

Wouldn't you be?

She probably has hundreds of thousands of dollars riding on the completion of this merger... She's 36 years old. This is house money/kids college money.

 

[Drell]

It's like the whole world is against Sony right now because MS has brainwashed the media a lot. But soon people will see the real MS again after this acqusition. Only thing Microsoft calls every week is that they will continue to offer Sony those 10 years. But we don't hear at all what finacial picture is involved. There's a reason Sony won't go along with this, and I don't feel Microsoft is reasonable at all in this.

MS got their good guys image through PR (this includes the gamepass of course). People worrying about the market state being fucked by this huge deal and others after this one are just seen as "Playstation fanboys".

 

[Mibu no ookami]

While Sony has presence here in Croatia, store is still in hrvatska kuna, three months after we changed our currency to euro. Let's not start at all that you can't buy anything on the store with your card since 01.01.23. lol.

So that presence doesn't seem like it matters since Sony obviously doesn't give a shit about it's users.

LOL, you really think that's on Sony?

They probably need to take a look at how they want to price the games in that region and whether that impacts license agreements. Your population size is less than 4 million people... Think Sony racing to make adjustments that probably require financial teams and legal teams is a bit obtuse...

 

[8BiTw0LF]

Wouldn't you be?

She probably has hundreds of thousands of dollars riding on the completion of this merger... She's 36 years old. This is house money/kids college money.

Sure, but she's risking a lawsuit with these statements. True or false, it could result in the same outcome. There must be some confidentiality at these meetings, right?

 

[Astray]

Sure, but she's risking a lawsuit with these statements.

I would be shocked if she gets sued over it. Assuming she lives in the Cali area (where Actiblizz is based), then she is covered by one of the strongest Anti-SLAPP laws in America.

It's simply not worth the effort to sue her.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

Sony is smart to bring up the quality of the game, because there is no governing body that is going to gauge whether there is feature parity, framerates, resolutions, netcode, e.t.c. on each game every year for 10 years.

Sony has leaned in on the CMA having a distaste for behavioral remedies and now Microsoft and Activision are back on the defensive. They know within the next 6.5 weeks the CMA is going to put out their conclusion and it's currently looking really bad for them. They are trying to make an environment in which the CMA would look bad for blocking the deal, but ultimately the CMA isn't going to care about these public statements.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

Sure, but she's risking a lawsuit with these statements. True or false, it could result in the same outcome. There must be some confidentiality at these meetings, right?

Her job is to try and help place pressure on the CMA to rule in favor of Activision.

She's likely to be fired if this deal fails. No one is going to sue her personally and Sony isn't even going to sue Activision.

And to be honest, Sony has more or less said this. Read their response to the CMA. They've said they don't want a deal and that they want the deal blocked or structural remedies that they know Microsoft won't agree to. No court would rule in Sony's favor for libel and the document with the CMA is public.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

Sony's legal team wrote an excellent response to Microsoft and the CMA here.

the 3 pillars of a behavioral remedy simply don't exist here and it would take an astonishing event to see the CMA turn on both their own guidance and precedence and their provisional findings.

 

[Heisenberg007]

Or they know Microsoft would charge them a stupid amount to let Sony put COD on PS+.

That's what they mentioned in the doc and showed the calculations. According to Sony, they will have to raise PS+ prices to accommodate COD on PS Plus.

 

[intheinbetween]

Just like Microsoft & Nvidia/ARM deal, and look what happened nowadays

This acquisition has nothing in common with the Nvidia/ARM deal

 

[Bonsaibäumchen]

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?

I would make what is expected of me. Games. Good ones. Great ones. And I would use the resources i have at hand. More then 20 different Studios.

 

[harry mason 1989]

It's like the whole world is against Sony right now because MS has brainwashed the media a lot. But soon people will see the real MS again after this acqusition. Only thing Microsoft calls every week is that they will continue to offer Sony those 10 years. But we don't hear at all what finacial picture is involved. There's a reason Sony won't go along with this, and I don't feel Microsoft is reasonable at all in this.

The whole world against Sony?
You mean fake Twitter bots accounts
Most people in the real world don't know anything about this deal drama
Even casual gamers too

 

[ReBurn]

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?

Don't tak it personally. The people who are telling you that you have no idea how businesses are run also have no idea how businesses are run. They've just been commenting so much in this thread while nothing is actually happening that they think their head canon is right. You can tell who they are because they like to say "look at my earlier comments" as some sort of proof that they know what they're talking about. Sooner or later a mod daddy will show up and tell them to behave and they'll quiet down for a while.

The best thing to do is stay out of here until there's actual news because without it this thread is a constant cycle of ad hominem nonsense.