Support NeoGAF

[Hendrick's]

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.

So things will remain the same then. Great point.

 

[DryvBy]

Why aren't they advertising King?

 

[KungFucius]

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.

I'm not sure they 'really' care about MS getting the revenue. They care about their revenue. They make a ton on licensing COD on their platform. If MS owns it, not only will that be put at risk, the COD games will boot up with Xbox logos on the PS5/6/....

Regardless I don't really see this as legitimate with how business is done today. Everything merges for better efficiency and that tends to end up being worse in the long run because there is less competition. But things are already bad for consumers and this one deal doesn't really move the needle. Sony are fucking cunts that control a digital market on their platform where they get to fix prices. MS offers a different model that is, at least for now, something that actual competition would produce. Sony are just being cunts here because it will make things harder for them, but they are the market leader so they can easily stop being whiny bitches and counter effectively while still making bank of COD licensing on their platform.

 

[Ezekiel_]

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...

How about we let rule of law prevail?

 

[Mibu no ookami]

Reading Microsoft's response to the CMA and it reads as pure fiction.

They basically say that that this M&A brings the game to more gamers and gives gamers more options including parity on the switch which we all know is a lie.

They also try to address the situation of monitoring and enforcement by saying they're willing to police themselves, which is a hilariously bad take. Yet they also say they're willing to have a 3rd party do this. Which 3rd party and how will complaints be remedied? Basically they're going to name IGN and Digital Foundry, but that's really not enough. The likelihood of any dispute would happen after a game has already been released.

They say that structural remedies would cost more, but give no evidence of that and the transaction hasn't even been completed...

They also say the UK sucks and the EU is looking at the remedies and should consider following the EU because the UK doesn't matter... great argument lol... They forced structural remedies to a company that basically had no involvement in the UK market.

 

[b6a6es]

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...

My man they'd take that 69B$ and buy twitter from Musk, or the soon-to-be-banned Tiktok from chinese bytedance and making it american (previously they offered 40B$ for it during trump era), basically anything that doesn't put them in the same rabbit hole as abk, or having even lower ROI with more revenge timed moneyhats like some people say recently lol

 

[reksveks]

They also try to address the situation of monitoring and enforcement by saying they're willing to police themselves, which is a hilariously bad take. Yet they also say they're willing to have a 3rd party do this. Which 3rd party and how will complaints be remedied? Basically they're going to name IGN and Digital Foundry, but that's really not enough. The likelihood of any dispute would happen after a game has already been released.

Based off the EC, typically regulators get to choose the trustee and then the merged companies just are basically forced to pay for it.

Example of a trustee:https://www.rsmuk.com/what-we-offer...-and-acquisitions/monitoring-trustee-services

Basically the merger companies don't typically suggest a trustee.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

It also looks as though Microsoft hasn't really offered any additional behavioral remedies than they had before the PF.

So other than the agreement with nvidia which isn't substantial, I'm not sure what has changed here for the CMA.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

Based off the EC, typically regulators get to choose the trustee and then the merged companies just are basically forced to pay for it.

But the EC isn't at question here the CMA is and the CMA's guidance is they don't like this direction.

Let me paint you an example. Let's say Modern Warfare 3 runs at a locked 60 on XSX but not on PS5. This isn't known until the games launch.

Digital Foundry is the monitoring agency and they confirm the game runs worse on PS5.

The arbitrator rules in favor of Sony here. What is the recourse? Does Microsoft have to pull the game that has already been selling? Do they have to forfeit the revenue? Until they get parity with the PS5 up and running? What about the damage in the media that MW3 runs better on Xbox?

It's entirely untenable.

 

[Sony]

It also looks as though Microsoft hasn't really offered any additional behavioral remedies than they had before the PF.

So other than the agreement with nvidia which isn't substantial, I'm not sure what has changed here for the CMA.

The situation that has changed is that the behavioral remedies are formally submitted and thus can be formally concidered by CMA.

 

[dotnotbot]

Lulu wins

Spot-on cast for Jim & Lulu I must say

 

[SSfox]

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

Can't believe this even had to be explained to some

 

[Sony]

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.

So Sony is pondering this idea that Microsoft can easily sabotage their versions of CoD with bugs and glitches and thus technical parity is impossible. Yet at the same time, Sony themselves require parity though clauses in contracts with third parties.

 

[Pelta88]

Why aren't they advertising King?

The pivot from "We just want acti for mobile" is pretty insane. Especially when we knew their true intentions from the start.

 

[reksveks]

But the EC isn't at question here the CMA is and the CMA's guidance is they don't like this direction.

Just saying that MS aren't the ones to suggest a Trustee, that would be up to regulators to decide.

The other points are valid concerns and impact of performance parity on foreclosure is all subjective and won't know how regulators/trustees decided what's important.

Also 'parity' is already used in commercial contract so there is some level of definition there clearly. Recourse can be defined by regulators/appointed trustees.

 

[Elios83]

It also looks as though Microsoft hasn't really offered any additional behavioral remedies than they had before the PF.

So other than the agreement with nvidia which isn't substantial, I'm not sure what has changed here for the CMA.

Nothing has changed they haven't offered anything more than what we know from the EU case. It's really unlikely it will satisfy the CMA.
According to the Reuters report although it's speculative, it won't satisfy even the EU as well since if they accept remedies they plan to put the company under investigation anyway.

 

[SSfox]

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

Jim is right here tho. MS who can't handle their own studios don't deserve to own biggest publisher in the market, just because they have infinite money.

 

[adamsapple]

Why aren't they advertising King?

Cause that's not the game whose name Sony is using when asking the deal to be blocked ? Why, what else did you think ?

 

[Mibu no ookami]

The situation that has changed is that the behavioral remedies are formally submitted and thus can be formally concidered by CMA.

Right, but recall in the PF the CMA said that none of the behavioral remedies they've seen would be acceptable for them but that they would consider others as presented to them.


"First, Microsoft's commercial strategy to date suggests that there are strategic benefits in limiting the availability of acquired gaming content. Microsoft has acquired a range of gaming studios over the past few years and, with very few exceptions, has made their future releases of games exclusive or redirected the efforts of those studios to produce exclusive Xbox games. Although we recognise that Activision is a bigger studio than any acquired by Microsoft before, this pattern of behaviour seems to be consistent with Microsoft's commercial strategy."


"7. During our investigation, Microsoft told us that it has offered to enter into new long-term agreements with SIE, Nintendo, and Steam to supply them with CoD post-Merger. Whether some form of supply or licensing agreement might satisfactorily remedy our concerns in gaming consoles is something that we will consider as part of our remedies process, rather than in our competitive assessment."

"At this stage, the CMA considers that certain divestitures and/or prohibition are, in principle, feasible remedies in this case. The provisional SLCs are not time-limited, and while RCBs have not yet been assessed in detail, evidence on efficiencies received to date does not suggest that RCBs might be substantial."

"As noted above, the circumstances in which the CMA might select a behavioural remedy as the primary source of remedial action are not present in this case. The two markets in which the CMA has provisionally found SLCs are multi-faceted and continue to develop. This is particularly the case in cloud gaming, where the customer offerings and business models of market participants are evolving rapidly. We are of the initial view that any behavioural remedy in this case is likely to present material effectiveness 14 Merger Remedies: CMA87 (December 2018), paragraph 7.4. 15 Merger Remedies: CMA87 (December 2018), paragraph 7.3. 10 risks. We invite the Parties to provide evidence on how these risks could be appropriately managed to ensure that any behavioural remedy is effective."

 

[kirby007]

ye lets set aside that king makes more money on games and has less dev costs than nintendo, sony and ms combined

 

[ReBurn]

Why aren't they advertising King?

Because regulators don't care about mobile. They care about Call of Duty.

 

[Chiggs]

Digital Foundry is the monitoring agency and they confirm the game runs worse on PS5.

The arbitrator rules in favor of Sony here. What is the recourse? Does Microsoft have to pull the game that has already been selling? Do they have to forfeit the revenue? Until they get parity with the PS5 up and running? What about the damage in the media that MW3 runs better on Xbox?

I hate when people just post GIF reactions to posts, but you've left me speechless:

 

[Heisenberg007]

There's no PlayStation console or controller in this ad!

 

[GHG]

Cause that's not the game whose name Sony is using when asking the deal to be blocked ? Why, what else did you think ?

The advertisement doesn't mention Sony, nor is it directed at Sony.

 

[adamsapple]

The advertisement doesn't mention Sony, nor is it directed at Sony.

Correct.

The advertisement is targeted at the CMA, who coincidentally also keeps using the same singular game name in most of their communique.

So .. same difference ?

 

[Hendrick's]

Cause that's not the game whose name Sony is using when asking the deal to be blocked ? Why, what else did you think ?

Exactly. Sony is the only one making this all about COD.

 

[Sony]

Right, but recall in the PF the CMA said that none of the behavioral remedies they've seen would be acceptable for them but that they would consider others as presented to them.


"First, Microsoft's commercial strategy to date suggests that there are strategic benefits in limiting the availability of acquired gaming content. Microsoft has acquired a range of gaming studios over the past few years and, with very few exceptions, has made their future releases of games exclusive or redirected the efforts of those studios to produce exclusive Xbox games. Although we recognise that Activision is a bigger studio than any acquired by Microsoft before, this pattern of behaviour seems to be consistent with Microsoft's commercial strategy."


"7. During our investigation, Microsoft told us that it has offered to enter into new long-term agreements with SIE, Nintendo, and Steam to supply them with CoD post-Merger. Whether some form of supply or licensing agreement might satisfactorily remedy our concerns in gaming consoles is something that we will consider as part of our remedies process, rather than in our competitive assessment."

"At this stage, the CMA considers that certain divestitures and/or prohibition are, in principle, feasible remedies in this case. The provisional SLCs are not time-limited, and while RCBs have not yet been assessed in detail, evidence on efficiencies received to date does not suggest that RCBs might be substantial."

"As noted above, the circumstances in which the CMA might select a behavioural remedy as the primary source of remedial action are not present in this case. The two markets in which the CMA has provisionally found SLCs are multi-faceted and continue to develop. This is particularly the case in cloud gaming, where the customer offerings and business models of market participants are evolving rapidly. We are of the initial view that any behavioural remedy in this case is likely to present material effectiveness 14 Merger Remedies: CMA87 (December 2018), paragraph 7.4. 15 Merger Remedies: CMA87 (December 2018), paragraph 7.3. 10 risks. We invite the Parties to provide evidence on how these risks could be appropriately managed to ensure that any behavioural remedy is effective."

We are saying the same thing. CMA hasn't formally concidered the 10-year agreement so far. They knew Microsoft offered it, but didn't concider the details. The details of the agreement are relevant as to the behavioral remedy is satisfactory. The fact that Microsoft proposed to pay an independent third party to govern the 10-year agreement was also not part of the concideration.

 

[GHG]

Correct.

The advertisement is targeted at the CMA, who coincidentally also keeps using the same singular game name in most of their communique.

So .. same difference ?

If they are targeting the CMA then it would make more sense for them to reference the games/divisions that they've claimed the deal is primarily about when communicating with them.

But alas.

 

[adamsapple]

Sony:

"In the intervening period, Microsoft has not shown any real commitment to reaching a negotiated outcome. They have dragged their feet, engaged only when they sensed the regulatory outlook darkening, and favored negotiating with the media over engaging SIE (Sony)."

Also Sony:

'I Don't Want a New Call of Duty Deal. I Just Want to Block Your Merger'

 

[Banjo64]

Sony are making it all about CoD but it was Microsoft who publicly announced they'd offered Sony a 3 year, then 10 year, deal for CoD. Then they announced they've made a 10 year deal with Nintendo for CoD. Then they announced that they offered Steam a 10 year deal for CoD. Then they announced they've made a 10 year deal with Nvidia for CoD. Then in every soft-ball, staged interview Phil has had CoD has been brought up as he trips over himself to tell everyone that CoD will continue to be on PlayStation.

And PlayStation won't stop making this about CoD… despite them doing all of their talking through their submissions to each regulator.

Sure.

 

[GHG]

Sony:



Also Sony:

One of those quotes is from official communication, the other is hearsay.

Real chin scratcher isn't it? "8.8TF" all over again.

 

[xHunter]

Sony:



Also Sony:

Doesnt surprise me that you believe a random tweetwithout any sources. Where is the source for the jimbo quote other than a random tweet from lulu?

 

[reksveks]

Then they announced they've made a 10 year deal with Nvidia for CoD

Minor and pendantic correction, the Nvidia deal is for all Xbox games. The cloud licensing system revealed yesterday was for Activision, it's rather weird.

re: the point around SLC and RCB, the conversation has largely been focused on the SLC specifically due to COD from all parties.

 

[Topher]

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.

They won't because it just won't be feasible. Especially not when we are at the point where Zenimax is going to start cranking out games. But the amount of money required to forego a PlayStation version for a AAA game just isn't worth it. No, they will continue to money hat AA games to fill out Game Pass like they have for a while.

 

[adamsapple]

One of those quotes is from official communication, the other is hearsay.

Real chin scratcher isn't it? "8.8TF" all over again.

Come on G, lol. Lulu aside, Kotik is also on record saying Sony aren't answering his communication (and no this is not a we love kotik post).

Even if you put the quote aside, Sony saying that MS is not negotiating then flat out refusing to talk about remedies other than divestment shows their duplicitous behavior in these "negotiations".

 

[Banjo64]

Sony:



Also Sony:

Both things can be true, but you know that.

You can not want a deal, but still believe
that the other party that does want a deal is acting in bad faith.

 

[GHG]

Doesnt surprise me that you believe a random tweetwithout any sources. Where is the source for the jimbo quote other than a random tweet from lulu?

You expect better from the same people who ran with all the false claims and stories that have originated from social media over the last 3/4 years?

I don't.

Come on G, lol. Lulu aside, Kotik is also on record saying Sony aren't answering his communication (and no this is not a we love kotik post).

Even if you put the quote aside, Sony saying that MS is not negotiating then flat out refusing to talk about remedies other than divestment shows their duplicitous behavior in these "negotiations".

Sony have no obligation to respond to anything from Activision's regarding this deal, Activision are not the negotiating party. We've already been over this. If Microsoft want to negotiate with Sony then Microsoft should be the ones to initiate contact, not via Bobby and certainly not via Lulu.

 

[SneakersSO]

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 appeal process is a joke - it involves convincing another group that the CMA acted irrationally, which then causes that group to kick the case right back in front of the CMA.

 

[Banjo64]

.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

Can someone explain this like I'm 5?
Why's it bad that Sony would never accept the deal?

The CMA is on record as to saying that Sony is under no obligation to negotiate with Microsoft as Microsoft is under no obligation to negotiate with Sony.

People seem to think that Sony has a duty to accept a deal that is disadvantageous to them.

Imagine if I told you that you have to sell your car to me and the max I am willing to accept is 10K dollars, meanwhile the car is worth 40K dollars and people on the outside are saying you're in the wrong for not negotiating.

Microsoft controlling CoD is an industry regulatory event, it just is and it's exactly why Microsoft is looking to purchase the biggest franchise in console and PC gaming, because they're drowning at the moment. Sony doesn't have to sign off on that, nor should they.

Microsoft themselves just recently pushed to block Nvidia from buying Arm.

"NVIDIA offered a behavioural remedy – a measure which regulates the ongoing behaviour of a business – but the CMA found that this type of remedy would not alleviate its concerns. Therefore, the CMA found that the merger should be progressed to an in-depth Phase 2 investigation on competition grounds.

Andrea Coscelli, chief executive of the CMA, said: "We're concerned that NVIDIA controlling Arm could create real problems for NVIDIA's rivals by limiting their access to key technologies, and ultimately stifling innovation across a number of important and growing markets. This could end up with consumers missing out on new products, or prices going up.

"The chip technology industry is worth billions and is vital to products that businesses and consumers rely on every day. This includes the critical data processing and datacentre technology that supports digital businesses across the economy, and the future development of artificial intelligence technologies that will be important to growth industries like robotics and self-driving cars.""

 

[Banjo64]

Minor and pendantic correction, the Nvidia deal is for all Xbox games. The cloud licensing system revealed yesterday was for Activision, it's rather weird.

True. Thank you.

It's reasonable to say that Microsoft trumped Call of Duty as a major point in that agreement though.

Partnership will bring blockbuster lineup of Xbox games, including Minecraft and Activision titles like Call of Duty, to NVIDIA GeForce NOW cloud gaming service

https://news.microsoft.com/2023/02/21/microsoft-and-nvidia-announce-expansive-new-gaming-deal/

 

[adamsapple]

Sony have no obligation to respond to anything from Activision's regarding this deal, Activision are not the negotiating party. We've already been over this. If Microsoft want to negotiate with Sony then Microsoft should be the ones to initiate contact, not via Bobby and certainly not via Lulu.

No one said MS isn't reaching out to them, but all recent documentation and these quotes show clearly that Sony are hunkered up in their walled garden, refusing to agree to negotiations other than total divestment. Them saying that the other party is not showing "real commitment" after the other party has already guaranteed 10 years of release including the option to put the game on the all sub services to even the playing field, that just shows they (Sony) don't have any interest in negotiating.

Using excuses like "they might put bugs in the last level and whose gonna keep a track of that?" just further shows that Sony are the ones dragging their feet here. Not the other way around.

 

[ToTTenTranz]

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

Other than the fact that they're both being blocked by regulators.

 

[Banjo64]

Come on G, lol. Lulu aside, Kotik is also on record saying Sony aren't answering his communication (and no this is not a we love kotik post).

Even if you put the quote aside, Sony saying that MS is not negotiating then flat out refusing to talk about remedies other than divestment shows their duplicitous behavior in these "negotiations".

Microsoft have said they are open to negotiating a deal when really they've just put their 1 sided terms to Sony a year ago and then gone radar silent until it's time to go on a media charm offensive.

 

[HoofHearted]

So I see that Jim finally whipped out his dick and slammed it down on the negotiations table..

Any other news?

 

[Punished Miku]

Microsoft have said they are open to negotiating a deal when really they've just put their 1 sided terms to Sony a year ago and then gone radar silent until it's time to go on a media charm offensive.

There's no counter negotiation from Sony. They're not even offering any details to work with other than "block the deal." You have to have a participating partner to negotiate back and forth.

 

[adamsapple]

Microsoft have said they are open to negotiating a deal when really they've just put their 1 sided terms to Sony a year ago and then gone radar silent until it's time to go on a media charm offensive.

It's been at least half a year since MS started offering the 10 year commitment, don't make it sound like it only started 2 weeks ago

Only one of the two big parties involved here is offering remedies, the other is just flat out refusing to negotiate anything.

There's no counter negotiation from Sony. They're not even offering any details to work with other than "block the deal." You have to have a participating partner to negotiate back and forth.

Yep.

 

[Astray]

There's no PlayStation console or controller in this ad!

In fairness, they can't use Playstation trademarks or products in their ads without the approval of Sony itself. But it's weird that Nintendo's doesn't appear given how things are supposedly hunky-dory between the two companies over this deal.

 

[Banjo64]

There's no counter negotiation from Sony. They're not even offering any details to work with other than "block the deal." You have to have a participating partner to negotiate back and forth.

I've already said, both things can be true (and clearly are in this case).

Sony don't want to negotiate.

Sony can still view Microsoft as acting in bad faith as they've clearly spelt out that they've had one offer from Microsoft a year ago, with dubious terms, and then Microsoft have been radar silent apart from when its media time.

Let's not forget it's Microsoft playing these 'deals' out in public. Sony aren't acting on bad faith by refusing to negotiate. Microsoft are acting in bad faith by playing this out to the gallery instead of trying to make major inroads.

Let's not forget it's Phillip who's constantly saying he's had good meetings with Sony's leaders etc. Clearly Sony have been open to communication from MS. It's just that MS clearly only want a 10 year deal, which isn't sufficient for Sony (or the CMA).

 

[Banjo64]

It's been at least half a year since MS started offering the 10 year commitment, don't make it sound like it only started 2 weeks ago

Only one of the two big parties involved here is offering remedies, the other is just flat out refusing to negotiate anything.



Yep.

So someone knocks on your door and says 'I'm buying your house' - you just happily agree to negotiate instead of saying 'fuck off'?

Stupid analogy? Probably. Trying to simplify it though as some people still can't seem to grasp it after all this time.