Microsoft / Activision Deal Approval Watch |OT| (MS/ABK close)

Do you believe the deal will be approved?

  • Yes, will be approved without changes.

    Votes: 221 24.9%

  • Yes, will be approved but with structural changes to ABK.

    Votes: 102 11.5%

  • Yes, will be approved but only with behavioral concessions.

    Votes: 262 29.6%

  • No, will not be approved.

    Votes: 301 34.0%
  • Total voters
    886
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
Mibu no ookami said:
Within 10 years I assure you that the only way you could get ABK games would be through their store/GamePass.

That's literally the point of this.

They want a Console, PC, mobile store front all of which generate revenue. GamePass will also come to mobile.
Click to expand...
People forget the days when 1st party MS stuff was released exclusively on their shitty UWP platform.

They will try to do it again.
 
Banjo64 said:
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.
Click to expand...
looney tunes hello GIF by Looney Tunes World of Mayhem


Hello good sir will you be seeling me your toilet today?
 
quest said:
That explain the attempt to get exclusive deals with every next-generation Zenimax game? If Microsoft didn't step up and buy them every game from zenimax would of had a sony exclusive deal.
Click to expand...

lol... That is absurd and 100% highly speculative.
The reality is, Zenimax games are now all exclusive to one platform holder, but that is ok because it's Xbox, right?
 
quest said:
That explain the attempt to get exclusive deals with every next-generation Zenimax game? If Microsoft didn't step up and buy them every game from zenimax would of had a sony exclusive deal.
Click to expand...

lol...who was it that framed the discussion around Square Enix?


Happy Season 5 GIF by The Office
 
Pelta88 said:
No. It's not. :messenger_tears_of_joy:

The difference in resources is gargantuan. Microsoft's market cap is 1.92 Trillion. While Sony's market cap is 111 Billion. Which makes the playfield so uneven, it's practically vertical. Sony only stays competitive by creating great immersive experiences. XBOX competes by being subsidised by Microsoft. We've all seen the numbers and stats posted in this very thread...

XBOX under any other company bar Microsoft would have gone out of business many years ago.
Click to expand...
That's why we all should be happy Xbox is owned by Ms. If all we had was Sony we would be fucked
 
sainraja said:
Gotcha, makes sense.


They might, but it is hard to say that right now. I would hope that if they were to get their own platform on PC, they would try to get people to buy from them using benefits such as "cross-buy" (something they have done in the past), trophies, save syncing, etc. instead of just removing their games from the PC stores they already are on. They should put their games on all PC platforms, at least I hope so anyway.


I don't think they will be able to expand on PC as quickly if they make their games exclusive only to their platform. But exclusivity for other third-party games, well, I hope they don't go that route. I know EPIC does that, but I don't think Sony should follow that on the PC. It should only be their games; probably not likely.


Hmm, yeah. I suppose they will probably want to do that on their own channels from a business perspective. I see your point.
Click to expand...

I think it's pretty predictable the path they're going to take here. That's where the money is. They have enough leverage that they're not going to want to keep paying 30-20-15 percent to Valve on their own games meanwhile not generating any royalties of their own. They're also going to want to be on mobile as they're currently not generating any revenue there either.

I doubt we'll see cross-buy, at least not in most situations

If you look at the streaming media industry, it's all about exclusive content and every studio for the most part IS pulling content from competitors. No reason game companies wouldn't do the same.

Sony's ability to grow is based on them leveraging PS5 against PC. So exclusivity is the way to go. They have so many exclusive deals that ignore PC, but if they have a storefront, it'll make more sense to get exclusivity there as well. They have to incentivize people to use their store over Steam, which is a tall order.

The same is true on mobile too, you basically need a game like Fortnite and build around it. Get a few hit games and build out your storefront there while getting exclusive deals and favorable pricing to other publishers, who don't want there to be a monopoly any more than Sony.

By the end of the decade my guess is that PlayStation will mean something completely different, i.e. it'll mean a storefront across PC and Console and MAYBE mobile and subscription model and cloud service as well as transmedia.

You look at Marvel now and really no one cares about their comics. They're a film studio. Their business has transformed. If you don't think Jim Ryan isn't eyeing PC and mobile markets... and not just playstation studio revenue but royalties, which is where the real money is.
 
BeardGawd said:
It shows that Sony is intent on sabotaging the deal.

That means the CMA should not be using any Sony statements when evaluating if this is harmful for the industry. Once you know someone is acting in bad faith then their arguments can't be trusted.

It makes the CMA look like fools if they use any of Sony's rational in their decision.
Click to expand...
Sounds a bit crazy, are Microsoft acting in bad faith for going after the deal too?
 
Mibu no ookami said:
Apple is staying out of this even though they were probably a bidder for Activision, because when they eventually want to buy a major provider they don't want to be blocked. They also don't want the same scrutiny on the Apple Store here.

Sony is in a unique situation because they don't yet have a PC or mobile store nor are they likely to make a 70 billion dollar purchase. Nor are they that far ahead in subscription or cloud gaming.
Click to expand...
Apple is staying out of this because they make more from gaming than MS, Sony, Nintendo, and all 3rd party publishers combined and do it by literally nothing but collecting 30% of every App Store transaction. They couldn't care less about this spat between what for them are tiny minnows. All Apple wants is to keep collecting their 30% from every CoD Mobile transaction in perpetuity and they couldn't care less who owns CoD.
 


Microsoft has confirmed it's offered Sony the option to put future Call of Duty games on its PlayStation Plus subscription service on day one
Click to expand...

"Any CoD Game in a Microsoft multigame subscription is eligible for inclusion in Sony's multi-game subscription service, at the same time and for the same duration," Microsoft claims in its response.
Click to expand...

However, in its own response to the CMA's findings, which were also published on Wednesday, SIE claims that Microsoft's subscription offer isn't as appealing as it makes out.
Click to expand...

www.videogameschronicle.com

Microsoft confirms it will let Sony put Call of Duty on PS Plus on day one | VGC

Streaming and subscription parity is included as part of the company’s 10-year offer…
www.videogameschronicle.com www.videogameschronicle.com
 
BeardGawd said:
It shows that Sony is intent on sabotaging the deal.

That means the CMA should not be using any Sony statements when evaluating if this is harmful for the industry. Once you know someone is acting in bad faith then their arguments can't be trusted.

It makes the CMA look like fools if they use any of Sony's rational in their decision.
Click to expand...
Yeah, thats not how any of this works at all. For starters, it is unusual for someone to oppose a merger/acquisition, typically, so whenever someone within an industry does, it becomes a big deal. Regulators take all views into consideration, including the public. By your logic, regulators should NEVER listen to the folks coming in for the merger coming in either, since they have several incentives to see it through.

You also are using a quote taken out of context and said 2nd hand, in a case where regulators are all fully aware Sony would prefer to see the deal blocked already. This isn't news to them - Sony has been upfront on what their preferred outcome to all this would be; its why they have yet to sign any deal. Heck - if this quote is to be believed, Sony said this quote in front of regulators, so i'm not sure why you think any of this would come across as a surprise to them.

Not once has a single regulator asked Sony and MS to hash things out and negotiate a deal. Thats never been an endgoal here or a requirement to oppose it. Ya know who else opposes this deal? Google, and yet Google, as far as we all know, has never even sat down with MS or ATVI for anything in this.
 
Last edited:
Malcolm9 said:
Makes sense, that isn't Sony's strategy if most aren't aware.
Click to expand...
Well, the detail being left out of that part of the contract is how much that subscription inclusion would cost? Who is setting the price for that? Clearly its MS in this case, and they can just effectively decide that price to be whatever they deem fit. If the fee for subscription service inclusion is sufficiently high, it would render any benefit they'd get from it meaningless, not even to say that MS would not have to pay such a fee to host it on theirs.
 
Mibu no ookami said:
I think it's pretty predictable the path they're going to take here. That's where the money is. They have enough leverage that they're not going to want to keep paying 30-20-15 percent to Valve on their own games meanwhile not generating any royalties of their own. They're also going to want to be on mobile as they're currently not generating any revenue there either.
Click to expand...
Yeah, it wouldn't surprise me. I just think on the PC side they can do things a little differently. They did put some titles on mobile, but it is an area they can expand to.

Mibu no ookami said:
I doubt we'll see cross-buy, at least not in most situations
Click to expand...
With the current leadership, I don't see them doing this but maybe in the future they could bring that program back. They did it when they had another platform of their own — the Vita. They are now adopting the PC as another platform where they can put their games so I would hope they would do that again.

Mibu no ookami said:
If you look at the streaming media industry, it's all about exclusive content and every studio for the most part IS pulling content from competitors. No reason game companies wouldn't do the same.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I guess so. I understand why they need exclusives but on the PC side, if they **really** wanted to do that, they can with their own titles. But I see your point.

Mibu no ookami said:
Sony's ability to grow is based on them leveraging PS5 against PC. So exclusivity is the way to go. They have so many exclusive deals that ignore PC, but if they have a storefront, it'll make more sense to get exclusivity there as well. They have to incentivize people to use their store over Steam, which is a tall order.
Click to expand...
Yeah, fair point. I understand it. But I dunno. There is an opportunity on PC for them to experiment a bit.

Mibu no ookami said:
The same is true on mobile too, you basically need a game like Fortnite and build around it. Get a few hit games and build out your storefront there while getting exclusive deals and favorable pricing to other publishers, who don't want there to be a monopoly any more than Sony.

By the end of the decade my guess is that PlayStation will mean something completely different, i.e. it'll mean a storefront across PC and Console and MAYBE mobile and subscription model and cloud service as well as transmedia.

You look at Marvel now and really no one cares about their comics. They're a film studio. Their business has transformed. If you don't think Jim Ryan isn't eyeing PC and mobile markets... and not just playstation studio revenue but royalties, which is where the real money is.
Click to expand...
Fair points. I don't see want to see subscription only model though. We will see.
 
Mibu no ookami said:
They have considered it and while they said they would look at it further during responses, they didn't currently see any behavioral remedies as suitable solutions and they as an agency at this point in an investigation prefer structural remedies if they are feasible and in this case find them to be feasible.

Microsoft was always going to have to pay for the 3rd party. Who else did you think was going to do it? More to that, they've called out enforceability issues with this, especially given the nature of cloud and subscription gaming which is particularly new. Sony re-emphasizing that in their response is probably a death knell to this deal, since there is no future understanding of what those segments look like. Just compare Netflix and streaming and its disruption to cable and rental and theaters...
Click to expand...

I don't know what there is to argue, they literally have not concidered it because it was not part of that PF phase. The remedies proposal phase comes afterward. What is there not to understand here?
 
SneakersSO said:
Well, the detail being left out of that part of the contract is how much that subscription inclusion would cost? Who is setting the price for that? Clearly its MS in this case, and they can just effectively decide that price to be whatever they deem fit. If the fee for subscription service inclusion is sufficiently high, it would render any benefit they'd get from it meaningless, not even to say that MS would not have to pay such a fee to host it on theirs.
Click to expand...
All this article is, is more viral warfare where some people will ignore the context and nuance.
 
Sony said:
I don't know what there is to argue, they literally have not concidered it because it was not part of that PF phase. The remedies proposal phase comes afterward. What is there not to understand here?
Click to expand...
Based on how they described it, they wanted to see Behavioral remedies that approximates their stated Structural Remedies. Historically, their approval rate for Behavioral Remedies for cases that have gotten to this stage is less than 4%, and MS is not presenting divestment or anything approximating divestment as a behavioral remedy.

A 10-year agreement is nowhere close to a divestment of an asset during a purchase. MS has said they won't even consider divestment.
 
Mibu no ookami said:
Nvidia was also against it, but seem to have been mollified with their 10 year agreement that isn't contingent on the deal going through at least for xbox games.
Click to expand...

As far as I understood, MS did indeed make that arrangement contingent on the deal being approved.

But it's not 100% clear as are so many things MS have said recently.
 
If MS is the one who owns the IP, what incentive do they have to license it to a competing subscription service on fair grounds?

All of a sudden the MAU boys would be more worried about revenue lost from full price sales. They aren't slick.

How about they find out market rate by paying AB what they think the game is worth on gamepass? Oh they don't wanna do that because then everybody can go to AB, a neutral actor with no interest in selling GP or Xbox.
 
Last edited:
NeonDelta said:
But its OK for Sony to deprive xbox and pc owners who love cod of certain cod skins. Extra load outs, extra xp gains, tier skips etc.

And final fantasy fans with an xbox of playing final fantasy 7 remake.
Click to expand...

Those items are available on the content market. It's up to MS to bid…

I guess they chose not to so direct your anger at them.
 
ToadMan said:
As far as I understood, MS did indeed make that arrangement contingent on the deal being approved.

But it's not 100% clear as are so many things MS have said recently.
Click to expand...

I believe they said that CoD was contingent on the deal going through but xbox games were not.
 
Sony said:
I don't know what there is to argue, they literally have not concidered it because it was not part of that PF phase. The remedies proposal phase comes afterward. What is there not to understand here?
Click to expand...

Which part of this did you not understand

"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."
Click to expand...
 
quest said:
Right now Microsoft has a less viable platform because of content starving from money hats of large studios. No its not a viable business strategy to pay over a 100 million per large studio money hat.
Click to expand...

Yet Sony and Nintendo have viable gaming businesses … oops.
 
Foilz said:
That's why we all should be happy Xbox is owned by Ms. If all we had was Sony we would be fucked
Click to expand...
All they're trying to do here is keep the PlayStation small enough so that they can only compete on MS's terms, lol (not saying that is the case right now before anyone jumps into this conversation). Sure, the same is true in reverse but one company can outspend the other. Haven't they said they want PlayStation to be like Nintendo? I mean, they even tried to dismiss them as competition and tried highlighting Amazon/Google as the ones they were competing with.

So, I don't see how that is good either. You do realize that it goes both ways, right?
 
Last edited:
.Pennywise said:








[/URL]
Click to expand...

But the deal they proposed to the EU just a week ago was already so good!??
Just a week later COD can now be day one on Playstation Plus :messenger_grinning_sweat: (they're not disclosing if the price is in the billion range each year though).
But the point is that every week there's a new concession and the minimum livel of the requested remedies will go up.
And some people think that Sony doesn't know what they're doing....
At this point it's also clear that Microsoft does not expect the CMA to approve the deal so they're trying to throw whatever they can except what CMA has asked them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Microsoft wins FTC appeal challenging $69 billion Activision Blizzard deal
News Business  2 3
125
624
Unknown? replied
MS/ABK is advertising games that don't exist for data collection
46
2K
POKEYCLYDE replied
My apologies to Ubisoft, Sony, Activision, EA, MS etc. for making a big deal out of $70 games
2 3 4
156
7K
MDSLKTR replied
Microsoft, Activision Deny Report Regarding Financial Performance
Business Hardware  2 3
131
11K
Jaybe replied
What happened to all the people that were cheering over that MS Activision acquisition?
Drama  5 6 7 8 9
414
18K
GateofD replied
Top Bottom