Support NeoGAF

[Helghan]

Of course they do but that doesn't prevent any game from being on PS. Xbox games are on Steam while Game Pass is not. However, I'm not saying that means MS is lying about anything.

Sure I get that, both parties can decide what they want to release in which way on which device. But Neofire shouldn't say they are lying when they do want to release it on PlayStation through Game Pass and Sony blocks this. Microsoft can definitely launch it on PlayStation standalone, but they can also give the games away for free. It still needs to make business sense for them how they release their games. And not doing everything to release it on a different console does not mean they are lying.

 

[IFireflyl]

Sure I get that, both parties can decide what they want to release in which way on which device. But Neofire shouldn't say they are lying when they do want to release it on PlayStation through Game Pass and Sony blocks this. Microsoft can definitely launch it on PlayStation standalone, but they can also give the games away for free. It still needs to make business sense for them how they release their games. And not doing everything to release it on a different console does not mean they are lying.

Game Pass on PlayStation would only be feasible via cloud gaming (e.g. streaming). That is not an acceptable approach, especially not with FPS and online games that require very low latency.

 

[ToadMan]

What are you talking abojt? Someone else said they commented on the 10 year deal. I asked for proof and I still haven't seen anything.

I know they don't need Sony to sign. The CMA is right now determining if it's enough. We have not gotten any word back if the remedies are enough yet.

Go read the PF.

Page 143 onwards.

 

[Topher]

Sure I get that, both parties can decide what they want to release in which way on which device. But Neofire shouldn't say they are lying when they do want to release it on PlayStation through Game Pass and Sony blocks this. Microsoft can definitely launch it on PlayStation standalone, but they can also give the games away for free. It still needs to make business sense for them how they release their games. And not doing everything to release it on a different console does not mean they are lying.

It does make business sense for them to sell games without the option of Game Pass though. Again, they do that on Steam. I don't call that a lie. It is corporate PR speak. Just call it like it is. Microsoft doesn't want to sell games on PlayStation because they want those games on any other console than Xbox.

 

[Heisenberg007]

Go read the PF.

Page 143 onwards.

 

[ToadMan]

You won't post the full thing because they clearly state they aren't considering the 10 year deal because it hasn't been signed by Sony.

Now that we know Sony is refusing to sign anything we are awaiting for the CMA's final decision.

Uh your point was the CMA hadn't reacted to the 10 year offers. They have.

See below.

The CMA has stated they don't believe behavioral remedies are possible to address their concerns

Whether that specific 10 year deal was included in their analysis is moot; certainly a licensing agreement was already considered when making such a statement

The 10 years was part of the consideration - and CMA observed there is no deal with Sony, even if there was is not really enforceable, and the Nintendo 10 years is a fragile contract with no mitigation on the SLC.

But the discourse about it several pages long so it's not suitable for posting here.

 

[Heisenberg007]

Uh your point was the CMA hadn't reacted to the 10 year offers. They have.

See below.



The 10 years was part of the consideration - and CMA observed there is no deal with Sony, even if there was is not really enforceable, and the Nintendo 10 years is a fragile contract with no mitigation on the SLC.

But the discourse about it several pages long so it's not suitable for posting here.

Yep, but CMA assesses that even a signed contract would not affect Microsoft's ability to foreclose PlayStation because their internal documents reveal their goals and strategies align with the concept of exclusivity.

The following image I posted is about that.

I have shared it, by the way. Here is another.

 

[DenchDeckard]

Anything new?

I guess we are waiting until the end of April? Nothing from the CMA before then?

 

[Helghan]

Game Pass on PlayStation would only be feasible via cloud gaming (e.g. streaming). That is not an acceptable approach, especially not with FPS and online games that require very low latency.

Why?

 

[Sony]

Yep, but CMA assesses that even a signed contract would not affect Microsoft's ability to foreclose PlayStation because their internal documents reveal their goals and strategies align with the concept of exclusivity.

The following image I posted is about that.

I don't know where this idea that the '10 year deal' was assessed during the provisional findings comes from. This is simply not true. In the provisional findings report, CMA has stated that they are aware that Microsoft is offering a 10 year deal. They however, did not formally assess that remedy. Knowing that something exists is not the same as evaluating its existance. That was outside the scope of the provisional findings phase.

To put it differently, the details of the 10 year plan had not formally been submitted to CMA yet and CMA had not assessed it in the provisional findings phase. It's simply false to state otherwise. The offer you're referring to is not the 10 year one, it's the 3+5 year one that was already offered to Sony.

You won't post the full thing because they clearly state they aren't considering the 10 year deal because it hasn't been signed by Sony.

Now that we know Sony is refusing to sign anything we are awaiting for the CMA's final decision.

A signature by Sony is irrelevant to the remedy itself. CMA assesses wether the remedy is enough to not lead to a SLC and/or foreclosure. Wether or not Sony signs it or not is fully up to them. In other words, it's theoretically possible that CMA accepts behavioral remedies in the form of a contract that Sony ultimately doesn't sign. Sony would be stupid not to sign, but they could.

 

[Heisenberg007]

I don't know where this idea that the '10 year deal' was assessed during the provisional findings comes from. This is simply not true. In the provisional findings report, CMA has stated that they are aware that Microsoft is offering a 10 year deal. They however, did not formally assess that remedy. Knowing that something exists is not the same as evaluating its existance. That was outside the scope of the provisional findings phase.

To put it differently, the details of the 10 year plan had not formally been submitted to CMA yet and CMA had not assessed it in the provisional findings phase. It's simply false to state otherwise. The offer you're referring to is not the 10 year one, it's the 3+5 year one that was already offered to Sony.

That is incorrect.

Microsoft offered the 10-year deal before December 05, 2022, and informed the CMA of the deal on December 07, 2022. The CMA published their provisional findings 2 months later, on February 08, 2023.

The CMA was referring to the 10-year deal. There is evidence of that in the provisional findings document.

 

[Heisenberg007]

Anything new?

I guess we are waiting until the end of April? Nothing from the CMA before then?

They have received Microsoft's responses regarding behavioral remedies. So they can make a decision and release before the April deadline if they can/want to.

 

[Sony]

That is incorrect.

Microsoft offered the 10-year deal before December 05, 2022, and informed the CMA of the deal on December 07, 2022. The CMA published their provisional findings 2 months later, on February 08, 2023.

The CMA was referring to the 10-year deal. There is evidence of that in the provisional findings document.

You're literally proving what I'm saying. CMA is claiming that it's aware of such an offer existing, but it hasn't assessed it.
It hasn't analyzed that offer as the behavioral remedy to their provisional findings, in the privisional findings phase.
Like I said, stating that you're aware something exists =/= assessing it.

 

[Heisenberg007]

You're literally proving what I'm saying. CMA is claiming that it's aware of such an offer existing, but it hasn't assessed it.
It hasn't analyzed that offer as the behavioral remedy to their provisional findings, in the privisional findings phase.
Like I said, stating that you're aware something exists =/= assessing it.

1) You said that the CMA was referring to the 3-5 year deal offer. That's incorrect. The CMA was referring to the latest 10-year deal.

The offer you're referring to is not the 10 year one, it's the 3+5 year one that was already offered to Sony.

2) I never said that the CMA has analyzed and responded to Microsoft's formal behavioral remedy submission. The CMA has yet to publish that document. What I'm saying is more nuanced.

- Microsoft mentioned the 10-year deal to the CMA (didn't submit it as the official behavioral remedy). The CMA talked about it and commented in the PF that Microsoft's 10-year offer is not sufficient as it does not affect their ability to foreclose PlayStation -- unlike divestment.
- They said they would release their final official assessments once Microsoft submits their behavioral remedies (as those behavioral remedies may be different than these 10-year deals).
- At this point, the CMA also said that behavioral remedies alone would not be sufficient in this case. MS is free to convince the CMA otherwise, but the behavioral remedies should be equal to divestment in effect.
- Then MS submitted the same 10-year deals + NVidia's deal to the CMA as their official suggested behavioral remedies.
- Now, the CMA will submit its final official stance on this by next month.

But the situation is unlikely to be different because the Microsoft offer isn't different. The CMA has already commented on the 10-year deals and deemed them insufficient. Chances are that their official response to submitted behavioral remedies (10-year deals, again) will also be the same.

 

[freefornow]

But the situation is unlikely to be different because the Microsoft offer isn't different.

I'm assuming MS lawyers are smart (speculation) and are fully concious of the following:

- At this point, the CMA also said that behavioral remedies alone would not be sufficient in this case. MS is free to convince the CMA otherwise, but the behavioral remedies should be equal to divestment in effect.
- Then MS submitted the same 10-year deals + NVidia's deal to the CMA as their official suggested behavioral remedies.

Why submit the same deals? Is there more (detail?) to the MS offered remedies? Or dont we (the public) know?
Apologies if this is crystal ball gazing.

 

[Dick Jones]

I'm assuming MS lawyers are smart (speculation) and are fully concious of the following:

Why submit the same deals? Is there more (detail?) to the MS offered remedies? Or dont we (the public) know?
Apologies if this is crystal ball gazing.

Maybe the CMA looked to the general articles written regarding the 10 year remedies (before it was formally accepted) and MS thought the finer details would ease the CMA's reluctance to accept the proposed remedy. It could be the case the lawyers threw it formally as procedure. It is said when you sue someone you throw everything at first and hope something sticks. While it might be a proposed remedy, it might be 1 of many.

MS needed Sony's help in filing a subpoena against Sony so anything is possible.

 

[Sony]

1) You said that the CMA was referring to the 3-5 year deal offer. That's incorrect. The CMA was referring to the latest 10-year-old.

I'm saying the 2+3 year offer is the only offer that could have been assessed by CMA because it's the only tangible offer made to Sony in the form of a contract in the provisional findings phase.

2) I never said that the CMA has analyzed and responded to Microsoft's formal behavioral remedy submission. The CMA has yet to publish that document. What I'm saying is more nuanced.

- Microsoft mentioned the 10-year deal to the CMA (didn't submit it as the official behavioral remedy). The CMA talked about it and commented in the PF that Microsoft's 10-year offer is not sufficient as it does not affect their ability to foreclose PlayStation -- unlike divestment.
- They said they would release their final official assessments once Microsoft submits their behavioral remedies (as those behavioral remedies may be different than these 10-year deals).
- At this point, the CMA also said that behavioral remedies alone would not be sufficient in this case. MS is free to convince the CMA otherwise, but the behavioral remedies should be equal to divestment in effect.
- Then MS submitted the same 10-year deals + NVidia's deal to the CMA as their official suggested behavioral remedies.
- Now, the CMA will submit its final official stance on this by next month.

But the situation is unlikely to be different because the Microsoft offer isn't different. The CMA has already commented on the 10-year deals and deemed them insufficient. Chances are that their official response to submitted behavioral remedies (10-year deals, again) will also be the same.

Stating that Microsoft's 10 year offer is not sufficient quite literally is an assessment and we both agree that they haven't assessed it. It's no secret that CMA is no fan of behavrioral remedies and they indeed have stated in their provisional findings that they think that behavioral remedies are insuffucient in this case, but they haven't formally assessed the 10 year plan that Microsoft has offered as behavioral remedy. I don't know what we're arguing about here.

 

[Heisenberg007]

Why submit the same deals? Is there more (detail?) to the MS offered remedies? Or dont we (the public) know?
Apologies if this is crystal ball gazing.

It's not necessarily stupidity by Microsoft's lawyers. It is just the leeway the company is willing to give. That's how far Microsoft can go in this deal in terms of concessions (e.g., any more than that, and it might be financially unfeasible for them).

The CMA also mentioned that Microsoft's internal strategy documents mention exclusivity as their North star. So their strategies revolve around exclusive content. So a concession to keep ABK games multiplatform forever might not align with Microsoft's goals. So they are trying their luck with the best they can offer, i.e., a 10-year multiplatform deal.

Microsoft has also said (though not formally yet) that divestiture of Activision is not an option for them (if they agree to that, the CMA would approve it right away).

Now it's a matter of who blinks and gives way. If the CMA says, duck it, they are not budging, let them have it, Microsoft wins with only a 10-year deal. If CMA says, no, we're not having it. These 10-year deals are not enough. Divest Activision/COD or walk. Then MS can either divest or just leave the table.

 

[Makoto-Yuki]

any idea when this carry on will finish?

i think MS should be allowed to buy them and Sony need to stop pissing and moaning but feels like it's dragging on now. Just let MS buy them fs.

 

[Heisenberg007]

I'm saying the 2+3 year offer is the only offer that could have been assessed by CMA because it's the only tangible offer made to Sony in the form of a contract in the provisional findings phase.

Stating that Microsoft's 10 year offer is not sufficient quite literally is an assessment and we both agree that they haven't assessed it. It's no secret that CMA is no fan of behavrioral remedies and they indeed have stated in their provisional findings that they think that behavioral remedies are insuffucient in this case, but they haven't formally assessed the 10 year plan that Microsoft has offered as behavioral remedy. I don't know what we're arguing about here.

I think our main point of disagreement is the deal that the CMA "assessed." (more like, commented on).

It was not a 2+3 year deal, though. Why would it because Microsoft replaced it with an even sweeter deal of 10 years.

The nature of all deals offered by Microsoft to Sony is the same: all our contracts that Sony did not sign. So no offer is more "tangible" than the other one. It would have been if Sony signed the 3 year deal but didn't sign the 10-year deal. In that case, I'd have agreed with you.

As of now, all these deals have the same value, as in Sony signed none of them.

And the CMA mentioned the 10-year deal. Do you know of an instance when they mention the 2+3 year offer in the document while commenting on it?

 

[Heisenberg007]

any idea when this carry on will finish?

Before April 26, 2023.

 

[DenchDeckard]

They have received Microsoft's responses regarding behavioral remedies. So they can make a decision and release before the April deadline if they can/want to.

I'd love to just get this over with. Would be amazing if they made a decision soon. I don't care which way it goes...Just make it end haha.

I kinda don't want it to go through because I want MS to start showing me all the games they should currently have in development. Where is my Fable dammit!

 

[MasterCornholio]

any idea when this carry on will finish?

i think MS should be allowed to buy them and Sony need to stop pissing and moaning but feels like it's dragging on now. Just let MS buy them fs.

They can't just let Microsoft buy them. They have to approve the deal when they are satisfied with the concessions. Microsoft has a chance to do that.

 

[Makoto-Yuki]

Before April 26, 2023.

good. it'll be over soon then.

They can't just let Microsoft buy them. They have to approve the deal when they are satisfied with the concessions. Microsoft has a chance to do that.

i know i know... just tired of hearing about it and seeing people throwing shit at each other over it. it's pathetic. The sooner MS buys them the better.

 

[jm89]

good. it'll be over soon then.


i know i know... just tired of hearing about it and seeing people throwing shit at each other over it. it's pathetic. The sooner MS buys them the better.

If FTC are still up for a fight it could go until 2024.

At this point it there is more of a chance of it being blocked then being approved.

 

[Heisenberg007]

good. it'll be over soon then.

Only if the CMA blocks it.

If the CMA approves it, we'll have to follow the journey with the FTC, which can potentially bleed into 2024 lol.

 

[Edmund]

The sooner MS buys them the better.

Fuck this shit.

 

[feynoob]

Do any of you guys get tired from this?
I feel like you guys have a lot of free time arguing with each other.
Or maybe this thread is your .

 

[gothmog]

I'm assuming MS lawyers are smart (speculation) and are fully concious of the following:

Why submit the same deals? Is there more (detail?) to the MS offered remedies? Or dont we (the public) know?
Apologies if this is crystal ball gazing.

Because submitting nothing means they're not submitting any deal? Its what they got so they kinda have to stick with it or change it. To submit nothing is the same as saying you have no remedies.

 

[Bonsaibäumchen]

Do any of you guys get tired from this?
I feel like you guys have a lot of free time arguing with each other.
Or maybe this thread is your .

You were wasting enough of your time here to.
Why are you suddenly so judgemental?

 

[Cheezewizz]

Yeap we can see that with ps5 sales and all their games sales.

Xbox fanboys live in a parallel reality.

What was the console that sold 13% less last quarter on it 2nd year?

Whats the PS5 sales figures compared to the PS4 again?

Playstation fanboys living in a reality that isn't even parallel to this one.

That would be the Xbox. Of course when you release two AAA games within such a short window, it's no surprise when you sell more consoles compared to the same period a year later after having not released them.

 

[Cheezewizz]

It must be painful to live in that delusional world of yours.

Well so much for your role in all that remaining a secret.

 

[Heisenberg007]

Whats the PS5 sales figures compared to the PS4 again?

Playstation fanboys living in a reality that isn't even parallel to this one.

That would be the Xbox. Of course when you release two AAA games within such a short window, it's no surprise when you sell more consoles compared to the same period a year later after having not released them.

Weren't there 4 XGS exclusives in 2022?

• As Dusk Falls (July 19, 2022)
• Forza Horizon 5: Hot Wheels (July 19, 2022) - DLC
• Grounded (September 27, 2022)
• Age of Empires 4 (October 25, 2022)
• Pentiment (November 15, 2022)

 

[PharaoTutAnchAmun]

Sure I get that, both parties can decide what they want to release in which way on which device. But Neofire shouldn't say they are lying when they do want to release it on PlayStation through Game Pass and Sony blocks this. Microsoft can definitely launch it on PlayStation standalone, but they can also give the games away for free. It still needs to make business sense for them how they release their games. And not doing everything to release it on a different console does not mean they are lying.

Sony dont want Xbox Gamepass on Playstation and rightfully so. Its like letting the Trojan Horse in. Sony has they're own service on theyr system. They do know what MS is trying to pull here, Sony is not stupid...

 

[feynoob]

You were wasting enough of your time here to.
Why are you suddenly so judgemental?

People keep repeating a loop here nonstop.
It's like a neverending discussion.

 

[Helghan]

Weren't there 4 XGS exclusives in 2022?

• As Dusk Falls (July 19, 2022)
• Forza Horizon 5: Hot Wheels (July 19, 2022) - DLC
• Grounded (September 27, 2022)
• Age of Empires 4 (October 25, 2022)
• Pentiment (November 15, 2022)

What a comparison... An interactive drama, a DLC, a game that already was in beta for years, a game that (imo) should be played on PC, and a game that I would describe as indie when you ignore the studio.

 

[POKEYCLYDE]

I find it very odd that Hoeg isn't a banned source in Era as confirmed by a mod about 10 minutes ago. I thought they'd ban him outright but I guess not since he's in favour of the deal.

I've been away from both sites for a couple days, was going through here before there. And christ, the snowflake energy over there from some users is unbearable.

Some of you guys don't like Hoeg because he leans toward Xbox/acquisition approval, over there they don't like him because he hasn't condemned JK and somehow that's relevant to his expertise is law?

I really don't want to believe that other site would ban a news source for one take they made one time. But shit, the way some users are going for his head over there just baffles me.

 

[Spitfire098]

Do any of you guys get tired from this?
I feel like you guys have a lot of free time arguing with each other.
Or maybe this thread is your .

Over 5k comments since September, come on bruh

 

[POKEYCLYDE]

From the very link you posted.

Sounds like the CMA left the door open for behavioral remedies as long as Microsoft can prove or convince the CMA that:

1) Divesture/prohibition would be more costly than the adverse effects of Any SLC. I could see Microsoft arguing this point for divesture, but the CMA could just say "prohibition it is then".

2) The SLC is expected to be of a short duration. Microsoft could go this route too, arguing that Sony could come up with a CoD competitor in the proposed 10 years. Though everything in the industry points to CoD mmaintainingit's dominance and importance. I don't see the CMA going for this either.

3) If there are benefits to this deal that would be undone by structural remedies/divestment. This is Microsoft's golden ticket it seems. Activision currently isn't releasing on Nintendo nor Nvidia, they aren't releasing day 1 on any sub service. Divesting Activision would undo those customer benefits. Though the CMA has said they don't believe Microsoft could even deliver their promises to Nintendo, so it's still a high wall to climb for Microsoft.

But it's clear that the 10 year deal wasn't assessed before the provisional findings were released, and a behavioral access remedy or any remedy that addresses the SLC would be considered.

Maybe the CMA heard about the 10 year deal, and thought "that alone wouldn't be sufficient", but we don't know why that wouldn't be sufficient. Many think they mean 10 years is too short, but perhaps the CMA was weary of Microsoft's ability to fuck with parity, or the fact that a contract with Sony and Nintendo doesn't address their concerns with cloud gaming. Microsoft can and seemly has/is addressing other possible concerns.

All this to say, I think there's a non-zero chance this deal passes with strict behavioral remedies that basically equates to a "10 year deal".

 

[Mibu no ookami]

Anything new?

I guess we are waiting until the end of April? Nothing from the CMA before then?

It won't be the end of April.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

Anything new?

I guess we are waiting until the end of April? Nothing from the CMA before then?

It'll be before the end of April.

 

[Topher]

Do any of you guys get tired from this?
I feel like you guys have a lot of free time arguing with each other.
Or maybe this thread is your .

What are we going to do once this thing is resolved?

 

[Mibu no ookami]

I'm assuming MS lawyers are smart (speculation) and are fully concious of the following:

Why submit the same deals? Is there more (detail?) to the MS offered remedies? Or dont we (the public) know?
Apologies if this is crystal ball gazing.

Because Microsoft needs the deal to go through as is otherwise it isn't worth it. They absolutely want to foreclose on Sony. The deal is dead one way or another if they have to agree to a more favorable deal or if the deal is rejected. It's what we call an en passe.

Maybe the CMA looked to the general articles written regarding the 10 year remedies (before it was formally accepted) and MS thought the finer details would ease the CMA's reluctance to accept the proposed remedy. It could be the case the lawyers threw it formally as procedure. It is said when you sue someone you throw everything at first and hope something sticks. While it might be a proposed remedy, it might be 1 of many.

MS needed Sony's help in filing a subpoena against Sony so anything is possible.

MS response to the CMA was that they were dead wrong in their assessment. This isn't a winning strategy with regulators, but the PF was already one of the last nails in this deal's coffin.

Sounds like the CMA left the door open for behavioral remedies as long as Microsoft can prove or convince the CMA that:

1) Divesture/prohibition would be more costly than the adverse effects of Any SLC. I could see Microsoft arguing this point for divesture, but the CMA could just say "prohibition it is then".

2) The SLC is expected to be of a short duration. Microsoft could go this route too, arguing that Sony could come up with a CoD competitor in the proposed 10 years. Though everything in the industry points to CoD mmaintainingit's dominance and importance. I don't see the CMA going for this either.

3) If there are benefits to this deal that would be undone by structural remedies/divestment. This is Microsoft's golden ticket it seems. Activision currently isn't releasing on Nintendo nor Nvidia, they aren't releasing day 1 on any sub service. Divesting Activision would undo those customer benefits. Though the CMA has said they don't believe Microsoft could even deliver their promises to Nintendo, so it's still a high wall to climb for Microsoft.

But it's clear that the 10 year deal wasn't assessed before the provisional findings were released, and a behavioral access remedy or any remedy that addresses the SLC would be considered.

Maybe the CMA heard about the 10 year deal, and thought "that alone wouldn't be sufficient", but we don't know why that wouldn't be sufficient. Many think they mean 10 years is too short, but perhaps the CMA was weary of Microsoft's ability to fuck with parity, or the fact that a contract with Sony and Nintendo doesn't address their concerns with cloud gaming. Microsoft can and seemly has/is addressing other possible concerns.

All this to say, I think there's a non-zero chance this deal passes with strict behavioral remedies that basically equates to a "10 year deal".

They didn't leave the door open in any tangible sense. It was a boilerplate response that they have in every Provisional Finding. And again, they've allowed 1 behavioral remedy in the last 5 years (50+ mergers) and it was only because the company being acquired was going out of business AND it was easy to monitor and enforce the deal.

The CMA has made it clear that they don't think the SLC is a short term one, meaning they aren't going to allow a 10 year access commitment.

 

[DrFigs]

Weren't there 4 XGS exclusives in 2022?

• As Dusk Falls (July 19, 2022)
• Forza Horizon 5: Hot Wheels (July 19, 2022) - DLC
• Grounded (September 27, 2022)
• Age of Empires 4 (October 25, 2022)
• Pentiment (November 15, 2022)

why are you doing this? i know for sure you don't think these games move consoles smh

 

[DeepEnigma]

why are you doing this? i know for sure you don't think these games move consoles smh

IDK, they were all called GOTY contenders on here by a select pattern.

 

[feynoob]

What are we going to do once this thing is resolved?

Relax and watch the drama.
Lucky for me, that will happen once I am done with my college (apr 15 for last class).

 

[feynoob]

Over 5k comments since September, come on bruh

That is small numbers.
Should have been 10k by now. I am getting lazy these days.

 

[Iced Arcade]

Congratulations!

Thanks! Currently playing forbidden west

 

[Dick Jones]

Thanks! Currently playing forbidden west

Holding that controller like a true Sony executive

Congrats!

 

[SneakersSO]

3) If there are benefits to this deal that would be undone by structural remedies/divestment. This is Microsoft's golden ticket it seems. Activision currently isn't releasing on Nintendo nor Nvidia, they aren't releasing day 1 on any sub service. Divesting Activision would undo those customer benefits. Though the CMA has said they don't believe Microsoft could even deliver their promises to Nintendo, so it's still a high wall to climb for Microsoft.

But it's clear that the 10 year deal wasn't assessed before the provisional findings were released, and a behavioral access remedy or any remedy that addresses the SLC would be considered.

Maybe the CMA heard about the 10 year deal, and thought "that alone wouldn't be sufficient", but we don't know why that wouldn't be sufficient. Many think they mean 10 years is too short, but perhaps the CMA was weary of Microsoft's ability to fuck with parity, or the fact that a contract with Sony and Nintendo doesn't address their concerns with cloud gaming. Microsoft can and seemly has/is addressing other possible concerns.

All this to say, I think there's a non-zero chance this deal passes with strict behavioral remedies that basically equates to a "10 year deal".

Your 3rd point doesn't stand, and is not MS' golden ticket. Since 2017, ATVI has shipped 7 games to the Switch. In that same time frame, MS has shipped only 2. Nvidia, also, does not count in this because NVidia does not sell games - its a rental service, one of which ATVI games were initially in there and were ripped out of by ATVI on purpose. More specifically though: there is nothing about these deals that MS produced that necessitates MS needs to do the purchase in order for these outcomes to occur. ATVI could very well decide tomorrow that GFN inclusion and Switch publishing for CoD is a priority. MS does not need to be involved for this to happen. Everyone is aware of this.

A 10-year deal doesn't affect all the other possible and probable routes MS could go towards should this deal go through, something the CMA specifically cited as to why not only CoD would need to be divested but also all of its studios. The devil is always in the details - does a 10 year deal mean that CoD will release annually for those 10 years? Will MS be allowed to take those studios and have them pursue new IP development in a similar genre as CoD? Things like that are precisely why the CMA wanted divestment. They know what could happen, because Sony has been telling them what could happen.

There is a non-zero chance this deal can still pass without a single behavioral remedy necessary even still, but given what we know, thats highly unlikely. We'll see.