Support NeoGAF

[DeepEnigma]

It's like amateur hour.

 

[Dick Jones]

Hopefully he factchecked this with Lulu first
We don't want journalists spouting uncomfortable information to the public

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

Hopefully he factchecked this with Lulu first
We don't want journalists spouting uncomfortable informing

Nice

 

[Topher]

Oh but it is. Putting these games on other cloud services will help expand and push the cloud gaming business forward. When it has matured and grown in 10 years they pull the games from all concurrent platforms, forcing people to move to theirs.

 

[Thirty7ven]

Hopefully he factchecked this with Lulu first
We don't want journalists spouting uncomfortable informing

Is this what the kids mean by “fuck around and find out?”

 

[solidus12]

...are people actually fans of business executives?

I learned something new today.

Only the sexy ones

 

[mansoor1980]

Hopefully he factchecked this with Lulu first
We don't want journalists spouting uncomfortable informing

 

[ToadMan]

I wish people would stop conflating these two. They're as far apart as any two studio acquisitions could be.

The regulators disagree with you.

 

[Heisenberg007]

This is beautiful.

Also, the FTC has requested this information 24 times! Microsoft still hasn't submitted the information. I wonder why they are hiding it

 

[Jemm]

Another one...

 

[Dick Jones]

This is beautiful.

Also, the FTC has requested this information 24 times! Microsoft still hasn't submitted the information. I wonder why they are hiding it

 

[DeepEnigma]

This is beautiful.

Also, the FTC has requested this information 24 times! Microsoft still hasn't submitted the information. I wonder why they are hiding it

MS wanted all of Sony's info though.

 

[zapper]

Hi everyone, I have followed the discussion on this acquisition from the beginning and I would like to participate by asking a couple of questions, I hope they are not too stupid

1. until yesterday (I don't know if the offer is still valid reading brad smith...), we knew about microsoft's offer to bring cod to ps for at least 10 years, with the same quality, contents and so on, as it has been so far let's say (minus the benefits of the ps-activision agreements). in ten years, presumably, we will already have the next sony playstation console (6??), to ensure that microsoft respects its word regarding quality parity, should sony send the devkits of its next console in preview to the direct competitor? i'm pretty sure sony sent devkits to activision-blizzard (plus other publishers or big studios they have good ties and agreements with), but with activision in microsoft's hands do you think sony would send their devkits to studios owned by a competitor? and if he didn't microsoft would have the possibility to improve the cod versions on the next xbox console accusing sony of having prevented them from honoring the signed contract?
maybe both sony and microsoft know the characteristics and peculiarities of rival hardware much earlier, in this case the problem doesn't exist. but if not, wouldn't that be a problem? one of the parties (in this case Microsoft) would have a decisive advantage?

2. Microsoft's strategy to overcome the regulators would seem to offer their catalog (xbox, activision) to anyone, these are the proposed remedies: bring cod everywhere as well as other titles, make them accessible to anyone and expand the market.
if these remedies are accepted, what prevents microsoft from buying take two immediately afterwards? or ubisoft? or others? even in that case they would broaden the base of the respective IPs (gta, assassin's creed etc etc), they would make those IPs accessible and they would also take them where they aren't today (switch, steam), so what's the limit? because if it works with activision they would basically have no brakes, legally it would be impossible to stop them.

sorry if I have extended and if there is some mistake

 

[reksveks]

Also, the FTC has requested this information 24 times! Microsoft still hasn't submitted the information. I wonder why they are hiding it

Misreading that line I think. There is 24 RFP's, the frequency of the requests is unknown.

 

[Pelta88]

How is started...

How it's going...

There is an air of desperation about XBOX in this acquisition that should make everyone nervous.

 

[reksveks]

Should be available in the next 12/24 hrs.

 

[DeepEnigma]

How is started...

How it's going...

There is an air of desperation about XBOX in this acquisition that should make everyone nervous.

Add it to Spencer's endless list.

 

[jm89]

Should be available in the next 12/24 hrs.

So they are still trying to appease the EC.

Pacman chart didn't help i guess.

 

[X-Wing]

Should be available in the next 12/24 hrs.

Glad Samuel stated the obvious.

 

[Bernoulli]

here is a thread for those interested in what microsoft refused to give to the FTC

FTC wants: the details of the Nintendo and Nvidia 10y deal, details of zenimax exclusivity and activision

You're right. They need to convince the CMA to approve the deal with just behavioral remedies, which the CMA is not convinced about. So they are hoping to make these deals privately with businesses to (1) gain public favor and (2) convince the CMA that MS is doing well with behavioral remedies on their own.

Having said that, none of these deals (except for the Nvidia one to a very small extent) addresses CMA's actual concerns. The CMA didn't even mention Ubitus as a cloud gaming competitor.

As for 10 years. It is safe to assume that MS wants to make COD exclusive to Xbox, and they don't want it to remain multiplatform beyond 10 years. That's the best they can do.

And the CMA asked microsoft to provide evidence that the behavioral remedies work

 

[ulantan]

Hi everyone, I have followed the discussion on this acquisition from the beginning and I would like to participate by asking a couple of questions, I hope they are not too stupid

1. until yesterday (I don't know if the offer is still valid reading brad smith...), we knew about microsoft's offer to bring cod to ps for at least 10 years, with the same quality, contents and so on, as it has been so far let's say (minus the benefits of the ps-activision agreements). in ten years, presumably, we will already have the next sony playstation console (6??), to ensure that microsoft respects its word regarding quality parity, should sony send the devkits of its next console in preview to the direct competitor? i'm pretty sure sony sent devkits to activision-blizzard (plus other publishers or big studios they have good ties and agreements with), but with activision in microsoft's hands do you think sony would send their devkits to studios owned by a competitor? and if he didn't microsoft would have the possibility to improve the cod versions on the next xbox console accusing sony of having prevented them from honoring the signed contract?
maybe both sony and microsoft know the characteristics and peculiarities of rival hardware much earlier, in this case the problem doesn't exist. but if not, wouldn't that be a problem? one of the parties (in this case Microsoft) would have a decisive advantage?

2. Microsoft's strategy to overcome the regulators would seem to offer their catalog (xbox, activision) to anyone, these are the proposed remedies: bring cod everywhere as well as other titles, make them accessible to anyone and expand the market.
if these remedies are accepted, what prevents microsoft from buying take two immediately afterwards? or ubisoft? or others? even in that case they would broaden the base of the respective IPs (gta, assassin's creed etc etc), they would make those IPs accessible and they would also take them where they aren't today (switch, steam), so what's the limit? because if it works with activision they would basically have no brakes, legally it would be impossible to stop them.

sorry if I have extended and if there is some mistake

Your second point is the most interesting I too am curious where do you draw the line.

 

[Dick Jones]

Hi everyone, I have followed the discussion on this acquisition from the beginning and I would like to participate by asking a couple of questions, I hope they are not too stupid

1. until yesterday (I don't know if the offer is still valid reading brad smith...), we knew about microsoft's offer to bring cod to ps for at least 10 years, with the same quality, contents and so on, as it has been so far let's say (minus the benefits of the ps-activision agreements). in ten years, presumably, we will already have the next sony playstation console (6??), to ensure that microsoft respects its word regarding quality parity, should sony send the devkits of its next console in preview to the direct competitor? i'm pretty sure sony sent devkits to activision-blizzard (plus other publishers or big studios they have good ties and agreements with), but with activision in microsoft's hands do you think sony would send their devkits to studios owned by a competitor? and if he didn't microsoft would have the possibility to improve the cod versions on the next xbox console accusing sony of having prevented them from honoring the signed contract?
maybe both sony and microsoft know the characteristics and peculiarities of rival hardware much earlier, in this case the problem doesn't exist. but if not, wouldn't that be a problem? one of the parties (in this case Microsoft) would have a decisive advantage?

2. Microsoft's strategy to overcome the regulators would seem to offer their catalog (xbox, activision) to anyone, these are the proposed remedies: bring cod everywhere as well as other titles, make them accessible to anyone and expand the market.
if these remedies are accepted, what prevents microsoft from buying take two immediately afterwards? or ubisoft? or others? even in that case they would broaden the base of the respective IPs (gta, assassin's creed etc etc), they would make those IPs accessible and they would also take them where they aren't today (switch, steam), so what's the limit? because if it works with activision they would basically have no brakes, legally it would be impossible to stop them.

sorry if I have extended and if there is some mistake

First part. Sony actually had an MS devkit because of the need to make The Show multiplatform. I doubt Sony were given one of the first devkits but they had an Xbox before release date.

If this one goes through, it would be significantly harder to get another large publisher be bought. Likelihood would be nil for another major publisher.

 

[Heisenberg007]

Misreading that line I think. There is 24 RFP's, the frequency of the requests is unknown.

yeah that may be the case.

 

[POKEYCLYDE]

Another one...

So Nintendo does have competition in the low end console market.

 

[Dick Jones]

Another one...

Is the only idea Xbox took from Bethesda is the "ability to put OG Doom on everything" idea? /s

 

[reksveks]

until yesterday (I don't know if the offer is still valid reading brad smith...), we knew about microsoft's offer to bring cod to ps for at least 10 years, with the same quality, contents and so on, as it has been so far let's say (minus the benefits of the ps-activision agreements). in ten years, presumably, we will already have the next sony playstation console (6??), to ensure that microsoft respects its word regarding quality parity, should sony send the devkits of its next console in preview to the direct competitor? i'm pretty sure sony sent devkits to activision-blizzard (plus other publishers or big studios they have good ties and agreements with), but with activision in microsoft's hands do you think sony would send their devkits to studios owned by a competitor? and if he didn't microsoft would have the possibility to improve the cod versions on the next xbox console accusing sony of having prevented them from honoring the signed contract?
maybe both sony and microsoft know the characteristics and peculiarities of rival hardware much earlier, in this case the problem doesn't exist. but if not, wouldn't that be a problem? one of the parties (in this case Microsoft) would have a decisive advantage?

As others have mentioned, they probably do have each others consoles and will have ahead of time.

Mojang will have PS5/6 dev kits
Sony San Diego will have the Xbox dev kits

There probably is real strict NDA's there.

Microsoft's strategy to overcome the regulators would seem to offer their catalog (xbox, activision) to anyone, these are the proposed remedies: bring cod everywhere as well as other titles, make them accessible to anyone and expand the market.
if these remedies are accepted, what prevents microsoft from buying take two immediately afterwards? or ubisoft? or others? even in that case they would broaden the base of the respective IPs (gta, assassin's creed etc etc), they would make those IPs accessible and they would also take them where they aren't today (switch, steam), so what's the limit? because if it works with activision they would basically have no brakes, legally it would be impossible to stop them.

Its a weird one but suspect it won't get easier after a completed ABK deal despite the concessions. Its a good question though.

 

[Gobjuduck]

Xbox didn’t make any promises or obligations before the zenimax deal.

They just said they had no incentive to keep Bethesda games off competing platforms. (They clearly do).

 

[gothmog]

There's no such thing as a lifetime contract, without giving a 10 year assurance people would be complaining that they can take CoD off of PS the year after their existing agreement ends. They're offering an arbitrary long length of 10 years to avoid that.

You're saying "why not just sign no contract", you fully realize how a lot of users here would react if the deal goes through and there is no assurance of any term beyond the current marketing agreement, yes ?

This is why behavioral changes are frowned upon. They're meaningless to someone with deep pockets. They get fined, appeal, and basically waste public resources because they can. They do what they want and basically get the equivalent of a parking ticket. Not sure what you do about this other than block or divest.

I think there are alternatives to lifetime contracts like binding partnerships they could offer to Sony to get them on board to avoid a block. Some kind of chartered steering committee seat, co-branding opportunities, or special DLC they could offer. None of this for free. Obviously we don't know what is being discussed behind closed doors but it sounds like that's not on the table. They can make it so that if they end that it goes into arbitration.

I suspect the reality is that Sony and Microsoft know exactly what Microsoft will do eventually if allows to acquire COD. That makes it hard to do any kind of deal.

 

[POKEYCLYDE]

How is started...

How it's going...

There is an air of desperation about XBOX in this acquisition that should make everyone nervous.

Why does it matter what a competitor is interested in? The deal is to bring Call of Duty to their streaming service/platform. It's not like Microsoft is partnering with them to bring NFTs to Xbox.

Sony is way more interested in NFTs than Microsoft.

The reaching some of you are doing to put any good deal in a bad light is quite frankly impressive.

 

[Dick Jones]

Xbox didn’t make any promises or obligations before the zenimax deal.

They just said they had no incentive to keep Bethesda games off competing platforms. (They clearly do).

So they lied to the regulator? If it was going to go through whether Bethesda was exclusive or not, then they could have admitted as much and the deal would have gone through. Because they lied its harder to believe them when they are crying wolf the next time.

 

[reksveks]

Why does it matter what a competitor is interested in? The deal is to bring Call of Duty to their streaming service/platform. It's not like Microsoft is partnering with them to bring NFTs to Xbox.

Sony is way more interested in NFTs than Microsoft.

The reaching some of you are doing to put any good deal in a bad light is quite frankly impressive.

Yeah, its a bit of a weird one especially since Sony invested in Ubitus. I guess that link/relationship doesn't count.

 

[Three]

Opens up IP lol some of you gotta be pouring down the piss all day.

One day Activision devs are helping make MS IPs that MS can't, another day MS devs are helping make Activison IPs that Activision can't. It's crazy the things people are pushing with this acquisition.

 

[TheGodfather07]

It'll be funny if the zenimax acquisition is what really stops this from going through, because that's the only real evidence of microsofts real intentions here. Microsoft are saying one thing but there's real life proof that they are doing the exact opposite. If they really want to give more people choice and not remove games from platforms, why are new Bethesda releases not on PS? It shouldn't matter what they say, but what they actually do.

 

[Gobjuduck]

So they lied to the regulator?

Not really, but you can see it that way. They omitted that they’d be willing to take losses in sales to bolster the Xbox brand and gamepass with NEW Bethesda games.

 

[zapper]

First part. Sony actually had an MS devkit because of the need to make The Show multiplatform. I doubt Sony were given one of the first devkits but they had an Xbox before release date.

If this one goes through, it would be significantly harder to get another large publisher be bought. Likelihood would be nil for another major publisher.

mlb the show arrived on xbox in 2021, 6 months after the release of the series. I'm talking about having a playstation devkit (let's call it 6) before the hardware is released for sale, so that cod is the same on both ps6 and xbox series y|z. I don't know how it works but I doubt that if the acquisition goes through, Sony would send its devkits to a competitor.

on the second point it's complicated, activision blizzard is already the biggest independent puiblisher on the market, if that passes why shouldn't others pass? if the proposed remedies are accepted there are practically no limits. I understand that they would say "you have already acquired too much", but it doesn't hold up in court. plus it seems to me that satya nadella has already stated that they are not done with the acquisitions, she sa

 

[Tomeru]

If they don't submit the required details of these deals to regulators, the regulators will not assess these deals as part of the behavioral remedies. In other words, they won't count these deals.

Lmao is this how these things work?

Regulators:
Submit these papers please.

MS/Sony:
Nope.

Regulator:
Ok.

 

[Bernoulli]

Xbox didn’t make any promises or obligations before the zenimax deal.

They just said they had no incentive to keep Bethesda games off competing platforms. (They clearly do).

wat




they did it anyway

 

[Dick Jones]

Not really, but you can see it that way. They omitted that they’d be willing to take losses in sales to bolster the Xbox brand and gamepass with NEW Bethesda games.

So rather than say lie, they were economical with the truth

 

[HundredThousandTrillion]

Should be available in the next 12/24 hrs.

The EU is likely to approve. If that happens the FTC will surely follow suit.

The EU is far more aggressive when it comes to things like this. Apple is soon to completely remodel their mobile business (usb-c iPhone, allowing 3rd party app stores) solely because of EU pressure.

This thread is like living in an alternate universe.

 

[Dick Jones]

mlb the show arrived on xbox in 2021, 6 months after the release of the series. I'm talking about having a playstation devkit (let's call it 6) before the hardware is released for sale, so that cod is the same on both ps6 and xbox series y|z. I don't know how it works but I doubt that if the acquisition goes through, Sony would send its devkits to a competitor.

on the second point it's complicated, activision blizzard is already the biggest independent puiblisher on the market, if that passes why shouldn't others pass? if the proposed remedies are accepted there are practically no limits. I understand that they would say "you have already acquired too much", but it doesn't hold up in court. plus it seems to me that satya nadella has already stated that they are not done with the acquisitions, she sa

If you admit that you bought too much you are giving regulators ammunition to block any future purchase claiming that you have enough. That is the correct response from Nadella.

By the stage the devkits go out it's almost set in stone and would be very hard to change the physical makeup of the console. True MS could have given a slightly gimped devkit to not show their hand before release day.

 

[TheGodfather07]

The EU is likely to approve. If that happens the FTC will surely follow suit.

The EU is far more aggressive when it comes to things like this. Apple is soon to completely remodel their mobile business (usb-c iPhone, allowing 3rd party app stores) solely because of EU pressure.

This thread is like living in an alternate universe.

That's what happens if you spend too much time on era. What's actually normal becomes like an alternate universe when you leave that asylum.

 

[Helghan]

The EU is likely to approve. If that happens the FTC will surely follow suit.

The EU is far more aggressive when it comes to things like this. Apple is soon to completely remodel their mobile business (usb-c iPhone, allowing 3rd party app stores) solely because of EU pressure.

This thread is like living in an alternate universe.

The only one keeping this deal from happening is the CMA at the moment, and I'm pretty sure they'll follow suit eventually anyway.

 

[jm89]

The EU is likely to approve. If that happens the FTC will surely follow suit.

The EU is far more aggressive when it comes to things like this. Apple is soon to completely remodel their mobile business (usb-c iPhone, allowing 3rd party app stores) solely because of EU pressure.

This thread is like living in an alternate universe.

Maybe in a alternate universe FTC are not trying to block and CMA haven't pushed for structural remedies.

 

[HoofHearted]

You’re participating in this thread sober?

Fuck no- I’ve already hit the Vodka, beer, and halfway through my cheap bourbon…

 

[DeepEnigma]

Why does it matter what a competitor is interested in? The deal is to bring Call of Duty to their streaming service/platform. It's not like Microsoft is partnering with them to bring NFTs to Xbox.

Sony is way more interested in NFTs than Microsoft.

The reaching some of you are doing to put any good deal in a bad light is quite frankly impressive.

Yeah, its a bit of a weird one especially since Sony invested in Ubitus. I guess that link/relationship doesn't count.

Clearly missing the forest through the trees to "Sony too."

This was just to highlight the doublespeak the man is notorious for.

 

[HundredThousandTrillion]

That's what happens if you spend too much time on era. What's actually normal becomes like an alternate universe when you leave that asylum.

In this Multiverse every perceived aggressive action by the performative FTC is celebrated as a sign that this thing is going to fail. It's hilariously sad and ridiculous

And even if the FTC finds against Microsoft they'll lose in Federal court. Because any person with two brain cells to rub together will take a look at console marketshare over the last few generations, the dozens of military FPS out there and find in Microsoft's favor.

It would be Facebook 2020 all over again. The FTC lost that case because it turns out they had no clue what they were doing. It was a layup against an awful awful company and they lost.

 

[thebigmanjosh]

Fuck no- I’ve already hit the Vodka, beer, and halfway through my cheap bourbon…

 

[Gobjuduck]

And even if the FTC finds against Microsoft they'll lose in Federal court. Because any person with two brain cells to rub together will take a look at console marketshare over the last few generations, the dozens of military FPS out there and find in Microsoft's favor.

Also, Steam, Nintendo have operated just fine without CoD after it was removed from their platforms.

This claim that PlayStation depends on CoD is a stretch.

 

[DeepEnigma]

 

[ToTTenTranz]

Wow, now this is a game changer.