Bernoulli
M2 slut
we need to wait and see how the first games will be received, will they underperform or bring more GP subs
Microsoft / Activision Deal Approval Watch |OT| (MS/ABK close)
- Status
You're right that all marketing exclusivity agreements suck but you're stagnating the growth of a different platform on both. I just don't see how paying for complete timed exclusivity is any less dirty, in both cases you're using that money to not to only get more content but withhold content from another platform.
Last edited:
bitbydeath
Gold Member
zapper
Member
I have always found the accusation against sony of blocking other publishers' games on gamepass unrealistic and weak, t2 has already stated that it makes no sense for them for new releases, other publishers have also stated something like this if I remember correctly , also activision (lol). I find it really impossible that there are contracts to prevent the most famous games from arriving on the services, in recent years the most recognizable brands have all had a boom in sales and broken records, publishers simply want to sell and cash in, without devaluing possible revenue by putting subscription titles. Maybe we'll know more from the FTC lawsuit docs but I guess that's it
if we refer to an alleged capcom contract it has already been confirmed that it is the norm in the sector, moreover there was no impediment to competition, if one pays more than the competitor he gets what he wants. do I remember correctly?
if we refer to an alleged capcom contract it has already been confirmed that it is the norm in the sector, moreover there was no impediment to competition, if one pays more than the competitor he gets what he wants. do I remember correctly?
never d1, I think they all arrived at least a year laterYet, they have no problem putting numerous COD games on PS+
Last edited:
Mr Reasonable
Completely Unreasonable
The thing is that maybe in x number of years something changes, perhaps Sony make a system that is unfathomably difficulty to develop for, perhaps Sony make an FPS that their fans prefer and COD stops selling on their platform, or whatever else. 10 years of what are likely to be annual releases is enough of a statement to say that effectively assuming similar conditions COD will remain multiformat. It's far too expensive a purchase for Microsoft to greenlight and effectively write off as a loss.
This purchase is bigger than Xbox Vs PS. There's no way Microsoft's board is signing off on $70bn just to improve Xbox's offering.
Mr Reasonable
Completely Unreasonable
Iirc, the Resident Evil Village contract that was leaked said that the game couldn't be added to a competitor's subscription service.
DForce
NaughtyDog Defense Force
There's no need to wait to answer the question.
Tomeru
Member
You could argue the effects, but improving Xbox's offerings is 1000% the main reason.
zapper
Member
there is nothing like that in it, if this is the contract leaked. there is no block, playstation would seem to have only a preemptive right to me. that's how I remember it though
Last edited:
Banjo64
cumsessed
Read 1.9.1 again.
there is nothing like that in it, if this is the contract leaked. there is no block, playstation would seem to have only a preemptive right to me. that's how I remember it though
1) Summary of third party calls: Several third parties "contended that the Merger would have a negative impact on competition"
2) Consolidation is already hurting third parties on PlayStation
3) And things are going to get much worse
Yes, I am that confident of my own knowledge when I know what I'm talking about.
XBL wasn't exponentially more stable. In fact, not a single XBL game at the time reached the level of resistance 2 multiplayer netcode. Free to play,, stable and with a much larger number of people playing than ANY XBL shooter at the time. XBL did have more features... but you were paying for online MP when it was free of charge everywhere else.
And no, it's not pretty flimsy to say that a successful stream of revenue influenced the competition to the same when people were defending the idea of being gouged of their money. Like you're doing now. PSN also had party chat. I should know, I used it. It was more limited than on XBL but it existed and did what it was supposed to. Sony did offer a stable and functional service. Don't know what world you lived in but XBL was down more often than PSN, a fact I remember clearly because I made sure to point it out to any idiot who was paying for XBL while defending the price.
Stupid is also more than someone's opinion. A stupid person will never realize that they are stupid. They will defend their stupid ideas, their stupid actions and will be irritated by those who point out their stupidity. They won't learn, they'll just repeat their mistakes elsewhere. But their stupidity is quantifiable.
And yes, I am confident I am right that the vast majority of the population is stupid. Isn't the average IQ of the USA, the place that kept XBL alive and successful, less than 100 points? It was during that time and I know it got even lower just recently.
Nothing too interesting/new from the following imo, seems like the EC is more concerned about cloud gaming.
Deadline now May 22
https://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/case_details.cfm?proc_code=2_M_10646
Source: https://www.reuters.com/markets/dea...medies-seeking-ok-activision-deal-2023-03-17/
Deadline now May 22
https://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/case_details.cfm?proc_code=2_M_10646
jm89
Member
Nvdia, boosteroid and ubitus are all BYOG cloud game providers right? Did they offer anything to a cloud gaming providers like playstation who aren't BYOG? Will be interesting to see the licensing deal for the latter.
PSN had most of that too. I won't deny that XBL was a superior platform in terms of options, but for what it was supposed to do? Let you play online and talk to others? Just NO. And you paid for it. Key part. PAID. FOR. IT.
For virtually no benefit. Absolutely nothing that warranted paying extra to play online.
I used to be livid about this shit, but nowadays I just resign myself to accept that the majority rules and what may come, comes. Most people can't see the forest for the trees. They accept every single trojan horse that MS sends their way.
XBL, DLC, patches and now gamepass.
I used to bitch every day on gametrailers forums about what would happen if people kept supporting these practices. I correctly predicted every outcome.
That devs would eventually release broken games on launch (happened)
That devs would eventually release incomplete games on launch (happened)
That the competition would all get their own paid online service and free online gaming on consoles would be a thing of the past (happened).
And for gamepass, that the quality of games would be reduced in order to pump out games in a steady stream. This one remains to be seen but it's just so obvious that it'll come true. Gamepass brings less revenue than just selling games. You won't be seeing playstation first party quality on xbox anymore. That ship has sailed.
Yep, and unknown. what is also unknown is if the EC still believes that B2P and S2P/MGS is two suitable substitutes. Clearly shifted their position on cloud gaming.
Last edited:
Thirty7ven
Banned
Post doesn't make sense, basically assumes everything MS is doing is exactly what EC wants, and if MS isn't doing it it's because EC doesn't care.
jm89
Member
Yeah i've seen people take that opinion, mlex reported a while ago EC maintained all theories of harm, how do they just drop it so quickly? IDK some of these reports just seem all over the place. For all we know those might be the last concerns left by the EC, and that's what MS are submitting in addition to whatever else concessions they may have already given.
Also looks like CMA might be making a decision before the EC, that should be interesting.
Last edited:
ToadMan
Member
Sorry to intrude on whatever alternate reality you guys prefer to inhabit.
The CMA
8.235 On the basis of the evidence above, we consider that Activision would likely have made its games – including day and date releases – available on cloud gaming services in the next five years.
whenever I read that 10 year commitment plan I just... *sigh*
Here we are, going through all this to avoid an anti-consumer and monopolistic move, and they mention a 10 year commitment plan as if that would fix everything and not just delay the very thing we all see coming.
These people think like looney tunes.
- The offer does not include concessions to ease EU concerns over how the takeover might impact Sony's PlayStation or Google's PC operating system, indicating that the EC has narrowed its objections to the deal to focus on cloud gaming.
Mmmm so no concessions to ease concerns but that means there are no concerns and they are focusing elsewhere
Are we sure that the source isn't adding personal takes?
Btw 22 May is the new EU deadline, CMA will be first if they don't delay as well.
Last edited:
I don't have the article aka the comment around formatting. If you have the article, would be good to see if Idas has added the underlined text.
I know (see link to the EC case page below), maybe my post implied that was the deadline for the deal/cma, hopefully not.
Last edited:
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
But doesn't that also apply to the next PlayStation?
What if PS6 is notoriously difficult to develop for? What if Sony never releases a PS6? What if TLOU Online releases in 2023 and becomes more popular than Call of Duty?
Why is there a 10-year contract then that guarantees COD releases on PlayStation?
This is just a cop-out by Microsoft. If there can be a 10-year contract, there can just as easily by a "forever" agreement, unless they have ill intentions of pulling COD as soon as the 10-year period is up. And that's the reason why they first offered a 3-year contract, then a 5-year contract, and just now a 10-year contract when the going got tough.
DryvBy
Member
No one cares because Phil Bencer isn't a real game developer.
Topher
Identifies as young
Neither Sony nor Microsoft are going to pay for marketing rights only to have that game show up on a competing service. The entire reason for the marketing is to promote sales of the game, not a subscription service. RE Village is now completely free to show up on Game Pass and yet it still isn't there. Sales matter.
Last edited:
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
Yeah, that's how I read it too.- The offer does not include concessions to ease EU concerns over how the takeover might impact Sony's PlayStation or Google's PC operating system, indicating that the EC has narrowed its objections to the deal to focus on cloud gaming.
Mmmm so no concessions to ease concerns but that means there are no concerns and they are focusing elsewhere
Are we sure that the source isn't adding personal takes?
Btw 22 May is the new EU deadline, CMA will be first if they don't delay as well.
EU has concerns regarding the impact on PlayStation and Google's PC OS. Sony and Google haven't signed any deals that Ubitus and Boosteroid made. That's why Microsoft's offer does not include those.
IllegalLemon
Member
Helghan
Member
Sony has the marketing rights for COD without it being excluded from Xbox, same for Hogwarts I think.
Or you mean specifically for subscription services? In that case, no it's ridiculous imo
Last edited:
Topher
Identifies as young
These marketing agreements do not require exclusivity. The only thing being "blocked" is appearing in a subscription service like Game Pass.
All legacy content was updated to all platforms, including quake remaster that included ports for PS4, Switch and Xbox.
IllegalLemon
Member
If only she followed her own advice, instead of telling people what to do. The hypocrisy is strong in that tweet.
Helghan
Member
No need to rehash the whole discussion I had with Three. I disagree, I think it's ridiculous from a consumer POV. I understand it from a business perspective. As a consumer I find it a dick move
Last edited:
The mlex report (if correct) is basically the opposite of the equityreport one a couple of weeks again.
Very weird.
Post in thread 'Microsoft / Activision Deal Approval Watch |OT|' https://www.neogaf.com/threads/microsoft-activision-deal-approval-watch-ot.1641775/post-267668514
Very weird.
Post in thread 'Microsoft / Activision Deal Approval Watch |OT|' https://www.neogaf.com/threads/microsoft-activision-deal-approval-watch-ot.1641775/post-267668514
Last edited:
DryvBy
Member
They should be equally upset Nintendo is winning. When you race, you try to get ahead of the person in front of you before going after the person in front of them.
splattered
Member
So what's the latest boys we got news now?
jm89
Member
Lol yeah i remember that report not mentioning cloud gaming and everyone taking it as they dropped it as a concern. I can't remember if it was equity report or mlex that said all three theories of harm where maintained. Can't trust any of these reports tbh.
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
I think both reports can be correct at the same time.
People like FossPatents are jumping to the gun (as usual) and implying that "The EC has apparently narrowed its concerns to cloud gaming. Sony overplayed its hand there."
But the Mlex report doesn't indicate anything about this. It only says what MS has done (focused on cloud gaming because that's the type of deals they have been able to make with smaller cloud gaming providers, e.g., Boosteroids and Ubitus).
It does not mean that EC has changed or made its focus to only cloud gaming. They may still have concerns regarding consoles that MS may not have addressed.
Ezekiel_
Banned
It's standard co-marketing agreements.
Everyone does them, in numerous markets.
There's nothing nefarious about them.
They aim to be beneficial for platform holders and publishers/devs.
Allowing the publisher/dev to do deals with other platform holders on the side would completely negate the point of the agreement. That's why these clauses are included.
Topher
Identifies as young
You disagree with what? The facts I stated?
If the mlex report does include
Then they have implied it and therefore there would be a disconnect but who knows. Would be good if someone could verify. The EquityReport also uses the word 'only' so there has to be some disconnect between the two. If they used the word primarily/mainly or something similar, then they could be both correct.
Last edited:
Astray
Member
They are weak precisely because they tried to extinguish too soon with the Xbox One.
And no, they are not good guys now, they are in a new embrace period.
How many bing points did you get for this reply btw? I hear if you ask about psygnosis 5 times in a week you get a free month of Live Gold.
Mr Reasonable
Completely Unreasonable
It definitely isn't.
They could do more damage to Sony's market share by buying half a dozen or more publishers instead of Activision. And they'd be able to do it for less money too.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
sainraja
Member
This you?
Is it really so hard for you to read opinions that are different from your own that you just add people to your block list?
My block list is very small, and I only add people there that I find to be hypocrites or two faced.
I don't understand how this point is lost on anyone who argues otherwise. lol
Last edited:
Topher
Identifies as young
And why?
"cannibalisation of buy-to-play sales (especially of new releases)"
People really need to stop pretending marketing agreements really have a big impact on whether third party games come to Game Pass or not. Any game that gets a marketing agreement does so because they want to maximize sales. Essentially what Activision says here.
Thirty7ven
Banned
Already talking about MS acquiring Konami/Capcom etc at Era lol and people wanna pretend this is about leveling playing fields, fanboys are quite the animal
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Bastion of logic and impartiality. The finest of rational conversations.
Bonsaibäumchen
Member
Well he doesn't have to admit when he is wrong when he blocks everyone with another opinion.
This you?
Is it really so hard for you to read opinions that are different from your own that you just add people to your block list?
My block list is very small, and I only add people there that I find to be hypocrites or two faced.
I don't understand how this point is lost on anyone who argues otherwise. lol
- Status