Support NeoGAF

[Topher]

I don't know. Those 10 year deals alone don't stop Microsoft from having full control of Activision after. It would be like delaying the effects instead of stopping it outright. That's why divestiture or structural remedies is the proper solution. There's a reason why Microsoft don't want that. Microsoft want control and they'll be more than happy to wait 10 years for it, if they have to.

Yeah, I agree. Avoiding divestiture seems to be the only obstacle left though. I just think the CMA will cave.

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

Thanks for proving my point that ms intends to take cod away after 10 years,

Just like after the current marketing deal expires in 1-2 years or whenever, ABK had no intention of signing marketing deals with Sony anymore

Have fun with your crystal ball.

 

[Cheezewizz]

None of that's true.
Incognito was first party for one, two, most if not all first parties used it. It was even successful enough to get the interest of the military.

Wrong. You'd know it's true if you were interested in such things back then, or even if you simply did some research today. But it's obvious you did neither. My point was that despite Incognito being first party, Sony still made them purchase the PS3's for the initial buildout. It's why I pointed to their budget. It really wasn't until after the beta that Sony agreed to invest more PS3's into it. And they ultimately fell far short of what they promised.

When The Air Force Needed A Supercomputer, They Built It Out Of PS3 Consoles | War History Online

In late 2010, the U.S. Air Force built their own supercomputer that would drastically reduce the time needed for pattern recognition, image analysis, and

www.warhistoryonline.com

But let me guess, her-derp military dum.

That was for an entirely different application. Lol, is this a failed goalpost move attempt, or do you just think that because they're sitting in a similar looking rack that it's all the same?

 

[Ezekiel_]

I think Microsoft's lawyers are going to find a way to make the regulators happy. Specifically, the CMA. MS is showing they will do pretty much whatever it takes outside of divestiture. My gut tells me it won't come to that.




Whatever behavioral remedies that are required. I know CMA has indicated that may not be enough, but I they will cave eventually. Everyone and their grandma are going to have 10 year deals before this is over.

Hopefully they don't simply 'cave' to pressure, and render a decision based on facts, reasonable analysis and in the interests of consumers in their respective markets, as is required from their role.

 

[Topher]

Idas

New report from MLex:

- Microsoft hopes that the remedy package offered to the EC will put pressure on the CMA.

- Microsoft has now formally committed to making Activision's portfolio of games, including Call of Duty, available on rival cloud-gaming platforms.

- "More striking is the absence of any formal commitment to address key concerns raised by rival Sony about the deal's impact on its PlayStation, and Google about the deal's impact on its ChromeOS cloud-first operating system."

- As recently as Feb. 21 (the hearing), the EC still had concerns about those markets.

- Microsoft's offer comes after intense discussions with officials probing the deal, and the market test should be considered a good sign.

- Under the terms of its in-depth review, the commission has until May 22 to rule on the deal, although it will soon need to circulate a draft decision internally and to national authorities.

- The support of Nvidia has been key, according to MLex.

- The extent to which Sony would benefit from the remedy on cloud gaming is unclear. Sony's primary complaint has been that Microsoft would remove Activision Blizzard's games from its PlayStation, or at the very least degrade their performance on the Sony console to drive its users to the Microsoft Xbox. "That appears to have fallen on deaf ears at the EU competition enforcer."

- The offer from MS (to Sony) presumably still remains on the table. So, at some point Sony may say yes. In any case, most probably Sony will first shift its attention to the CMA.

- "No doubt Microsoft will have pointed CMA investigators to the EU regulator's latest conclusions on that point. If Microsoft can get traction there and put a dent in the narrative against the deal, that would be no mean feat — but it may not be enough."

- However, the CMA's last public word on the subject (acceptance of behavioural remedies) still remains: "None of the circumstances in which the CMA would select a behavioural remedy as the primary source of remedial action in a merger investigation ... appears to be present."

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

"That appears to have fallen on deaf ears at the EU competition enforcer."

Now i see where the narrative is coming from.

It turns out MS is outplaying Sony in the PR war.

 

[ChuckeRearmed]

Sony's primary complaint has been that Microsoft would remove Activision Blizzard's games from its PlayStation, or at the very least degrade their performance on the Sony console to drive its users to the Microsoft Xbox. "That appears to have fallen on deaf ears at the EU competition enforcer."

Makes sense.

 

[PaintTinJr]

I think Microsoft's lawyers are going to find a way to make the regulators happy. Specifically, the CMA. MS is showing they will do pretty much whatever it takes outside of divestiture. My gut tells me it won't come to that.




Whatever behavioral remedies that are required. I know CMA has indicated that may not be enough, but I they will cave eventually. Everyone and their grandma are going to have 10 year deals before this is over.

For us in the UK, I suspect most of us think the deal is already over. If Microsoft don't meet the requirements of divesting, or the equivalent, then the deal is done IMO, because a U-turn would likely lose all those at the CMA their jobs, with the current documents being the evidence of widespread incompetence - to have arrived at those conclusions and backed down.

Backing down isn't really a UK way of doing things, especial when things have been published. Our quangos aren't impacted negatively by the change of one government to the next - unless they are getting shutdown or gutted, something that wouldn't apply to an essential functions such as the CMA - and budget-wise, maybe with the exception of councils and blocking planning permission important functions get whatever budget they need to oppose big corporation pressure/money if deemed in the public interest.

If the deal gets approved by the CMA without Microsoft meeting the criteria there will likely be an inquest/probe into how they changed their minds and the decision reversed IMO. I see 0% chance of this "try" being "converted" by Microsoft in the UK without doing what they said they won't, as there is no way around the published CMA documents AFAIK without it looking like the CMA were bought off.

 

[demigod]

Just like after the current marketing deal expires in 1-2 years or whenever, ABK had no intention of signing marketing deals with Sony anymore

Have fun with your crystal ball.

Xbox lost the marketing deal since xbox one era, why are there still CoD on there then champ? Not the same thing at all with the 10 year contract. Keep ing yourself.

 

[Thirty7ven]

Let's be clear about one thing, none of these reports have any access to what regulators are thinking. It will all be based on the understanding of interested parties, and the only ones running their mouth are MS/ABK.

 

[BennyBlanco]

I wonder if it wouldn't be easier to cut off COD entirely, and let other games rise above sea level. Don't let MS use PlayStation's userbase to continue to slowly grow the franchise on Xbox until they start using COD to blackmail Sony.

Possible that MS wouldn't even have enough time to grow Series install base in timely fashion.

I would do it.

Yea, that would be brilliant. Just refuse to sell the highest selling game of the year and force the millions of COD players on PS to get it somewhere else.

 

[Thirty7ven]

Yea, that would be brilliant. Just refuse to sell the highest selling game of the year and force the millions of COD players on PS to get it somewhere else.

Yes that's right. At least it would happen on "my terms", and the best time would be pretty much end of this year.

What would be your play? Don't be shy it's just fun and games.

 

[Kilau]

The only example we have of anything is the RE Village marketing agreement, I believe. Everything else is assumed.

I suppose if/when Sony hands over documents to the FTC we might get some examples if they exist.

 

[feynoob]

People keep it civil.
Let's not get in to a heated argument.

 

[Mr Reasonable]

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.

If this is going to be one of those convos where you say one thing, I replay, then you post a rebuttal by adding something you didn't say at first?

If so, I'm out. Have fun.

My apologies. They could improve Xbox's offering (and by extension likely improve their market share at the cost of Sony's) by buying half a dozen publishers instead of Activision. And they'd be able to do it for less money too.

I don't think anyone could think that Microsoft would spend $70Bn dollars to improve Xbox's offering when they could do it more effectively and less expensively.

 

[Topher]

I suppose if/when Sony hands over documents to the FTC we might get some examples if they exist.

Depends on whether they get leaked or not.

People keep it civil.
Let's not get in to a heated argument.

Shut up you booger eating dummy

 

[BennyBlanco]

Yes that's right. At least it would happen on "my terms", and the best time would be pretty much end of this year.

What would be your play? Don't be shy it's just fun and games.

My play would be to try to build a viable COD competitor over the next 10 years

 

[Kilau]

Depends on whether they get leaked or not.



Shut up you booger eating dummy

I'm pretty confident they would leak.

 

[ChuckeRearmed]

Depends on whether they get leaked or not.

Even if not leaks, MLex might report on it

 

[DeepEnigma]

Depends on whether they get leaked or not.



Shut up you booger eating dummy

A certain PR award winner will definitely forget to completely turn off that faucet if it can help them in the twitter/forum tard wars.

 

[jm89]

Idas

New report from MLex:

- Microsoft hopes that the remedy package offered to the EC will put pressure on the CMA.

- "No doubt Microsoft will have pointed CMA investigators to the EU regulator's latest conclusions on that point. If Microsoft can get traction there and put a dent in the narrative against the deal, that would be no mean feat — but it may not be enough."

- However, the CMA's last public word on the subject (acceptance of behavioural remedies) still remains: "None of the circumstances in which the CMA would select a behavioural remedy as the primary source of remedial action in a merger investigation ... appears to be present."

Using EC to change the mind of the CMA seems like a huge gamble and admission they might not even be addressing CMAs concerns directly. Obviously not sure on the latter bit, but it just seems like that for a while.

We even had the EC come out and say other regulators(Most likeley pointing at the CMA) can rule differently.

I think the issues with the CMA caving in based on pressure will be a huge disaster for future as a regulator, and will set a precedent that other companies can play the same game and use the EC to put pressure on the CMA.

 

[laynelane]

For the last few years, everybody was busy telling us that "Microsoft is playing the long game."

Now, everybody is like "nah, the 10 year agreements are not sinister. COD will always be multiplatform."

Also, funny to see that we don't see "Microsoft is playing the long game" AT ALL anymore. Like that statement -- which was plastered everywhere -- completely vanished from online conversations and gaming media articles.

A narrative dies and a new one is born - the circle of life PR.

 

[feynoob]

Shut up you booger eating dummy

 

[jm89]

Let's be clear about one thing, none of these reports have any access to what regulators are thinking. It will all be based on the understanding of interested parties, and the only ones running their mouth are MS/ABK.

That's a good point. Assuming the previous mlex update is correct and the EC decision has been pushed all the way back to may 22nd, then how can anyone reasonably predict 2 months ahead what the EC will do?

Now this recent mlex update says microsft are trying to put pressure on the CMA with the EC, well that should be enough to work out what is going on here and where this positivity is coming from in these reports.

If the may 22nd date is correct for the EC decision or even the other delayed date april 25th, i imagine it's put a bit of a dent in MS trying to pressure the CMA with the an EC approval.

 

[Baki]

I wonder if it wouldn't be easier to cut off COD entirely, and let other games rise above sea level. Don't let MS use PlayStation's userbase to continue to slowly grow the franchise on Xbox until they start using COD to blackmail Sony.

Possible that MS wouldn't even have enough time to grow Series install base in timely fashion.

I would do it.

It's the #1 selling game every year. You don't just cut that off from the platform. It's way too risky. Especially at the beginning of a gen. If the PS5 was at 80-100M consoles sold, maybe that would be a strategy that works. But not at the 30M console sold, where the majority of people have not transitioned to next gen yet.

 

[Thirty7ven]

My play would be to try to build a viable COD competitor over the next 10 years

Sounds really difficult because the audience would have the choice not to switch. Would be bolder but imo more effective to lean on a 2:1 userbase, have people not willing to buy a Xbox switch to another game, and then come out with a Socom.

The problem with the ten year contract is that you are just giving MS a lot of time to figure out how to manage the IP, the devs, having to launch the game on Switch, GeForce Now and other cloud providers.

 

[Banjo64]

For us in the UK, I suspect most of us think the deal is already over. If Microsoft don't meet the requirements of divesting, or the equivalent, then the deal is done IMO, because a U-turn would likely lose all those at the CMA their jobs, with the current documents being the evidence of widespread incompetence - to have arrived at those conclusions and backed down.

Backing down isn't really a UK way of doing things, especial when things have been published. Our quangos aren't impacted negatively by the change of one government to the next - unless they are getting shutdown or gutted, something that wouldn't apply to an essential functions such as the CMA - and budget-wise, maybe with the exception of councils and blocking planning permission important functions get whatever budget they need to oppose big corporation pressure/money if deemed in the public interest.

If the deal gets approved by the CMA without Microsoft meeting the criteria there will likely be an inquest/probe into how they changed their minds and the decision reversed IMO. I see 0% chance of this "try" being "converted" by Microsoft in the UK without doing what they said they won't, as there is no way around the published CMA documents AFAIK without it looking like the CMA were bought off.

100%. I'm amazed at the suggestion they will (or can) just change their minds.

They're funded by the tax payer, and have published their findings. They published what they find to be acceptable remedies. They've followed their own procedures and guidelines.

A 10 year stay of execution is completely inadequate and irrelevant compared to the suggested remedy of divestiture.

The deal will go in 1 of 2 ways from here:

1. Microsoft will offer serious behavioural remedies that are easy to enforce and last well beyond 10 years.
2. The CMA will find against them.

It really is that straight forward.

 

[BennyBlanco]

Sounds really difficult because the audience would have the choice not to switch. Would be bolder but imo more effective to lean on a 2:1 userbase, have people not willing to buy a Xbox switch to another game, and then come out with a Socom.

The problem with the ten year contract is that you are just giving MS a lot of time to figure out how to manage the IP, the devs, having to launch the game on Switch, GeForce Now and other cloud providers.

Sony would be retarded to cut off their biggest seller and a huge driver of PS+ subs. They would hand MS a huge chunk of market share on a golden platter.

If I'm Sony the scariest part of all this is Xbox division getting taken over by Activision execs who are good at their jobs.

 

[feynoob]

The deal will go in 1 of 2 ways from here:

1. Microsoft will offer serious behavioural remedies that are easy to enforce and last well beyond 10 years.
2. The CMA will find against them.

It really is that straight forward.

The deal won't go with behavioral remedies.
MS want all of them.
If that is not possible, then they will walk away.

Activision without COD is useless for them.
It's better to get EA for them compared to Activision, if it doesn't have COD.

 

[Banjo64]

The deal won't go with behavioral remedies.
MS want all of them.
If that is not possible, then they will walk away.

Activision without COD is useless for them.
It's better to get EA for them compared to Activision, if it doesn't have COD.

Well, there's your answer then.

 

[Topher]

For us in the UK, I suspect most of us think the deal is already over. If Microsoft don't meet the requirements of divesting, or the equivalent, then the deal is done IMO, because a U-turn would likely lose all those at the CMA their jobs, with the current documents being the evidence of widespread incompetence - to have arrived at those conclusions and backed down.

Backing down isn't really a UK way of doing things, especial when things have been published. Our quangos aren't impacted negatively by the change of one government to the next - unless they are getting shutdown or gutted, something that wouldn't apply to an essential functions such as the CMA - and budget-wise, maybe with the exception of councils and blocking planning permission important functions get whatever budget they need to oppose big corporation pressure/money if deemed in the public interest.

If the deal gets approved by the CMA without Microsoft meeting the criteria there will likely be an inquest/probe into how they changed their minds and the decision reversed IMO. I see 0% chance of this "try" being "converted" by Microsoft in the UK without doing what they said they won't, as there is no way around the published CMA documents AFAIK without it looking like the CMA were bought off.

100%. I'm amazed at the suggestion they will (or can) just change their minds.

They're funded by the tax payer, and have published their findings. They published what they find to be acceptable remedies. They've followed their own procedures and guidelines.

A 10 year stay of execution is completely inadequate and irrelevant compared to the suggested remedy of divestiture.

The deal will go in 1 of 2 ways from here:

1. Microsoft will offer serious behavioural remedies that are easy to enforce and last well beyond 10 years.
2. The CMA will find against them.

It really is that straight forward.

I was under the impression that everything so far has been provisional. You guys are saying the CMA cannot make changes?

 

[DJ12]

If the CMA block this deal I bet MS will rue actively seeking out every opportunity and loophole imaginable to avoid paying tax in the UK.

 

[BennyBlanco]

If the CMA block this deal I bet MS will rue actively seeking out every opportunity and loophole imaginable to avoid paying tax in the UK.

Funny that you think they're not already doing this

 

[adamsapple]

If the CMA block this deal I bet MS will rue actively seeking out every opportunity and loophole imaginable to avoid paying tax in the UK.

If CMA blocks t his deal, MS will revoke the windows licenses for all CMA offices and make them look at that 'register your windows now' watermark.

 

[bitbydeath]

Wrong. You'd know it's true if you were interested in such things back then, or even if you simply did some research today. But it's obvious you did neither. My point was that despite Incognito being first party, Sony still made them purchase the PS3's for the initial buildout. It's why I pointed to their budget. It really wasn't until after the beta that Sony agreed to invest more PS3's into it. And they ultimately fell far short of what they promised.

That was for an entirely different application. Lol, is this a failed goalpost move attempt, or do you just think that because they're sitting in a similar looking rack that it's all the same?

Receipts?

 

[Banjo64]

I was under the impression that everything so far has been provisional. You guys are saying the CMA cannot make changes?

The provisional findings were fact based: a conclusion derived from the thousands of documents reviewed, submissions from the involved parties and the third parties consulted.

What brand new information can realistically come out between the time of the CMA publishing their provisional findings to the final deadline?

That information would have to be so substantial that the CMA can publicly justify a climb down from suggesting structural remedies to behavioural.

It doesn't exist.

 

[feynoob]

I was under the impression that everything so far has been provisional. You guys are saying the CMA cannot make changes?

CMA can make changes, if MS provides them adequate proposal that the CMA likes.

CMA could have straight blocked this deal, if there was no option.

 

[Heisenberg007]

I was under the impression that everything so far has been provisional. You guys are saying the CMA cannot make changes?

The CMA can "accept" behavioral remedies that Microsoft is suggesting. It won't necessarily be "making changes" because the CMA technically left the door open for Microsoft to convince them that behavioral remedies can work adequately in this case.

Having said that, it'd be a shocker, to say the least. And as Banjo64 said, those MS behavioral remedies would have to be mind-blowing. But the interesting part is that we already know what those behavioral remedies are based on Microsoft's submissions, and they don't align with what the CMA requested.

Moreover, the CMA had already commented on two things: (1) the 10-year deals were downplayed, and (2) they think Microsoft will foreclose PlayStation, even if there are signed deals.

So if MS suggests in their behavioral remedies again that "bro, we promise we won't foreclose PlayStation and COD will remain multiplatform for 10 years," it's basically the same two things that the CMA didn't like before.

It's unrealistic to expect that the CMA will accept the same things now that they didn't like 2 months ago.

 

[phil_t98]

I was under the impression that everything so far has been provisional. You guys are saying the CMA cannot make changes?

yeah provisional isn't final. some people talking as if the decisions so far are set in stone which they are not yet

 

[PharaoTutAnchAmun]

That's like a whole new season for this show! Restock your popcorn supplies.

Yeah whe gonna reach atleast 1000 pages but i bet many and many more....easy peasy

 

[jm89]

The provisional findings were fact based: a conclusion derived from the thousands of documents reviewed, submissions from the involved parties and the third parties consulted.

What brand new information can realistically come out between the time of the CMA publishing their provisional findings to the final deadline?

That information would have to be so substantial that the CMA can publicly justify a climb down from suggesting structural remedies to behavioural.

It doesn't exist.

CMA also has been speaking to microsoft from the phase 1 findings to all the way to provisional findings.

So i don't know how much they can convince the CMA to change there minds of there key concerns right now, when they probably had months prior.

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

Xbox lost the marketing deal since xbox one era, why are there still CoD on there then champ? Not the same thing at all with the 10 year contract. Keep ing yourself.

CoD on Xbox, wtf are you talking about

ABK signs marketing deals with Sony that expire. It doesn't mean they don't intend to then sign more deals. Yet with MS you assume they intend to remove the game entirely after the deal is over. Because reasons. Again, let me know where you are confused.

 

[splattered]

pro·vi·sion·al
/prəˈviZH(ə)nəl/
See definitions in:
All
Philately
Politics
adjective
1.
arranged or existing for the present, possibly to be changed later.
"a provisional construction permit"

 

[Three]

CoD on Xbox, wtf are you talking about

ABK signs marketing deals with Sony that expire. It doesn't mean they don't intend to then sign more deals. Yet with MS you assume they intend to remove the game entirely after the deal is over. Because reasons. Again, let me know where you are confused.

You've got to be shitting me with this if you don't see the difference between Activison signing deals with Sony or MS vs MS owning it and expecting them to sign deals.

 

[DJ12]

Funny that you think they're not already doing this

I know MS are already doing it, that's why I said they will rue it.

Maybe you thought I meant CMA will rue it but pretty sure they won't give a flying fuq. Nothing will change. MS won't leave the uk like fanboy dreams suggest and they still won't pay tax.

 

[jm89]

You've got to be shitting me with this if you don't see the difference between Activison signing deals with Sony or MS vs MS owning it.

Yeah that shit has been going on for a while. I'm so tired i don't bother engaging.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

Are people here finally realizing this deal is going to be approved or continuing in denial?

 

[Foilz]

How does the ABK deal affect the chrome operating system?

 

[PaintTinJr]

I was under the impression that everything so far has been provisional. You guys are saying the CMA cannot make changes?

Not the type of changes that would leave Microsoft in charge of CoD, no. They would look like incompetent idiots in the UK and questions would be asked. They can only change within the small area they have clearly defined for Microsoft to solve a problem they would rather went away from the deal being cancelled.

It might even be the reason the EC are delaying to let the UK regulator torpedo the deal in full, having gone through the process to give Microsoft their chance to get King and Candy Crush like they publicly claimed.

People suggesting the EC - or any external agency - can bring any pressure on a UK regulator is not based in reality, when many of these people working for UK regulators are effectively informed by, or acting like Barristers or QCs in the way they work - dealing only in facts in accordance with laws/regulations. These aren't average Joe's concerned about a narrative - any more than our House of Lords would be - they are immune to such tactics because of the public scrutiny they would face from buckling to mega corporation pressure. If anything trying to stronger arm them results in less favourable consideration and more scrutiny down the line - would be my take as a Brit.

 

[splattered]

Not the type of changes that would leave Microsoft in charge of CoD, no. They would look like incompetent idiots in the UK and questions would be asked. They can only change within the small area they have clearly defined for Microsoft to solve a problem they would rather went away from the deal being cancelled.

It might even be the reason the EC are delaying to let the UK regulator torpedo the deal in full, having gone through the process to give Microsoft their chance to get King and Candy Crush like they publicly claimed.

People suggesting the EC - or any external agency - can bring any pressure on a UK regulator is not based in reality, when many of these people working for UK regulators are effectively informed by, or acting like Barristers or QCs in the way they work - dealing only in facts in accordance with laws/regulations. These aren't average Joe's concerned about a narrative - any more than our House of Lords would be - they are immune to such tactics because of the public scrutiny they would face from buckling to mega corporation pressure. If anything trying to stronger arm them results in less favourable consideration and more scrutiny down the line - would be my take as a Brit.

Sorry, you are not in control of the CMA and what they ultimately decide. I don't know why several people here keep acting like they are.