Support NeoGAF

[baphomet]

I guess I should clarify my vote.

They'll be given the option to divest ABK, but will decline.

So it won't go through, but they have the option to with divestment.

 

[MasterCornholio]

I don't think there be any changes. Microsoft has committed to release Call of Duty on PlayStation, it wouldn't make sense financial sense by not releasing it on that platform.

I always interpreted that option as the deal would go through without any concessions.

 

[Three]

I always interpreted that option as the deal would go through without any concessions.

Me too, which had me wondering why anybody would vote for it considering there is exactly 0 chance of that happening now.

If it's with concessions I don't get what the difference is with that and option 3 "behavioural remedies".

 

[RickMasters]

Nobody is paying full price for GP on a regular basis.

If you are one of those friendless luddites who just loves gaming but can't manage Google - go here and save money. You're welcome

https://www.techradar.com/deals/cheapest-xbox-game-pasThree years and counting. I just pay by card directly on your Xbox.

Well for me it's gonna suck when my gamepass sub is just Activision/Blizzard shit I have zero interest in with the occasional other first party release.

I know it's personal preference, but I don't play CoD or anything else they release, and I can see the well drying up for going after fun and unique titles to fill out the service like they do now.

This deal won't change anything for me on PS5 but if what I fear happens to gamepass, I'll likely let my subscription lapse.

Have you seen how many other studios they own? I don't think we have to worry about gamepass turning into a COD service, that just houses ABK games. MS are not suddenly selling off their 25+ other studios. Those guys are still making games that go to gamepass too.

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

Microsoft isn't being demanded to make structural remedies. Sony's lawyers are the ones that made that scenario in their response.

CMA is open to behavioral remedies, if they benefit the market and consumers. That's why Microsoft is being extremely generous with behavioral remedies.

Read what the CMA says, not Sony.

the CMA is open to remedies, such as a divestiture of CoD.

They don't see any behavioral remedies that would adequately address their concerns.

 

[MasterCornholio]

Me too, which had me wondering why anybody would vote for it considering there is exactly 0 chance of that happening now.

If it's with concessions I don't get what the difference is with that and option 3 "behavioural remedies".

Even if the regulators decide to do a 180 on their stance on concessions there's still all those contacts that Microsoft signed. Really don't see this going through clean.

 

[Helghan]

I wonder if Microsoft has the feeling the deal will go through if they'll still offer Sony the 10 year deal. Sony was opposed the whole time anyway so no reason to give them this deal at the end if CMA doesn't make them

 

[MasterCornholio]

I wonder if Microsoft has the feeling the deal will go through if they'll still offer Sony the 10 year deal. Sony was opposed the whole time anyway so no reason to give them this deal at the end if CMA doesn't make them

I don't think the CMA will be fine with Microsoft excluding Sony from the deals. Whether or not Sony accepts it is a different question but at that point Microsoft is just doing what regulators ask. Regulators won't block in that situation.

 

[jm89]

I wonder if Microsoft has the feeling the deal will go through if they'll still offer Sony the 10 year deal. Sony was opposed the whole time anyway so no reason to give them this deal at the end if CMA doesn't make them

Oh CMA will be making them give up far more then that.

Anyone who thinks that CMA saying they prefer structural remedies and don't see a reason fo behavioural remedies, and then go onto to give into weak behavioural remedies is off their rocker.

 

[Gobjuduck]

the CMA is open to remedies, such as a divestiture of CoD.
They don't see any behavioral remedies that would adequately address their concerns.

Not true. Are you sure your reading CMA's Notice of possible remedies?

They just stated that structural remedies are preferred because its more likely to deal with SLC. They would prefer it, but its definitely not the primary option yet.

they then said that behavioral remedies can be primary if divestiture isn't feasible, effects on the competition are short term, or if the behavioral remedies benefit consumers more than structural remedies.

They don't see any behavioral remedies that would adequately address their concerns.

Only sony said this.

 

[Three]

I wonder if Microsoft has the feeling the deal will go through if they'll still offer Sony the 10 year deal. Sony was opposed the whole time anyway so no reason to give them this deal at the end if CMA doesn't make them

Somebody tried suggesting this several pages ago. That would be a scenario where remedies do not exist. That's not happening buddy. That ship has sailed.

If the deal goes through with behavioural remedies it would mean that MS would be obligated to offer the deal. Unless you believe they would hurt their defence by lowering the 10yr deal again as a remedy and propose a lesser deal to the CMA the 10 year deal would be the behavioural remedy that gets pushed through if the CMA accept behavioural remedies. Meaning they would have to offer it.

 

[Helghan]

Somebody tried suggesting this several pages ago. That would be a scenario where remedies do not exist. That's not happening buddy. That ship has sailed.

But the CMA still has to make a final decision, maybe they are happy with all the new feedback they got from the industry and the point Microsoft made. Highly unlikely but I would find it very funny.

 

[jm89]

Only sony said this.

Clearly you didn't read the PF and took your talking points from somewhere else.

 

[3liteDragon]

Microsoft isn't being demanded to make structural remedies. Sony's lawyers are the ones that made that scenario in their response.

CMA is open to behavioral remedies, if they benefit the market and consumers. That's why Microsoft is being extremely generous with behavioral remedies.

Read what the CMA says, not Sony.

Okay let's read what the CMA said:

 

[MasterCornholio]

But the CMA still has to make a final decision, maybe they are happy with all the new feedback they got from the industry and the point Microsoft made. Highly unlikely but I would find it very funny.

I don't believe that's a realistic situation. The CMA are not going to just turn around and drop all their demands for concessions. That would also look very bad for them as regulators.

 

[Three]

But the CMA still has to make a final decision, maybe they are happy with all the new feedback they got from the industry and the point Microsoft made. Highly unlikely but I would find it very funny.

What point did MS make? CMA has to make a final decision on what is the best way to address the conclusions it reached regarding the SLCs in its provisional findings. Behavioural remedies are the bare minimum of what they are willing to accept there right now. So unless they make a full 180 and ignore everything, that isn't happening.

 

[Helghan]

What point did MS make? It has to make a final decision on what is the best way to address the conclusions it reached regarding the SLCs in its provisional findings. Behavioural remedies are the bare minimum of what they are willing to accept there right now. So unless they make a full 180 and ignore everything, that isn't happening.

Those 60 pages they added a couple of days ago. Was a new document with some old and new stuff in it

 

[MasterCornholio]

Okay let's read what the CMA said:

15 A seems like a very interesting point to me. It sounds like Microsoff would have to convince them of that though which would be difficult.

Those 60 pages they added a couple of days ago. Was a new document with some old and new stuff in it

Well no news came out of them dropping all concessions or even one of them. I honestly don't know what reversal in their decision that your talking about.

 

[Three]

Those 60 pages they added a couple of days ago. Was a new document with some old and new stuff in it

Ok what point did they make in it that you believe would sway the CMA to drop all their current SLC concerns to the extent where not even behavioural remedies are required?

 

[MasterCornholio]

Ok what point did they make in it that you believe would sway the CMA to drop all their current SLC concerns to the extent where not even behavioural remedies are required?

Maybe that crazy rumor of Microsoft threatening the CMA by abandoning the UK?

Only something crazy like that or extreme bribery can cause the CMA to drop all their demands. I dont see how simple convincing can do that.

I don't know why but we always seem to go back to the extremes in this thread.

 

[Gobjuduck]

Clearly you didn't read the PF and took your talking points from somewhere else.

got my talking points from the CMA PF.

Okay let's read what the CMA said:

Yep, my post still stands. thanks for posting it so others can read.

 

[Banjo64]

Ok what point did they make in it that you believe would sway the CMA to drop all their current SLC concerns to the extent where not even behavioural remedies are required?

It's a pretty petulant response.

To sum it up in a child friendly way Microsoft basically said 'your findings are shit', without providing any significant counter evidence for the most part. They also say their 10 year offers are the magic wand that remove all concerns. Just look at shit like this;

1.22 In any event, even under the CMA's (incorrect) counterfactual



They're trying to be cute in their response. The lawyers that drafted it sound like amateurs.

 

[Gobjuduck]

The lawyers that drafted it sound like amateurs.

They should hire you.

 

[Banjo64]

They should hire you.

Thanks.

 

[Three]

Maybe that crazy rumor of Microsoft threatening the CMA by abandoning the UK?

Only something crazy like that or extreme bribery can cause the CMA to drop all their demands. I dont see how simple convincing can do that.

I don't know why but we always seem to go back to the extremes in this thread.

Now I'm imagining a 60 page document written by a MS lawyer outlining how they're going to make the UK a third world country.

 

[Banjo64]

Microsoft's response to the CMA's PF was pretty good though, it puts out some mathematical errors that the CMA relies upon to make it's case.

The CMA feels there is an incentive to make Call of Duty exclusive because the lost sales on Playstation would eventually be overtaken by the lifetime value of a new customer in just 5 years. (Essentially, stop selling on Playstation, get a % of new customers who will spend more in Xbox's ecosystem, the cost of the lost sales would be eclipsed by the benefit of a new customer in 5 years)

However, the CMA only accounted for 1 year of lost sales against 5 years of new customer lifetime value. Microsoft argues that this error in math, once corrected shows that losing those Playstation sales would not make financial sense and therefore they wouldn't have an incentive to remove CoD from Playstation.

The CMA could accept that they made an error and use that as justification for accepting behavioral remedies. Other than that, Microsoft is also making the case that divestment would take away all the relevant customer benefits this acquisition would offer. Which is another justification the CMA could use to accept behavioral remedies over structural or prohibition.

If that's true, yes it's a large hole that could lead to a climb down.

However, at this point I'm not sure if it is true or if Microsoft have misunderstood.

The 2 separate models laid out by the CMA seem clear. 1 is based on a 1 year calculation. The second a 5 year calculation.

Third, we provisionally believe that making CoD exclusive to Xbox could be profitable for Microsoft. Although it is difficult to quantify Microsoft's financial gains and losses from making CoD partially or totally exclusive to Xbox, we have tried to approximate these by using two different financial models.

One model measured the direct financial gains over the course of one year of making CoD exclusive to Xbox. It is a straightforward comparison of the income that Microsoft would lose from not selling CoD on PlayStation against the additional income that it would earn from selling CoD, additional Xbox consoles, and other games to new customers who would switch—as estimated from our survey results—from PlayStation to Xbox. We provisionally found that this calculation on its own was broadly neutral in terms of profitability.

The other model considered data used by Xbox in the ordinary course of business on the 'lifetime value' of new customers. This has the benefit of accounting for five years of spend on the Xbox platform and on CoD. This model, which we currently believe is a better way to estimate long-term financial incentives, suggests that making CoD exclusive to Xbox would be profitable for Microsoft.

52. On this basis, we provisionally believe that this combination of financial and broader strategic considerations would provide Microsoft with the incentive to make CoD either partially or totally exclusive to Xbox following the Merger.

 

[Banjo64]

Now I'm imaging a 60 page document written by a MS lawyer outlining how they're going to make the UK a third world country.

 

[MasterCornholio]

Now I'm imaging a 60 page document written by a MS lawyer outlining how they're going to make the UK a third world country.

 

[POKEYCLYDE]

If that's true, yes it's a large hole that could lead to a climb down.

However, at this point I'm not sure if it is true or if Microsoft have misunderstood.

The 2 separate models laid out by the CMA seem clear. 1 is based on a 1 year calculation. The second a 5 year calculation.

Third, we provisionally believe that making CoD exclusive to Xbox could be profitable for Microsoft. Although it is difficult to quantify Microsoft's financial gains and losses from making CoD partially or totally exclusive to Xbox, we have tried to approximate these by using two different financial models.

One model measured the direct financial gains over the course of one year of making CoD exclusive to Xbox. It is a straightforward comparison of the income that Microsoft would lose from not selling CoD on PlayStation against the additional income that it would earn from selling CoD, additional Xbox consoles, and other games to new customers who would switch—as estimated from our survey results—from PlayStation to Xbox. We provisionally found that this calculation on its own was broadly neutral in terms of profitability.

The other model considered data used by Xbox in the ordinary course of business on the 'lifetime value' of new customers. This has the benefit of accounting for five years of spend on the Xbox platform and on CoD. This model, which we currently believe is a better way to estimate long-term financial incentives, suggests that making CoD exclusive to Xbox would be profitable for Microsoft.

52. On this basis, we provisionally believe that this combination of financial and broader strategic considerations would provide Microsoft with the incentive to make CoD either partially or totally exclusive to Xbox following the Merger.

With the math redacted from Microsoft's response and in the PF, we can't really know. If what Microsoft said is true though, and the CMA calculated a 5 year lifetime value of new customers and used it against 1 year of lost sales on Playstation, there isn't really an incentive to withhold CoD from Playstation, which is what the CMA's whole console SLC hinges on.

However, even if all that is true, and the CMA doesn't want to get rid of the console SLC theory of harm, the Zenimax incentive debacle gives them an avenue to say they can't trust Microsoft anyway.

 

[Lyrical]

Some of you guys are just too invested in this. How do you have the time in your days!!!

 

[PaintTinJr]

Microsoft's response to the CMA's PF was pretty good though, it puts out some mathematical errors that the CMA relies upon to make it's case.

The CMA feels there is an incentive to make Call of Duty exclusive because the lost sales on Playstation would eventually be overtaken by the lifetime value of a new customer in just 5 years. (Essentially, stop selling on Playstation, get a % of new customers who will spend more in Xbox's ecosystem, the cost of the lost sales would be eclipsed by the benefit of a new customer in 5 years)

However, the CMA only accounted for 1 year of lost sales against 5 years of new customer lifetime value. Microsoft argues that this error in math, once corrected shows that losing those Playstation sales would not make financial sense and therefore they wouldn't have an incentive to remove CoD from Playstation.

The CMA could accept that they made an error and use that as justification for accepting behavioral remedies. Other than that, Microsoft is also making the case that divestment would take away all the relevant customer benefits this acquisition would offer. Which is another justification the CMA could use to accept behavioral remedies over structural or prohibition.

The maths the CMA have used will be based on data they've analysed to arrive at their 1 to 5 year ratio, either from financial changes from PS3 to PS4 CoD getting money that PlayStation has provided to them or from the losses in Xbox's numbers from 360 to X1 CoD revenue. Maybe even both, meaning both sets of data support their finding.

It is equally likely that it will be less than five years in their maths, and they just said five to cover a margin of error. If it is less than 10 years, then for mega corporations investing like that is still within parameters of worthwhile investments to get a return/larger market share and so 100% error still shouldn't change the CMA stance.

The CMA are highly unlikely to backdown on their own numbers when they've already taken issue with Microsoft's calculations and non-standard methodologies in an early phase IIRC.

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

Apparently the norm is one developer from the 20 they've bought?

The norm is if they say something will remain multi platform, it does. If something already exists on other platforms, it continues to be supported and updated as if it were on Xbox platforms. That takes care of CoD stand-alone games and WarZone.

 

[DrFigs]

The norm is if they say something will remain multi platform, it does. If something already exists on other platforms, it continues to be supported and updated as if it were on Xbox platforms. That takes care of CoD stand-alone games and WarZone.

I'll take their statements more seriously when a new Bethesda game comes to ps5. since they said it would be on a case by case basis.

 

[Elios83]

I've seen there's now a poll

It's all about the CMA, if they block It's over.
Microsoft and Activision have already lost too much time, they just can't afford to have their strategies blocked for years without being able to execute on a clear business plan. Activision doesn't even know which platforms they have to develop for their games in this limbo.
Also they could be waiting an other extra year to get the same results against them.

The only other option is that CMA accepts really strict behavioural remedies equivalent to a divestement of COD. Microsoft hasn't proposed anything of this caliber, as they would be much more restrictive than the 10 years deals they're willing to sign.

So I only see two possibilities, 70-80% CMA blocks, 20-30% it is approved but with super strict behavioural remedies that are way over what MS is proposing.

We'll find out in a month.

 

[Thirty7ven]

The norm is if they say something will remain multi platform, it does. If something already exists on other platforms, it continues to be supported and updated as if it were on Xbox platforms. That takes care of CoD stand-alone games and WarZone.

Norm? Because of Minecraft? We are still using a game that is its own platform as a barometer? COD and Minecraft are nothing alike.

 

[MasterCornholio]

I've seen there's now a poll

It's all about the CMA, if they block It's over.
Microsoft and Activision have already lost too much time, they just can't afford to have their strategies blocked for years without being able to execute on a clear business plan. Activision doesn't even know which platforms they have to develop for their games in this limbo.
Also they could be waiting an other extra year to get the same results against them.

The only other option is that CMA accepts really strict behavioural remedies equivalent to a divestement of COD. Microsoft hasn't proposed anything of this caliber, as they would be much more restrictive than the 10 years deals they're willing to sign.

So I only see two possibilities, 70-80% CMA blocks, 20-30% it is approved but with super strict behavioural remedies that are way over what MS is proposing.

We'll find out in a month.

I really don't see the CMA going lightly with Microsoft. It still can happen but the CMA will ask a lot.

 

[Elios83]

I really don't see the CMA going lightly with Microsoft. It still can happen but the CMA will ask a lot.

CMA approving just with the 10 years deals won't happen, the best case for Microsoft is CMA approving with super strict behavioural remedies that go well beyond what they're offering (business under observation, business decisions subject to external approval, 10 years deals subject to revaluation and renewal), so even in that case it must be seen if Microsoft is willing to accept such remedies. But it's a low chance scenario, the most probable scenario with CMA is a block.

 

[jm89]

I've seen there's now a poll

It's all about the CMA, if they block It's over.
Microsoft and Activision have already lost too much time, they just can't afford to have their strategies blocked for years without being able to execute on a clear business plan. Activision doesn't even know which platforms they have to develop for their games in this limbo.
Also they could be waiting an other extra year to get the same results against them.

The only other option is that CMA accepts really strict behavioural remedies equivalent to a divestement of COD. Microsoft hasn't proposed anything of this caliber, as they would be much more restrictive than the 10 years deals they're willing to sign.

So I only see two possibilities, 70-80% CMA blocks, 20-30% it is approved but with super strict behavioural remedies that are way over what MS is proposing.

We'll find out in a month.

I extend an invitaiton from Team NO

 

[Elios83]

I extend an invitaiton from Team NO

I'm shy

 

[MasterCornholio]

CMA approving just with the 10 years deals won't happen, the best case for Microsoft is CMA approving with super strict behavioural remedies that go well beyond what they're offering (business under observation, business decisions subject to external approval, 10 years deals subject to revaluation and renewal), so even in that case it must be seen if Microsoft is willing to accept such remedies. But it's a low chance scenario, the most probable scenario with CMA is a block.

So CMA Block = Deal is dead?

 

[Elios83]

So CMA Block = Deal is dead?

The only option is trying to go to CAT so that the same CMA is asked to redo the case.
That means losing what? An other year? With zero certainty that is worth and the ending result changes into their favour.
In the meantime FTC builds a stronger case for them in the US in summer.
I don't know how two big companies can afford to stay hands tied for two years with their business in a limbo. They can't.
Microsoft can pretty much find other viable targets and execute on an other plan.

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

I'll take their statements more seriously when a new Bethesda game comes to ps5. since they said it would be on a case by case basis.

Deathloop
Ghostwire
ESO High Isles

I could be forgetting something, feel free to correct me, but has Bethesda released anything exclusive since being bought outside of HiFi?

Norm? Because of Minecraft? We are still using a game that is its own platform as a barometer? COD and Minecraft are nothing alike.

CoD and Minecraft are very much alike in terms of their reach and then basically being their own services.

It's astounding how some are too blinded with warrior glasses to see simple logic. Look at how intensely Sony is fighting just to try and keep milking that CoD teat. The amount of money it generates for them is, by their own admission, gargantuan. There's no way for MS to replace that, and even if they wanted to make CoD exclusive, they are giving Sony ten years to make their own replacement. Which Sony already got kickstarted on, when they spent billions to buy Destiny and Bungie.

It's hilarious that all we hear is "well uh MS should just LuRn To CoMpEtE!!" in defense of Sony, who simply wants to continue milking boatloads of free revenue off of a franchise they contribute nothing to, all while ignoring many shooter IPs they have that they could uh, you know, CoMpEtE with.

 

[ToTTenTranz]

The European Commission has pushed the decision date back to May 22nd.

Surely, that must mean that the European Commission is so sure of letting the deal go through that they need more time to just say yes.

 

[MasterCornholio]

Surely, that must mean that the European Commission is so sure of letting the deal go through that they need more time to just say yes.

They probably have doubts and need more time.

 

[ChuckeRearmed]

It's astounding how some are too blinded with warrior glasses to see simple logic

A lot of people are just trolling. Which is odd because they just literally agree with each other and other people don't engage with them much. And you usually troll among people who disagree with you.

 

[DrFigs]

Deathloop
Ghostwire
ESO High Isles

I could be forgetting something, feel free to correct me, but has Bethesda released anything exclusive since being bought outside of HiFi?

Pentiment.
But we also know RedFall and Starfield will not be on ps5.

edit: Sorry i thought Bethesda owned Obsidian.

 

[Topher]

A lot of people are just trolling. Which is odd because they just literally agree with each other and other people don't engage with them much. And you usually troll among people who disagree with you.

Who is trolling again? I see plenty of engagement in this thread. Disagreeing isn't trolling. Frankly, metacommentary like yours just muddies up what is generally a good debate.

 

[Heisenberg007]

Some of you guys are just too invested in this. How do you have the time in your days!!!

I took PTO from my office to come and post here.

 

[phil_t98]

They probably have doubts and need more time.

They could be waiting for Sony to counter what Microsoft said to them to see if it balances?

 

[phil_t98]

Pentiment.
But we also know RedFall and Starfield will not be on ps5.

edit: Sorry i thought Bethesda owned Obsidian.

Yeah as they said evaluated on a game by game basis