Microsoft / Activision Deal Approval Watch |OT| (MS/ABK close)

Do you believe the deal will be approved?

  • Yes, will be approved without changes.

    Votes: 221 24.9%

  • Yes, will be approved but with structural changes to ABK.

    Votes: 102 11.5%

  • Yes, will be approved but only with behavioral concessions.

    Votes: 262 29.6%

  • No, will not be approved.

    Votes: 301 34.0%
  • Total voters
    886
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
James Sawyer Ford said:
No, Pete Hines did

Click to expand...

I missed the press release or ad showing PlayStation versions of these games. D DopeyFish earlier broke down that MS has no incentive to remove Bethesda games from platforms they were already on and the way they've treated ESO and FO76 proves this. MS said case by case basis that in no way indicated they were putting all future Bethesda games on all platforms. They did put that Quake remaster on PlayStation so there is an obvious example of a case where they put a new title on PlayStation. None of this has any relevance to Activision and CoD because MS never offered anyone 10 year deals for Bethesda games.
 
DeepEnigma said:
They always play stupid and ignore this every time it's posted.

Intellectually dishonest shill levels in the Darkmage clown.
Click to expand...
*looks up*

I rest my case.
Mr Rogers Clown GIF
 
If Microsoft is planning on starting their own app store on ios. why didn't they join epic in their suit. This whole thing sounds like a huge lie to me.
 
James Sawyer Ford said:
You don't need a press release, it comes straight from the top marketing guy at Bethesda in that clip
Click to expand...
This is how clown they are. Search this thread. You will have the same people saying Sony was trying to lock down Starfield as a perm exclusive with zero evidence, and in the same breath, saying there was never a PS version.

You know, from a third party developer (at the time) that their games sold the most on Sony consoles. Intellectually dishonest shills.

And once again, the same circular arguments over and over and over and over. Definition of insanity.
true detective mel GIF
 
Last edited:
DarkMage619 said:
I missed the press release or ad showing PlayStation versions of these games. D DopeyFish earlier broke down that MS has no incentive to remove Bethesda games from platforms they were already on and the way they've treated ESO and FO76 proves this. MS said case by case basis that in no way indicated they were putting all future Bethesda games on all platforms. They did put that Quake remaster on PlayStation so there is an obvious example of a case where they put a new title on PlayStation. None of this has any relevance to Activision and CoD because MS never offered anyone 10 year deals for Bethesda games.
Click to expand...
You guys are just playing dumb and you want people to take you guys seriously. lol
 
ChorizoPicozo said:
inside the App Store.
Inside the Play Station Store
Inside the Nintendo Store
Inside the Google Play Store.
Click to expand...

I think anyone can safely tell you that no, that's not Microsoft's plan.

DrFigs said:
Wasn't this what Epic sued for and lost? Why are we expecting Microsoft to successfully argue that IOS should allow a new app store on their devices. I'm sincerely asking I'm not sure.
Click to expand...

It's not Microsoft doing the arguments here. EU laws are forcing Apple's hand.

https://www.theverge.com/2022/12/13/23507766/apple-app-store-eu-dma-third-party-sideloading

James Sawyer Ford said:
No, Pete Hines did

Click to expand...


I believe their point was clear: you're not going to call games in development with no platform reveals 'existing games'.

Either way, MS weren't contractually obliged to put Bethesda games on other consoles. They certainly would be with Call of Duty if their remedies are accepted. No ambiguity there.
 
feynoob said:
MS will also lose users from PS who will not buy Xbox, which means they are losing money in the process, compared to leaving the game on PS.

CMA is relying on the idea that MS would benefit from exclusivity, however they need to also focus on the loss side.

If there are 10m PS users who play COD, and only 6m of those went to xbox, MS would lose 4m sales, as those users are not going to buy xbox.
Click to expand...

Your estimates don't consider the impact of those 6 million people subbing to Game Pass, or even half of them doing it, and the increase in MTX spending they would engage in.

10m people on PS buying COD Day 1 is $490 million revenue for Microsoft once Sony's 30% cut is taken out. 6m of them going to Xbox in case of COD removal from PS is now $420 million but MS keeps 100% of that money. A deficit of only $70 million. However, say 3 million of those 6 million decide to get the game through Game Pass, and they're new Game Pass subscribers.

That is now an extra $540 million in GPU revenue thanks to COD, in addition to the $210 million from the other 3 million who don't sub but buy the game. Altogether that is $650 million in total revenue from COD (B2P, inclusion in GP), so MS actually make $160 million more in a COD withdrawal strategy off PlayStation, using the player numbers you gave in your example and assuming that a decent number of them would likely sub to Game Pass thanks to the game and keep their sub to play it online year-round plus whatever other games are in the service.
 
3 statements from the same company in regards to the zenimax acquisition.

" we have no incentive to withhold zenimax titles from rival consoles"

" this is about delivering great exclusive games"

" we'll take other consoles on a case by case basis"

and people wonder why nobody trusts Microsoft? If Microsoft were honest and straight up from the beginning, we wouldn't have to argue about the same thing over and over again.
 
Last edited:
Did GAF have a megathread anywhere this magnitude when the Zenimax acquisition was first announced -> completion ?
 
.
thicc_girls_are_teh_best said:
Your estimates don't consider the impact of those 6 million people subbing to Game Pass, or even half of them doing it, and the increase in MTX spending they would engage in.

10m people on PS buying COD Day 1 is $490 million revenue for Microsoft once Sony's 30% cut is taken out. 6m of them going to Xbox in case of COD removal from PS is now $420 million but MS keeps 100% of that money. A deficit of only $70 million. However, say 3 million of those 6 million decide to get the game through Game Pass, and they're new Game Pass subscribers.

That is now an extra $540 million in GPU revenue thanks to COD, in addition to the $210 million from the other 3 million who don't sub but buy the game. Altogether that is $650 million in total revenue from COD (B2P, inclusion in GP), so MS actually make $160 million more in a COD withdrawal strategy off PlayStation, using the player numbers you gave in your example and assuming that a decent number of them would likely sub to Game Pass thanks to the game and keep their sub to play it online year-round plus whatever other games are in the service.
Click to expand...
You're assuming 1 year subscriptions?
Some people would only buy 1-3 months because that's all they need until they get tired of the game. Gamers have short attention spans.
 
Heisenberg007 said:
Specifically highlighting ABK content (which may go exclusive to Xbox mobile store) can cause problems for Microsoft, don't you think? At least from a public sentiment and PR or future strategy perspective.
Click to expand...
If Apple and Google did complain about the app store the regulators likely wouldn't care. Regulators aren't fans of the current mobile duopoly and wouldn't have a problem with exclusives on the mobile store. I think this app store plan talk is just for regulators anyway, I doubt it's going to get off the ground. Not even Samsung's store competes that well with Play Store or Apples App store.
 
DarkMage619 said:
I missed the press release or ad showing PlayStation versions of these games. D DopeyFish earlier broke down that MS has no incentive to remove Bethesda games from platforms they were already on and the way they've treated ESO and FO76 proves this. MS said case by case basis that in no way indicated they were putting all future Bethesda games on all platforms. They did put that Quake remaster on PlayStation so there is an obvious example of a case where they put a new title on PlayStation. None of this has any relevance to Activision and CoD because MS never offered anyone 10 year deals for Bethesda games.
Click to expand...
Saying "no incentive to remove existing games" and "no incentive to make exclusive games" are two different things.
 
Ozriel said:
Either way, MS weren't contractually obliged to put Bethesda games on other consoles.
Click to expand...

No, but games were in development for PS5 and they mislead regulators by saying they had no incentive to pull them, yet they ended up doing just that

It's why the regulators are not trusting them at their word and are requiring more stringent structural remedies
 
adamsapple said:
We're back again debating where Bethesda games woulda coulda shoulda launched.

dnxx-round-and-round.gif
Click to expand...

Microsoft's handling of Bethesda IP was always my biggest "worry" about the Activision deal and less so what the fate of COD will be. COD was always going to be the obvious talking point but more interesting is the lesser IP. *shrug*
 
Last edited:
Ozriel said:
I believe their point was clear: you're not going to call games in development with no platform reveals 'existing games'.

Either way, MS weren't contractually obliged to put Bethesda games on other consoles. They certainly would be with Call of Duty if their remedies are accepted. No ambiguity there.
Click to expand...
It did go against their public stance at the very least.

"This deal was not done to take games away from another player base like that," Spencer said. "Nowhere in the documentation that we put together was: 'How do we keep other players from playing these games?' We want more people to be able to play games, not fewer people to be able to go play games." -- Phil Spencer.

1) They did take away the game from PlayStation
2) They did ponder and acted upon 'how do we keep other players from playing Starfield'
3) And now fewer people will be able to play Starfield.
 
Lol I see mods are busy banning the multiple alts of Cheezewizz...
Pumadeluxe :pie_roffles:

The discussion is running in circles, unfortunately there will be an other month to wait until CMA announces their decision.
 
Last edited:
Heisenberg007 said:
It did go against their public stance at the very least.

"This deal was not done to take games away from another player base like that," Spencer said. "Nowhere in the documentation that we put together was: 'How do we keep other players from playing these games?' We want more people to be able to play games, not fewer people to be able to go play games." -- Phil Spencer.

1) They did take away the game from PlayStation
2) They did ponder and acted upon 'how do we keep other players from playing Starfield'
3) And now fewer people will be able to play Starfield.
Click to expand...

I believe ms when they say they want more people to play the games




On their platforms.




Which doesn't make them liars. Only hypocrites.
 
Last edited:
feynoob said:
There is a limit to how much losses a company can take.
If MS truly cared about market share, they would have made xss a $200 device, instead of a $300. eat that loss, so they can gain more market share.
Considering $200 is a sweet spot for alot of consumers.

The fact that they aren't doing that means there is a limit to their loss.
Click to expand...

So you never saw the Target holiday deals? The Verizon deal for $149 Series S that's still ongoing (albeit sporadically)? Lol.

Ar¢tos said:
.

You're assuming 1 year subscriptions?
Some people would only buy 1-3 months because that's all they need until they get tired of the game. Gamers have short attention spans.
Click to expand...

Regulators would not be stressed to figure out every possible deviation. They would work under the assumption that if someone subs to the service, they likely keep that subscription for the year. If someone is subbing thanks to COD, they are VERY likely to keep the sub the whole year because they'd want to most likely have access to MP sessions as well.

It's the same reason I didn't throw in any sub estimates in Game Pass service revenue gains off people subscribing due to COD, with the $1 conversion deals, MS Reward points, monthly trails etc. That's not stuff regulators are going to be interested in. They're going to look at the official advertised price for the service, and use that.
 
Last edited:
DrFigs said:
If Microsoft is planning on starting their own app store on ios. why didn't they join epic in their suit. This whole thing sounds like a huge lie to me.
Click to expand...
They couldn't use xcloud on apple, and the only way to access it was browser.

The main reason they are doing is that they don't want to pay apple and Google that 30% cut.
 
DarkMage619 said:
I missed the press release or ad showing PlayStation versions of these games. D DopeyFish earlier broke down that MS has no incentive to remove Bethesda games from platforms they were already on and the way they've treated ESO and FO76 proves this. MS said case by case basis that in no way indicated they were putting all future Bethesda games on all platforms. They did put that Quake remaster on PlayStation so there is an obvious example of a case where they put a new title on PlayStation. None of this has any relevance to Activision and CoD because MS never offered anyone 10 year deals for Bethesda games.
Click to expand...
7f6rqa.jpg


Cheezewizz said:
No, Xbox chose not to release Starfield on Playstation. "Taking it away" from Playstation would imply it was released on that console, and then removed from it.

Playstation never "had" Starfield, was never promised it, and isn't entitled to it.
Click to expand...

Cheezewizz said:
No... It's really not. You literally can't take something away if they never had it.

You did prove that Starfield wasn't an exclusive to Xbox when Bethesda was acquired, so congratulations for that. As far as the acquisition goes though, what relevance does this have?
Click to expand...

Cheezewizz said:
No straw needed, as I'm not making that kind of argument.

It's not moving the posts to say that because a game wasn't announced for a platform, there's no reason to believe that the platform is entitled to it.

If Starfield was announced to be on Playstation, then you'd have an argument... but it wasn't.... so you don't.
Click to expand...
 
Elios83 said:
Lol I see mods are busy banning the multiple alts of Cheezewizz...
Pumadeluxe :pie_roffles:

The discussion is running in circles, unfortunately there will be an other month to wait until CMA announces their decision.
Click to expand...

Mad respect for mods for identifying both alts and banning them with clear reasoning on the Bans page.

Baby Hat GIF
Season 3 Nbc GIF by The Office
 
feynoob said:
Xss for 149?
I saw close to 200$ during holidays.

Also MS is increasing the price of that console. They aren't willing to make that system a 200$ device.
Click to expand...

There's a thread here about the Verizon $149 Series S offer. You have to be a member of a certain Verizon program and get promo codes that are dropped every so often, but they've been doing it since at least a month by now.

And yes MS has increased Series S price in select countries. Specifically, countries where Series S sales have been struggling and won't see much uptick anyway. So to stave off a permanent price increase in markets where Xbox is still selling well, and offset hardware revenue losses, they're increasing Series S & X MSRP in some of the weakest Xbox regions and likely more to come.
 
FlyyGOD said:
You saw evidence of them existing or even an announcement?
Click to expand...
Some of you are really low rent and not worth the effort. Let me tell you starfield was announced in 2018 and MS brought Zenimax in 2021.

Mental gymnastic your way out of that, Simone Biles.

Maybe a game the supposed size of starfield only takes 2 years from first line of code to release.
 
Heisenberg007 said:
It did go against their public stance at the very least.

"This deal was not done to take games away from another player base like that," Spencer said. "Nowhere in the documentation that we put together was: 'How do we keep other players from playing these games?' We want more people to be able to play games, not fewer people to be able to go play games." -- Phil Spencer.

1) They did take away the game from PlayStation
2) They did ponder and acted upon 'how do we keep other players from playing Starfield'
3) And now fewer people will be able to play Starfield.
Click to expand...

1. They kept released Bethesda games on all platforms where they were. All expansions to existing titles released with full content parity.

2. They decided - on a case by case basis as claimed - to keep Starfield exclusive. Fair game, since it isn't SLC as determined by regulators. The 'case by case' statement was made publicly.

3. Possibly. Not an exact science, since Phil's referring to XCloud
 
Ozriel said:
1. They kept released Bethesda games on all platforms where they were. All expansions to existing titles released with full content parity.

2. They decided - on a case by case basis as claimed - to keep Starfield exclusive. Fair game, since it isn't SLC as determined by regulators. The 'case by case' statement was made publicly.

3. Possibly. Not an exact science, since Phil's referring to XCloud
Click to expand...
1. No, the game was taken away from another platform that it would have been released on had Microsoft not intervened.
2. We aren't talking about regulators. We are talking about Microsoft going against its own public statements.
3. Not possibly. Definitely. Game Pass / xCloud is 25 million subscribers. Even if we assume that there is 0 overlap with XBS userbase, and all 25 million subscribers are on top of it, PS5 has more players (32 million) and would be more than 45 million by the time Starfield releases.

So, yes, fewer people will be playing Starfield now because of Microsoft's intervention -- which, again, goes against what they said publicly.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

MS/ABK is advertising games that don't exist for data collection
46
2K
POKEYCLYDE replied
My apologies to Ubisoft, Sony, Activision, EA, MS etc. for making a big deal out of $70 games
2 3 4
156
6K
MDSLKTR replied
Microsoft, Activision Deny Report Regarding Financial Performance
Business Hardware  2 3
131
11K
Jaybe replied
What happened to all the people that were cheering over that MS Activision acquisition?
Drama  5 6 7 8 9
414
18K
GateofD replied
Microsoft has Closed the Activision Blizzard King Deal
22 23 24 25 26
1K
99K
MasterCornholio replied
Top Bottom