Support NeoGAF

[Ozriel]

No. It mentions "Microsoft's separate offer to keep COD on PlayStation post-merger" right in the 2nd line. It takes that into account.

A Microsoft offer to Sony can have wriggle room.
Microsoft entering into a binding agreement with the EU & CMA on long term access and full content and feature parity, supervised by an independent party and all costs borne by MS…that's a different kettle of fish entirely.

So no, the current position (which MS would have put forward to the CMA and EU in their March hearings) do not factor in this provisional conclusion at all.

 

[DeepEnigma]

A little while ago:

Look at all them legacy media approved talking points/messaging.



Don't forget the infamous, "collusion" and "the walls are closing in."

 

[Morrie’s wig shop]

You do realize that they started this regulation process for ABK/MS before your utility bills went up, right?

Once this is done, they can potentially move onto that, and if they don't, raise

Fiscal year for the US Government to include the Department of Defense, Department of Justice and I am assuming now that the FTC's is also October 1st.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Fiscal year for the US Government to include the Department of Defense, Department of Justice and I am assuming now that the FTC's is also October 1st.

I mean, we know you can cut the corruption with a knife it's so thick, They don't give a fuck about us.

 

[sainraja]

No it doesn't. It's MS offering remedies for the acquisition and pointing out that this gives Sony a decade to make a CoD replacement. It doesn't say or imply that they will take CoD off PlayStation after that decade.

If Sonys concern is they won't have CoD, they have ten years to make something to replace it. That is MS's reasoning. Sony isn't entitled to all of the revenue CoD brings.

Again, based on the arguments we saw earlier in this thread, this line from MS should make people happy. It's all about adapting and competing. But surprise surprise, it's just being taken purely negatively and all we get is "SEE?? SEE??? Ten year deal!!"

They are leaving the option of making it exclusive open. You can deny it and make that argument all you want, but the deal they are offering has an expiration date. They want control of the IP and want to do with it what they want. The COD IP is clearly important to both, and one of them just has a bigger pocket. Sony is the one complaining right now but if the situation were reversed, that would have been MS.

Let's not ignore the fact that Microsoft also bought Zenimax/Bethesda. They had no issues there. Where was Sony?

 

[NickFire]

A little while ago:

I think whether 80 Billion is too much to focus on long term is certainly debatable. I think its clear and obviously part of a long term plan to buy majority market share in the entire industry before foreclosing on rivals. Reasonable minds may disagree. But anyone suggesting the debate has no merit is not arguing in good faith.

 

[Topher]

Stop pretending to be clever and witty. Snark doesn't change basic corporate practices. If the cost is less than the benefit you do it. By all means argue the cost would be to high. But claiming someone is arguing in circles when they espouse basic business practices is plain old dumb.

Second, since when did losses matter to a sub business model in its beginning years. Did I miss something. Have they all given up on growth growth growth and profit later already?

There is also the aspect of market share as an incentive in making Call of Duty exclusive. Market share is the primary reason why exclusives exist. Sony would make more money on each individual title if the games were not exclusive to PlayStation, but market share would suffer as fewer gamers would see the need to invest into the PlayStation ecosystem. For that reason alone, we know there is incentive to make games exclusive. Otherwise, Halo Infinite would be on PlayStation right now.

 

[TheGodfather07]

So the CMA were quite clearly correct in their assessment of the merger. Which is that Microsoft want to foreclose playstation. Microsofts own concessions prove it.

 

[Dick Jones]

Can't believe what people thought MS would do, is what MS plan to do.

Pikachuface.gif

 

[NickFire]

So the CMA were quite clearly correct in their assessment of the merger. Which is that Microsoft want to foreclose playstation. Microsofts own concessions prove it.

I do wonder if they have a second idea simmering on the back burner myself. Taking into account their software successes compared to hardware, and long ago rumors about their negative views on hardware, I wonder if they are positioning themselves to spin off hardware after the gen is up and brute force GP onto every rival's platform. I do believe COD currently has that sway if they went nuclear. But I don't put a lot of stock in this due to the profit they get from sales within their own eco-system, and the risk COD loses that kind of sway before the plan comes to fruition.

The only thing I can't accept is the notion that they merely want to make GP more attractive in its current form by buying COD and adding it.

 

[BeardGawd]

This is either a stupid auto-goal from MS that CMA is gonna use against them or it's the CMA itself that is already framing the whole thing against them.
They're offering a remedy to ease concerns they're not making COD exclusive and they state that even in the case competion has enough time to build an alternative....suggesting that's the case.

The point is that in 10 years the threat of foreclosure will not be anywhere near what it is now.

Sony has 10 years to develop an alternative. Which Sony already is by contracting the studio of Ex-COD heads to develop a GAAS.

Plus they have a half dozen exclusive GAAS in development.

Sony can make an FPS in 10 years. But Sony cannot make an FPS that rivals Call of Duty in mindshare and marketshare and revenue.

No one can, and it has been proven time and time again.

Battlefield has been the biggest competitor to COD with a long history. It did not even come close, even when Activision released the worst COD in recent years, Vanguard.

COD is just too big and too popular at this point.

Interesting because some would say the same for Playstation! Funny how that works right?

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

Stop pretending to be clever and witty. Snark doesn't change basic corporate practices. If the cost is less than the benefit you do it. By all means argue the cost would be to high. But claiming someone is arguing in circles when they espouse basic business practices is plain old dumb.

Second, since when did losses matter to a sub business model in its beginning years. Did I miss something. Have they all given up on growth growth growth and profit later already?

And if the cost here is less than the benefit, then there is enormous benefit for MS to keep the game on PlayStation

Are you talking about GamePass? This is a company changing type of deal, goes way beyond GamePass.

 

[Pelta88]

There is also the aspect of market share as an incentive in making Call of Duty exclusive. Market share is the primary reason why exclusives exist. Sony would make more money on each individual title if the games were not exclusive to PlayStation, but market share would suffer as fewer gamers would see the need to invest into the PlayStation ecosystem. For that reason alone, we know there is incentive to make games exclusive. Otherwise, Halo Infinite would be on PlayStation right now.

All true apart from that last sentence. We learned early in Microsoft's submission to regulators that behind the scenes they actually tried to get Sony to add GamePass to Playstation. Sony rejected it.

 

[Topher]

All true apart from that last sentence. We learned early in Microsoft's submission to regulators that behind the scenes they actually tried to get Sony to add GamePass to Playstation. Sony rejected it.

Not the same thing. Sony rejected EA Play for a long time, but EA games were still on PlayStation. And as far as we know, that offer to Sony could have just been xCloud.

 

[NickFire]

And if the cost here is less than the benefit, then there is enormous benefit for MS to keep the game on PlayStation

Are you talking about GamePass? This is a company changing type of deal, goes way beyond GamePass.

Yeah, in the second line of sentences I was talking about GP.

I also tend to agree with you that they are looking beyond GP. But I do wonder if this is their way to force GP on every single platform imaginable down the road. And their strength in software has me wondering about their plans if and when they can guarantee that every platform would allow GP. All speculation. Trying to figure out end game of a 80 B transaction leads to all sorts of possibilities in my mind.

 

[Ozriel]

Yeah, good point. They just immediately came to mind due to being based out of UK.

They're UK based?
Lol. Not sure why I didn't know this before

 

[ReBurn]

There were never any conflicts of interest, no, no. no. Early access to their hardware, first party dev scripts passed off as analysis, etc..

Those things are typically fanboy console war tin foil hat accusations, though. Followed by "I'll wait for the analysis from the person who frames results the way I like it."

Anyway, the processes DF, VG Tech, etc. use to perform comparisons like this generate data that can be compared and validated, so it's a possible solution. I don't think it's likely, though. Whoever does the monitoring would probably create an automation platform to generate the comparisons and not use manual playthroughs.

 

[Topher]

They're UK based?
Lol. Not sure why I didn't know this before

Yeah, I had to double check but eurogamer headquarters are apparently in Brighton. Their parent company is based in London.

 

[Ozriel]

I think whether 80 Billion is too much to focus on long term is certainly debatable. I think its clear and obviously part of a long term plan to buy majority market share in the entire industry before foreclosing on rivals. Reasonable minds may disagree. But anyone suggesting the debate has no merit is not arguing in good faith.

If they get the ABK deal through the gate, they still will be left with a minority market share for consoles, and still well behind the gaming Revenue kings like Tencent.

They're also not going to be allowed to buy more big publishers. The likes of EA, Take Two et al cannot be acquired and made exclusive.

There's no plausible pathway to buying up an overwhelming majority marketshare.

 

[Pelta88]

Not the same thing. Sony rejected EA Play for a long time, but EA games were still on PlayStation. And as far as we know, that offer to Sony could have just been xCloud.

Microsoft specifically stated "GP."

Microsoft Reportedly Tried to Bring Xbox Game Pass to PlayStation

Microsoft shares news that Sony has 'chosen to block' the release of the Xbox Game Pass subscription on PlayStation platforms.

gamerant.com

Actually it wasn't just Halo. It was their entire first party offering. Knowing what we know now, it's the definition of a hollow gesture. In essence making Microsoft a middle man between PlayStation and their third party profits.

 

[jm89]

Whoever does the monitoring would probably create an automation platform to generate the comparisons and not use manual playthroughs.

Is there such a platform? I highly doubt CMA are going to be waiting around for a platform to be created and approve it before that is created. It needs to be an existing platform which is proven to be accurate.

 

[Ozriel]

Microsoft specifically stated "GP."

With the exception of Fortnite, XCloud is only available for GP subscribers

 

[Baki]

No it's not equivalent. Because a GPU subscriber is paying for more than COD. MS has to pay all the other 3rd parties on the service, fund the other first party games, pay the upkeep of Azure servers. They reap far more profit by keeping it non-exclusive. Which they are doing by signing up Nintendo, Steam and Nvidia.

I was talking about revenue not profit.

 

[Topher]

Microsoft specifically stated "GP."

Microsoft's lawyers stated GP. What does that actually entail? Don't know. Lawyers say all kinds of shit in these submissions. I just don't buy this idea that MS was going to port all their games to PlayStation.

 

[Ozriel]

Microsoft's lawyers stated GP. What does that actually entail? Don't know. Lawyers say all kinds of shit in these submissions. I just don't buy this idea that MS was going to port all their games to PlayStation.

They definitely weren't. We don't know the scope of GP they were willing to bring, or what concessions they wanted in exchange.

And as you said earlier, XCloud is also GP.

For instance, The cloud implementation for Steam Deck is also referred to as Gamepass

 

[Topher]

They definitely weren't. We don't know the scope of GP they were willing to bring, or what concessions they wanted in exchange.

And as you said earlier, XCloud is also GP.

For instance, The cloud implementation for Steam Deck is also referred to as Gamepass

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

I just want to share something real quick about Reuters and why we're maybe seeing certain favorable reports for Microsoft through this acquisition from. Thomson Reuters Corporation, the parent group that owns Reuters, entered an agreement to sell shares of the London Stock Exchange Group to Microsoft. These were shares co-owned between Thomson Reuters and Blackstone (of whom Thomson Reuters divested their financial & risk units to, though Thomson Reuters still owns 45% of the divested unit), so the two of them entered the agreement to provide these shares for Microsoft to buy.

As a result, Microsoft became a 4.2% minority shareholder of the LSEG. The deal was entered in December of last year, and is expected to clear in the first quarter of 2023 (so, by the end of this month at the latest). Thomson Reuters themselves have made over 200 acquisitions in just a little over a decade. The $1 billion in gross proceeds from the sell of the LSEG shares to Microsoft have been allocated by Thomson Reuters to pursue further acquisitions of their own. They also recently sold 28 million shares at a price of ~ $71 per share to a collective of investment buyers; seeing their pre-tax gain from those shares being $1.1 billion, we can assume that roughly a similar amount of shares were sold to Microsoft during that transaction.

Granted this is Thomson Reuters Corporation, the owner of Reuters, and I can't find any instances of Microsoft owning shares of Thomson Reuters (or vice-versa, unlike can be said for Wedbush Securities, whom Michael Pachter works for). However, I'd look at it this way: Microsoft is a customer of your parent company, the one that owns your shop....you're probably going to take every opportunity you can to speak favorably of that customer who's a big client of the same company that owns your shop (Reuters being the shop in this case), right?

Just something to keep in mind when you see these Reuters reports on the acquisition ...

 

[DarkMage619]

I just want to share something real quick about Reuters and why we're maybe seeing certain favorable reports for Microsoft through this acquisition from. Thomson Reuters Corporation, the parent group that owns Reuters, entered an agreement to sell shares of the London Stock Exchange Group to Microsoft. These were shares co-owned between Thomson Reuters and Blackstone (of whom Thomson Reuters divested their financial & risk units to, though Thomson Reuters still owns 45% of the divested unit), so the two of them entered the agreement to provide these shares for Microsoft to buy.

As a result, Microsoft became a 4.2% minority shareholder of the LSEG. The deal was entered in December of last year, and is expected to clear in the first quarter of 2023 (so, by the end of this month at the latest). Thomson Reuters themselves have made over 200 acquisitions in just a little over a decade. The $1 billion in gross proceeds from the sell of the LSEG shares to Microsoft have been allocated by Thomson Reuters to pursue further acquisitions of their own. They also recently sold 28 million shares at a price of ~ $71 per share to a collective of investment buyers; seeing their pre-tax gain from those shares being $1.1 billion, we can assume that roughly a similar amount of shares were sold to Microsoft during that transaction.

Granted this is Thomson Reuters Corporation, the owner of Reuters, and I can't find any instances of Microsoft owning shares of Thomson Reuters (or vice-versa, unlike can be said for Wedbush Securities, whom Michael Pachter works for). However, I'd look at it this way: Microsoft is a customer of your parent company, the one that owns your shop....you're probably going to take every opportunity you can to speak favorably of that customer who's a big client of the same company that owns your shop (Reuters being the shop in this case), right?

Just something to keep in mind when you see these Reuters reports on the acquisition ...

Tim Sweeny made positive statements about MS creating a store to compete with Apple and Google. He said that despite Sony is a big investor in his company. Just because there are investors in your news company does not mean the news organization is compromised unless you can provide some evidence they weren't being objective in their news reporting. Be wary of conspiracy theories.

 

[Bonsaibäumchen]

New CMA document from MS

https://assets.publishing.service.g...sponse_to_the_notice_of_possible_remedies.pdf

Filed 6th March

(a) Scope
2.10 Microsoft notes that the CMA did not ask any questions at the Remedies Hearing in relation to the scope of the remedy, which would apply to all past, current and future CoD console titles.25

So if the next CoD after the merger would be a native cloud game that wouldn't count as a console title would it?

 

[Zephyrus0]

the same that will say that Microsoft can just pull out of the UK and CMA opinion doesn't matter

this is it Microsoft wants to make COD exclusive after 10y the deal will get blocked by the CMA

At the Remedies Hearing the CMA asked Microsoft if the 10-year duration is sufficient and whether there would be a "cliff edge" for Sony at the end of this period. The 10- year period is []. Microsoft considers that a period of 10 years is sufficient for Sony, as a leading publisher and console platform, to develop alternatives to CoD.28 The 10- year term will extend into the next console generation []. Moreover, the practical effect of the remedy will go beyond the 10-year period, since games downloaded in the final year of the remedy can continue to be played for the lifetime of that console (and beyond, with backwards compatibility).

calm down. That's just a crazy conspiracy theory.

 

[Bernardougf]

People really should stop responding to the MS shills that are clearly arguing in bad faith, doing mental gymnastics and constantly moving the goal post. There are good people from both sides arguing the subject here... no need to appease the disingenuous corporate shills (you know who they are)

 

[TheGodfather07]

What i don't get is why does nobody else create another call of duty, mario, GTA, fifa , pokemon or zelda? It's easy to create these mega successful games isn't it Microsoft? Even though you couldnt create anything half as successful even with all your money. Look what they did to their own premier fps ip and they wanna talk about creating a replacement for call of duty? What a baffling statement from Microsoft.

 

[Iced Arcade]

I just want to share something real quick about Reuters and why we're maybe seeing certain favorable reports for Microsoft through this acquisition from. Thomson Reuters Corporation, the parent group that owns Reuters, entered an agreement to sell shares of the London Stock Exchange Group to Microsoft. These were shares co-owned between Thomson Reuters and Blackstone (of whom Thomson Reuters divested their financial & risk units to, though Thomson Reuters still owns 45% of the divested unit), so the two of them entered the agreement to provide these shares for Microsoft to buy.

As a result, Microsoft became a 4.2% minority shareholder of the LSEG. The deal was entered in December of last year, and is expected to clear in the first quarter of 2023 (so, by the end of this month at the latest). Thomson Reuters themselves have made over 200 acquisitions in just a little over a decade. The $1 billion in gross proceeds from the sell of the LSEG shares to Microsoft have been allocated by Thomson Reuters to pursue further acquisitions of their own. They also recently sold 28 million shares at a price of ~ $71 per share to a collective of investment buyers; seeing their pre-tax gain from those shares being $1.1 billion, we can assume that roughly a similar amount of shares were sold to Microsoft during that transaction.

Granted this is Thomson Reuters Corporation, the owner of Reuters, and I can't find any instances of Microsoft owning shares of Thomson Reuters (or vice-versa, unlike can be said for Wedbush Securities, whom Michael Pachter works for). However, I'd look at it this way: Microsoft is a customer of your parent company, the one that owns your shop....you're probably going to take every opportunity you can to speak favorably of that customer who's a big client of the same company that owns your shop (Reuters being the shop in this case), right?

Just something to keep in mind when you see these Reuters reports on the acquisition ...

Lol jesus.

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

The point is that in 10 years the threat of foreclosure will not be anywhere near what it is now.

Sony has 10 years to develop an alternative. Which Sony already is by contracting the studio of Ex-COD heads to develop a GAAS.

Plus they have a half dozen exclusive GAAS in development.


Interesting because some would say the same for Playstation! Funny how that works right?

Don't forget they also spent billions on Bungie. What genre do they specialize in?

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

Tim Sweeny made positive statements about MS creating a store to compete with Apple and Google. He said that despite Sony is a big investor in his company. Just because there are investors in your news company does not mean the news organization is compromised unless you can provide some evidence they weren't being objective in their news reporting. Be wary of conspiracy theories.

I didn't say Reuters was compromised. I'm merely showing that there could be a potential conflict of interest given business transactions of financial benefit between Reuter's parent company and Microsoft. Same way as saying there could be a conflict of interest in analysis of the deal from employees of Wedbush Industries, though that one would be a step higher considering they have direct shares in Microsoft (to my knowledge, neither Thomson Reuters or Microsoft own shares in one another, though I haven't looked into that enough to rule it out).

The Tim Sweeney example doesn't work because his company's issue with that proceeding was with Apple and Google, and their storefronts on mobile devices more specifically. Tim Sweeney having good words of MS making a rival mobile storefront has no impact on Sony (who have no mobile storefront of their own, plus a MS mobile storefront has no bearing on their PS storefront which is console), and while MS and Sony are competitors in the console space, that didn't factor into the Epic case since it was focused on mobile.

 

[feynoob]

I just want to share something real quick about Reuters and why we're maybe seeing certain favorable reports for Microsoft through this acquisition from. Thomson Reuters Corporation, the parent group that owns Reuters, entered an agreement to sell shares of the London Stock Exchange Group to Microsoft. These were shares co-owned between Thomson Reuters and Blackstone (of whom Thomson Reuters divested their financial & risk units to, though Thomson Reuters still owns 45% of the divested unit), so the two of them entered the agreement to provide these shares for Microsoft to buy.

As a result, Microsoft became a 4.2% minority shareholder of the LSEG. The deal was entered in December of last year, and is expected to clear in the first quarter of 2023 (so, by the end of this month at the latest). Thomson Reuters themselves have made over 200 acquisitions in just a little over a decade. The $1 billion in gross proceeds from the sell of the LSEG shares to Microsoft have been allocated by Thomson Reuters to pursue further acquisitions of their own. They also recently sold 28 million shares at a price of ~ $71 per share to a collective of investment buyers; seeing their pre-tax gain from those shares being $1.1 billion, we can assume that roughly a similar amount of shares were sold to Microsoft during that transaction.

Granted this is Thomson Reuters Corporation, the owner of Reuters, and I can't find any instances of Microsoft owning shares of Thomson Reuters (or vice-versa, unlike can be said for Wedbush Securities, whom Michael Pachter works for). However, I'd look at it this way: Microsoft is a customer of your parent company, the one that owns your shop....you're probably going to take every opportunity you can to speak favorably of that customer who's a big client of the same company that owns your shop (Reuters being the shop in this case), right?

Just something to keep in mind when you see these Reuters reports on the acquisition ...

Normal business.

 

[Iced Arcade]

I didn't say Reuters was compromised. I'm merely showing that there could be a potential conflict of interest given business transactions of financial benefit between Reuter's parent company and Microsoft. Same way as saying there could be a conflict of interest in analysis of the deal from employees of Wedbush Industries, though that one would be a step higher considering they have direct shares in Microsoft (to my knowledge, neither Thomson Reuters or Microsoft own shares in one another, though I haven't looked into that enough to rule it out).

The Tim Sweeney example doesn't work because his company's issue with that proceeding was with Apple and Google, and their storefronts on mobile devices more specifically. Tim Sweeney having good words of MS making a rival mobile storefront has no impact on Sony (who have no mobile storefront of their own, plus a MS mobile storefront has no bearing on their PS storefront which is console), and while MS and Sony are competitors in the console space, that didn't factor into the Epic case since it was focused on mobile.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

Normal business.

Okay then. Just keep that "normal business" in mind when we get future Reuters reports on these proceedings in particular.

Y'all really scared at seeing how interconnected some of this stuff truly is, huh?

 

[Zephyrus0]

Shouldn't we all be fine with MS telling the CMA that Sony has a decade to make a CoD for themselves? Isn't "adapt and compete" the BS we were all hearing about why MS shouldn't be able to buy ABK? I think Sony having ten years to take the developer they just paid billions for that excels at shooters and make a CoD competitor is a prime example of "adapt and compete" but shockingly it seems some in the thread still don't think that's fair

You think Sony, or anyone else for that matter, can make a new shooter that rivals COD's marketshare in just under 10 years?

You're a beacon of unbias.
Btw, how's my crazy conspiracy theory coming along?

 

[FBeeEye]

Let's all be honest and just admit that the arguments back and forth here have nothing to do with what's best for consumers but is just another console proxy war.

 

[DopeyFish]

It did.

No, they are merely arguing that their commitments satisfy the competitive aspect that the remedy is in place for. They aren't suggesting that they are taking it exclusive, but it does open the opportunity for it. (like it already exists for Minecraft)

In this case, it's more likely removal of parity would be the thing they want to exploit. Playing on Game Pass a few days early, exclusive DLC, stuff like that. If you remove Call of Duty from PlayStation, some will switch but most will not and will just replace Call of Duty with something else and the franchise would start to fade. But if you maintain the releases but offer it early... people on PlayStation will still be excited to play it and when they see there's a way to play it earlier (buying an Xbox), the twitch streams right before launch will start making people who are excited to play the next entry envious. Envy is a powerful tool in gaming and the most effective of them all is early release. Forza Horizon 5 had like 10 million people buy the expansion pass because it allowed them to play like 3 days early. We had no idea what was even in that expansion pass. A large amount of people bought Crackdown to play the Halo 3 beta.

The best way to maximize the brand level benefit isn't to make it exclusive, it's to use it as a tool to promote your platform.

 

[Banjo64]

Microsoft: Sony can easily make a shooter that is the best selling video game every year without fail if they have 10 years to do so.

Also Microsoft: release a turd like Infinite after 6 years, can't even get Fable in to a playable state after 6 years, can't even get Perfect Dark in to a showable state after 3 and a half years.

Sound logic.

At least they've finally been truthful about their intent with the franchise, despite it being painfully obvious for months now. Shame Phil felt the need to lie on record multiple times, but it is what it is.

 

[feynoob]

Okay then. Just keep that "normal business" in mind when we get future Reuters reports on these proceedings in particular.

It's better you put that conspiracy theory hat down.

Jeff bezoz did buy a whole media. It's not common for companies like MS and Amazon to do the same. Even Sony does it too.
"In late September 2013, Jeff Bezos purchased the Washington Post and other local publications, websites, and real estate for US$250 million, transferring ownership to Nash Holdings LLC, Bezos's private investment company."


You don't need to buy a huge amount of stock just for this purchase. They could have just give them money through lobbying. That is much cheaper for them.

This is just future investment for the entire MS company. From new product to new investment news.

 

[Iced Arcade]

Okay then. Just keep that "normal business" in mind when we get future Reuters reports on these proceedings in particular.



Y'all really scared at seeing how interconnected some of this stuff truly is, huh?

Just relax. Tomorrow is Sonys day with the CMA correct?

I'm sure the day will flip with goodie little nuggets of documents to inflate and over read. Lots of days ahead to blow out of proportion!

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

You think Sony, or anyone else for that matter, can make a new shooter that rivals COD's marketshare in just under 10 years?

You're a beacon of unbias.
Btw, how's my crazy conspiracy theory coming along?

They can try. They're off to a good start with the billions spent on Bungie.

Idk about your crazy conspiracy nonsense, there's been so much in the thread. Remind me which nonsense was yours.

 

[Ozriel]

I just want to share something real quick about Reuters and why we're maybe seeing certain favorable reports for Microsoft through this acquisition from. Thomson Reuters Corporation, the parent group that owns Reuters, entered an agreement to sell shares of the London Stock Exchange Group to Microsoft. These were shares co-owned between Thomson Reuters and Blackstone (of whom Thomson Reuters divested their financial & risk units to, though Thomson Reuters still owns 45% of the divested unit), so the two of them entered the agreement to provide these shares for Microsoft to buy.

As a result, Microsoft became a 4.2% minority shareholder of the LSEG. The deal was entered in December of last year, and is expected to clear in the first quarter of 2023 (so, by the end of this month at the latest). Thomson Reuters themselves have made over 200 acquisitions in just a little over a decade. The $1 billion in gross proceeds from the sell of the LSEG shares to Microsoft have been allocated by Thomson Reuters to pursue further acquisitions of their own. They also recently sold 28 million shares at a price of ~ $71 per share to a collective of investment buyers; seeing their pre-tax gain from those shares being $1.1 billion, we can assume that roughly a similar amount of shares were sold to Microsoft during that transaction.

Granted this is Thomson Reuters Corporation, the owner of Reuters, and I can't find any instances of Microsoft owning shares of Thomson Reuters (or vice-versa, unlike can be said for Wedbush Securities, whom Michael Pachter works for). However, I'd look at it this way: Microsoft is a customer of your parent company, the one that owns your shop....you're probably going to take every opportunity you can to speak favorably of that customer who's a big client of the same company that owns your shop (Reuters being the shop in this case), right?

Just something to keep in mind when you see these Reuters reports on the acquisition ...

I didn't say Reuters was compromised. I'm merely showing that there could be a potential conflict of interest given business transactions of financial benefit between Reuter's parent company and Microsoft. Same way as saying there could be a conflict of interest in analysis of the deal from employees of Wedbush Industries, though that one would be a step higher considering they have direct shares in Microsoft (to my knowledge, neither Thomson Reuters or Microsoft own shares in one another, though I haven't looked into that enough to rule it out).

So with no evidence that Reuters owns shares in Microsoft or Activision, you're claiming a potential conflict of interest based on a tenuous link. Over a story that isn't particularly surprising or unlikely?

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

It's better you put that conspiracy theory hat down.

Jeff bezoz did buy a whole media. It's not common for companies like MS and Amazon to do the same. Even Sony does it too.
"In late September 2013, Jeff Bezos purchased the Washington Post and other local publications, websites, and real estate for US$250 million, transferring ownership to Nash Holdings LLC, Bezos's private investment company."


You don't need to buy a huge amount of stock just for this purchase. They could have just give them money through lobbying. That is much cheaper for them.

This is just future investment for the entire MS company. From new product to new investment news.

Your mistake is that you think I'm trying to say Reuters is compromised. I can't prove if they are; however, just showing the financial connections between their parent company and Microsoft should show there is an increased chance they could be, to at least show there are certain reasons one could consider news groups like Reuters may want to present Microsoft's angle on the acquisition in a light that's most beneficial to them, even if the news itself is accurate and truthful.

You're also highlighting something I would suggest is a far bigger problem with the state of journalism: too much corporate ownership and investment. It's why so much of news in all areas has decayed into what it is, instead of feeling like actual journalism or news. There's a lot more sensationalism involved these days, or where news pieces can feel more like advertisements or hit pieces.

So I'd have an issue with any company buying their way through media, be it Microsoft, Amazon, or even Sony. But like I said, this isn't about Microsoft buying a news group or shares in a news group; it's just me bringing up they purchased shares in the London Stock Exchange from Reuter's parent company.

Just relax. Tomorrow is Sonys day with the CMA correct?

I'm sure the day will flip with goodie little nuggets of documents to inflate and over read.

I don't see what that has to do with pointing out Reuter's parent company selling shares of the LSEG to Microsoft and making them a minority shareholder, but okay.

 

[Baki]

Duh?
Of course Microsoft does not "need" Activision. Their bottom line is saying that pretty clearly.

Activision Blizzard is shortcut (albeit pretty expensive) to get them where they want to be sooner. Could they hire 1500 devs to form a new studio to make an FPS clone of COD? They certainly have money for that. But why bother at all when you can have thing that you would "cloning?" And successful mobile games and Blizzard to boost your gaming outlook?

Like, if you want to argue, that Sony CAN'T develop modern-military style FPS game with their army of studios in 10 years, you are being disingenuous.

Ea has been trying for 20 years with no success.

 

[Pelta88]

Microsoft's lawyers stated GP. What does that actually entail? Don't know. Lawyers say all kinds of shit in these submissions. I just don't buy this idea that MS was going to port all their games to PlayStation.

Well this is strange...

You seem to be denying actual submissions from Microsoft. It wasn't lawyers. In fact Microsoft didn't hire lawyers, specifically, until the FTC started legal proceedings. I really hope that you're not trying to redefine what the service of GP is just because you don't like the fact that they have tried to put the service on PlayStation.

Honestly, I expect better from you.

 

[feynoob]

Your mistake is that you think I'm trying to say Reuters is compromised. I can't prove if they are; however, just showing the financial connections between their parent company and Microsoft should show there is an increased chance they could be, to at least show there are certain reasons one could consider news groups like Reuters may want to present Microsoft's angle on the acquisition in a light that's most beneficial to them, even if the news itself is accurate and truthful.

You're also highlighting something I would suggest is a far bigger problem with the state of journalism: too much corporate ownership and investment. It's why so much of news in all areas has decayed into what it is, instead of feeling like actual journalism or news. There's a lot more sensationalism involved these days, or where news pieces can feel more like advertisements or hit pieces.

So I'd have an issue with any company buying their way through media, be it Microsoft, Amazon, or even Sony. But like I said, this isn't about Microsoft buying a news group or shares in a news group; it's just me bringing up they purchased shares in the London Stock Exchange from Reuter's parent company.



I don't see what that has to do with pointing out Reuter's parent company selling shares of the LSEG to Microsoft and making them a minority shareholder, but okay.

Whoever controls the media, controls the mind.

Jim Morrison

Every news media that you hear is being vetted the by top bras. You are not hearing the real news, but the ones they want you to hear.
It's why these rich companies are buying news Media.
That is the reality. It's better for you if you don't get in to this rabbit hole.

As for MS, they are doing too much lobbying and PR news for this purchase. Reuters investment won't change that much.