Support NeoGAF

[Ozriel]

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.

You're saying Microsoft approached Sony requesting to go fully third party and put all their IP on PlayStation? Forza, Halo etc?

You're the one trying to redefine what the service is. MS has used cloud streaming to bring GP to multiple devices, including the SteamDeck running SteamOS.

Here's an article about Microsoft bringing Gamepass to Samsung TVs via streaming

https://gamerant.com/2021-samsung-tv-support-xbox-game-pass-streaming/

 

[Elios83]

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.

It was a really poor and tone deaf answer, they know that CMA has gone as far as digging into old interviews made by Microsoft executives and used all the bullshit they stated in the past against them in the preliminary findings.
What we have learned today is that the CMA is clearly concerned about the time limited nature of a 10 years deal as a remedy and has asked Microsoft what they intend to do about that and the answer they get is that it's enough time for competitors to build an alternative

This might not be the last time we'll hear about this answer...

In any case at this point we have reached the stage where people want to read whatever they want, I'm even reading that for some people in other places CMA doing its job and simply asking Microsoft what they want to offer as remedies means they have accepted Microsoft's remedies

It's better to fast forward a month and end this thing in a way or the other.

 

[Ozriel]

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

I don't think you really understand the scope of this acquisition if you think they're doing 'too much'. It's the largest tech acquisition ever, with significant regulatory skepticism.
Why in the world would you not expect teams of lawyers, multiple engagements, press statements and executive level involvement for a $70bn deal?

 

[feynoob]

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.

Topher is right here.
That gamepass is just xcloud which is gamepass but through cloud.

For actual gamepass, you need MS to port their games to PS. We know that won't happen at all.

 

[Baki]

Let's say the deal fails, (I personally don't think it will) if MSFT was willing to pay this much for the exclusivity in 10 years. They could just as easily and without any legal recourse pay for exclusivity for the next 10 years and beyond for a fraction of the money. If they were truly motivated to go that route, there is nothing stopping them from buying the exclusive rights just like EA with Madden and the NFL rights.

Spend a billion a year to be the ONLY place to play Call of Duty. Sure the return on investment wouldn't be as high of a yield but do you see what I'm getting at? They can still get the market through attrition, become the only source of something that the masses love and your brand becomes THE brand. Sony would lose market share and MSFT could save 59 billion dollars and the headache of dealing with all of this.

This is where you are wrong. Companies (ABK) are valued based on future cash flows and growth. ABK has 7.5B revenue and $2.2B profit but is valued at 31x multiple of their profit. That's because investors are providing a premium to the expected future growth of their earnings. Now, if ABK decided to do a deal with MS, where they go exclusive to the 3rd place console with 34% market share in return for replacing the PS revenue. Despite the exclusivity payment (and therefore the same revenue in theory), their stock price would take a huge hit because the expected value of their future growth and cash flows would be lower. Ultimately, the most important thing for a company is its stock price. That's why MS couldn't get a deal done for COD exclusivity. That's not going into the fact that buying a company for 70B (which is an investment) is very different from spending 70B.

 

[feynoob]

I don't think you really understand the scope of this acquisition if you think they're doing 'too much'. It's the largest tech acquisition ever, with significant regulatory skepticism.
Why in the world would you not expect teams of lawyers, multiple engagements, press statements and executive level involvement for a $70bn deal?

Did you check what you are replaying to?

 

[Iced Arcade]

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.

 

[FalsettoVibe]

So Microsoft, was the initial 3 year deal you offered enough time for Sony to come up with a viable CoD alternative?

 

[DopeyFish]

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.

Actually they put Bethesda behind game pass. If you remember when Microsoft finished the acquisition of Bethesda, they didn't say that their games would be exclusive to Xbox/PC, they said they'd be exclusive to "where Game Pass exists" which at the time (and still true today) is Xbox/PC. But where Game Pass "exists" is obviously fluid despite it not getting any traction from Nintendo or Sony. While Sony's objections are obvious and clear we are unsure of Nintendo's stance on it.

Microsoft's strategy has been to get Game Pass everywhere and releasing the titles on PlayStation doesn't really give them the leverage they want or need to reach that goal because it feeds into PlayStation's model (status quo B2P). Issue is at what point would the level of acceptable leverage exist for their intended scenario to play out? Kind of seems that this strategy will eventually run afoul of anti-trust eventually but at the same time it's a condition that Sony is kind of creating themselves by not allowing it. Basically Microsoft is exploiting the scenario to their own benefit.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

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.

I already know what you're talking about with that rabbit hole. There are variations of that quote I've heard as well, such as those who control the entertainment control the culture. And that's not even getting into things investment firms like Black Rock have their hands in (which is literally everything).

But all this is doing is proving why word on proceedings of this acquisition from places like Reuters should be taken with a grain of salt. The problem are the people who aren't aware of how deep some of these connections go, and they take reports like those from Reuters as definitive happenings in proceedings. They are not.

Realistically I know Microsoft could just pay off every regulator with a $2 million offer and vacation package under the table and get the approval for the deal they want, if they really want to do it. And no one would be the wiser for not knowing. I just have issue with the people who are pro-acquisition and can't fathom or consider ANY of this stuff, and feel any result that comes about in Microsoft's favor for the deal, would be 100% down to the merits of their case to regulators for the deal.

These sorts of people would never consider it's really some combination of that, the constant lobbying and PR as you mention it, and the complex network of financial links between companies like Microsoft and many of the same news sources and agencies that happen to present their case for the deal in the best possible light.

 

[jm89]

So Microsoft, was the initial 3 year deal you offered enough time for Sony to come up with a viable CoD alternative?

3 year contracted deal + 7 year phil pinky promise deal.

Technically was a 10 year deal.

 

[feynoob]

Actually they put Bethesda behind game pass. If you remember when Microsoft finished the acquisition of Bethesda, they didn't say that their games would be exclusive to Xbox/PC, they said they'd be exclusive to "where Game Pass exists" which at the time (and still true today) is Xbox/PC. But where Game Pass "exists" is obviously fluid despite it not getting any traction from Nintendo or Sony.

Microsoft's strategy has been to get Game Pass everywhere and releasing the titles on PlayStation doesn't really give them the leverage they want or need to reach that goal because it feeds into PlayStation's model (status quo B2P). Issue is at what point would the level of acceptable leverage exist for their intended scenario to play out? Kind of seems that this strategy will eventually run afoul of anti-trust eventually but at the same time it's a condition that Sony is kind of creating themselves by not allowing it. Basically Microsoft is exploiting the scenario to their own benefit.

It will be natively on Xbox/PC while streaming for other devices. Unless MS decides to port their games to those devices. Which at the point, it will fall outside of gamepass.

so essentially MS is calling xcloud "gamepass". But that is not true at all, as most games aren't available through cloud.

 

[feynoob]

I already know what you're talking about with that rabbit hole. There are variations of that quote I've heard as well, such as those who control the entertainment control the culture. And that's not even getting into things investment firms like Black Rock have their hands in (which is literally everything).

But all this is doing is proving why word on proceedings of this acquisition from places like Reuters should be taken with a grain of salt. The problem are the people who aren't aware of how deep some of these connections go, and they take reports like those from Reuters as definitive happenings in proceedings. They are not.

Realistically I know Microsoft could just pay off every regulator with a $2 million offer and vacation package under the table and get the approval for the deal they want, if they really want to do it. And no one would be the wiser for not knowing. I just have issue with the people who are pro-acquisition and can't fathom or consider ANY of this stuff, and feel any result that comes about in Microsoft's favor for the deal, would be 100% down to the merits of their case to regulators for the deal.

These sorts of people would never consider it's really some combination of that, the constant lobbying and PR as you mention it, and the complex network of financial links between companies like Microsoft and many of the same news sources and agencies that happen to present their case for the deal in the best possible light.

Then it's best for you to not listen to any news paper.
MS can pay those news paper same as they are doing with Reuters.

There is nothing we can do about these corporations meddling with those news paper companies.

 

[Pelta88]

You're saying Microsoft approached Sony requesting to go fully third party and put all their IP on PlayStation? Forza, Halo etc?

You're the one trying to redefine what the service is. MS has used cloud streaming to bring GP to multiple devices, including the SteamDeck running SteamOS.

Here's an article about Microsoft bringing Gamepass to Samsung TVs via streaming

https://gamerant.com/2021-samsung-tv-support-xbox-game-pass-streaming/

You're completely disingenuous. Throughly and utterly. Your main aim seems to be damage control and repackaging Microsoft's own admissions.

Microsoft: We fucked up.

Ozriel: When Microsoft said they fucked up. They said it at 3pm EST so there's a potential time gap where they didn't fuck up if you consider the delay in Time Zones.

You've been doing that for over 700 pages straight. And I'm honestly wondering if you get paid for it. Microsoft presented the information that they offered gamepass to playstation. It's in their legally binding court submissions. The conversation where they didn't is a conversation you need to have with someone who is willing to suspend the belief in facts. And in short, that is not me.

 

[Pelta88]

Topher is right here.
That gamepass is just xcloud which is gamepass but through cloud.

For actual gamepass, you need MS to port their games to PS. We know that won't happen at all.

Can we get a receipt with that at feynoob Receipt in this instance meaning a link that backs up your claim.

Here's mine: "Sony "has chosen to block" Game Pass on its platforms."

Shocking: Sony Doesn't Want Game Pass on PlayStation, Microsoft Has a Pop at PS Plus

Sony is denying gamers a "choice"

www.pushsquare.com

There are many articles that quote Microsoft's exact wording, as it's taken directly from Microsoft's documented submissions to regulators. I understand why XBOX fans will deny this happened because of console war bias. However, that bias does not change the facts.

 

[DeepEnigma]

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.

But not all of us. There are some that remain consistent.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

Then it's best for you to not listen to any news paper.
MS can pay those news paper same as they are doing with Reuters.

There is nothing we can do about these corporations meddling with those news paper companies.

You're misreading. I didn't say Microsoft bought shares in Reuters, or that Reuters has shares in Microsoft. I pointed out that Thomson Reuters, Reuter's parent company, sold roughly $1 billion worth of shares in the London Stock Exchange to Microsoft.

And that, given the financial relationship there, and Reuters being owned by Thomson Reuters, there is probably at least a level of respect to be expected from Reuters to report on Microsoft's side of the ongoing acquisition proceedings in a way that is most positive for Microsoft. That's not me saying Reuters are "making up" information to be of Microsoft's benefit, which would be a lot closer to saying they're compromised.

It's partly why I also mentioned Wedbush Industries, because that's somewhat the closest comparison. However I would say Wedbush Industries are more blatant example of a conflict of interest, since they outright own stock in Microsoft. Therefore people who work for them like Michael Pachter, are going to speak highly of Microsoft in acquisition talks to people like Destin Legarie because Michael is basically acting as a public representative of Wedbush Industries in those cases.

 

[feynoob]

Can we get a receipt with that at feynoob Receipt in this instance meaning a link that backs up your claim.

Here's mine: "Sony "has chosen to block" Game Pass on its platforms."

http://[URL]https://www.pushsquare....on-playstation-microsoft-has-a-pop-at-ps-plus

[/URL]

There are many articles that quote Microsoft's exact wording, as it's taken directly from Microsoft's documented submissions to regulators. I understand why XBOX fans will deny this happened because of console war bias. However, that bias does not change the facts.

Gamepass=Xcloud.

There is no point to sub to gamepass, if there is a port of the game on PS.
No way Sony would refuse that offer, if MS does port their games to PS. That would essentially kill the need for Xbox.

 

[feynoob]

You're misreading. I didn't say Microsoft bought shares in Reuters, or that Reuters has shares in Microsoft. I pointed out that Thomson Reuters, Reuter's parent company, sold roughly $1 billion worth of shares in the London Stock Exchange to Microsoft.

And that, given the financial relationship there, and Reuters being owned by Thomson Reuters, there is probably at least a level of respect to be expected from Reuters to report on Microsoft's side of the ongoing acquisition proceedings in a way that is most positive for Microsoft. That's not me saying Reuters are "making up" information to be of Microsoft's benefit, which would be a lot closer to saying they're compromised.

It's partly why I also mentioned Wedbush Industries, because that's somewhat the closest comparison. However I would say Wedbush Industries are more blatant example of a conflict of interest, since they outright own stock in Microsoft. Therefore people who work for them like Michael Pachter, are going to speak highly of Microsoft in acquisition talks to people like Destin Legarie because Michael is basically acting as a public representative of Wedbush Industries in those cases.

It's not about agreeing or disagreeing.

The shit that MS is doing with Reuters is too normal in this industry. Every newspaper shares is being owned by a big corporation.

It's why it's normal business. They aren't putting that money for this purchase. They are doing it for future policies, investment and other business related to MS. They want to make themselves look good to the public like how everyone company in the world is doing now.

 

[POKEYCLYDE]

Read the 27 page document posted by Reksveks.

It's clear that Microsoft is leaving the door open to do anything they want after the 10 year period. I don't think this automatically means that they will make CoD exclusive, but they want that option.

In response to the "Cliff Edge" question from the CMA, Microsoft wants to allay fears that it would be a cliff edge. They're basically saying 10 years is enough time for Sony to stop relying on CoD so heavily.

And right after they say 10 years is enough time for Sony to stop relying on CoD (in case we decide to make it exclusive after that 10 year period) they say "We probably wouldn't make it exclusive anyway, it would make too much money on Playstation".

But.. they had the same incentive line when discussing Zenimax.

I personally don't think they would take CoD full exclusive after the 10 year deal. They might engage in timed exclusivity (a week, 30 days) either for the full game or content/modes like raids/maps.

But one thing is clear. They want to door open to do anything they want after that 10 years is over.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Gamepass=Xcloud.

There is no point to sub to gamepass, if there is a port of the game on PS.
No way Sony would refuse that offer, if MS does port their games to PS. That would essentially kill the need for Xbox.

Let's just admit this was ambiguous and not telling the "whole truth." MS has done a great job over the years separating, marketing, and putting emphasis on their trademarked names down to Velocity Architecture™, and they want people to think it's porting their games the whole shebang ala Game Pass™. When MS talks about xCloud™, they talk about xCloud™ and have done so in isolation and context the entire time. Typical corporate "white lies," really.

As another poster said earlier in all of this lawyer malarkey... posturing.

 

[DarkMage619]

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)

People should ignore posters who name call and attempt to shame others because they see positive benefits in this deal. There is nothing wrong with being for or against this deal if you can support your argument with logic and sound reasoning but posters making lazy 'shill' accusations should be dismissed immediately. The 'holier than thou' positions are tiresome.

 

[Pelta88]

Gamepass=Xcloud.

There is no point to sub to gamepass, if there is a port of the game on PS.
No way Sony would refuse that offer, if MS does port their games to PS. That would essentially kill the need for Xbox.

What? In what world does Sony accept an offer that allows Microsoft to eat, significantly, into their gaming royalties and profits?

Also I need a link where Microsoft says they offered XCLOUD and not Game Pass. This is important as Microsoft defines the two services as two totally different businesses in the submissions to regulators. In fact, Microsoft themselves criticised XCLOUD's viability, so I'm curious to see where they offered that specific service to PS.

No gifs please. Just a link that supports what you're saying. For posterity reasons.

 

[feynoob]

Let's just admit this was ambiguous and not telling the "whole truth." MS has done a great job over the years separating, marketing, and putting emphasis on their trademarked names down to Velocity Architecture™, and they want people to think it's porting their games the whole shebang ala Game Pass™. When MS talks about xCloud™, they talk about xCloud™ and have done so in isolation and context the entire time. Typical corporate "white lies," really.

As another poster said earlier in all of this lawyer malarkey... posturing.

Spoiler: Sounds like certain person

 

[feynoob]

What? In what world does Sony would accept an offer that allows Microsoft to eat their royalties.

Also I need a link where Microsoft says they offered XCLOUD and not Game Pass. This is important as Microsoft defines the two services as two totally different businesses as they have described in the submissions to regulators. In fact, Microsoft themselves criticised XCLOUD's viability, so I'm curious to see where they offered that specific service to PS.

No gifs please. Just a link that supports what you're saying. For posterity reasons.

How do you think PS users would be able to play MS games?
Thought xcloud or through porting the game to PS?
Because this will give you a general idea to what MS means by gamepass.

 

[DarkMage619]

Read the 27 page document posted by Reksveks.

It's clear that Microsoft is leaving the door open to do anything they want after the 10 year period. I don't think this automatically means that they will make CoD exclusive, but they want that option.

In response to the "Cliff Edge" question from the CMA, Microsoft wants to allay fears that it would be a cliff edge. They're basically saying 10 years is enough time for Sony to stop relying on CoD so heavily.

And right after they say 10 years is enough time for Sony to stop relying on CoD (in case we decide to make it exclusive after that 10 year period) they say "We probably wouldn't make it exclusive anyway, it would make too much money on Playstation".

But.. they had the same incentive line when discussing Zenimax.

I personally don't think they would take CoD full exclusive after the 10 year deal. They might engage in timed exclusivity (a week, 30 days) either for the full game or content/modes like raids/maps.

But one thing is clear. They want to door open to do anything they want after that 10 years is over.

Hoeg has warned MS previously about the lack of incentive to foreclose terminology. MS COULD absolutely choose to make CoD exclusive and they could do the same for any other IP they control like Minecraft or future ESO and FO76 expansions.

The question is what is the likelihood of that happening? Just like MS could introduce bugs into PlayStation versions of games, break legal contracts with companies they do business with, or they could raise the Game pass price to $100 a month. Could does not mean would and the likelihood of CoD going exclusive is just as likely as Minecraft and all its spin-offs doing so.

 

[Bernardougf]

People should ignore posters who name call and attempt to shame others because they see positive benefits in this deal. There is nothing wrong with being for or against this deal if you can support your argument with logic and sound reasoning but posters making lazy 'shill' accusations should be dismissed immediately. The 'holier than thou' positions are tiresome.

And ...the boot fits

 

[jm89]

People should ignore posters who name call and attempt to shame others because they see positive benefits in this deal. There is nothing wrong with being for or against this deal if you can support your argument with logic and sound reasoning but posters making lazy 'shill' accusations should be dismissed immediately. The 'holier than thou' positions are tiresome.

 

[DopeyFish]

Gamepass=Xcloud.

There is no point to sub to gamepass, if there is a port of the game on PS.
No way Sony would refuse that offer, if MS does port their games to PS. That would essentially kill the need for Xbox.

Game Pass is not xCloud. xCloud is only available through Game Pass Ultimate, not in base Game Pass subscription. It also doesn't cover every game and is a limited selection of titles.

What Microsoft wants is to be treated like EA Play, they aren't offering just streaming. They're offering native. The issue Sony has likely has to do with games that are available on Game Pass are also available on PlayStation so it's not just that Microsoft games would come in and be a net gain but it would also cannibalize sales of selected third party titles on their platform and essentially funnel money away from Sony to Microsoft.

We all know Game Pass would become incredibly popular wherever it is because the value is just too good to pass up as a consumer. It would ultimately start to leech users away from buying games towards playing what's in Game Pass.

It would basically give Microsoft leverage on Sony's platforms.

 

[DarkMage619]

And ...the boot fits

Any accusation made at other posters and their preferences apply to you too. Just swap the company names. The lack of self awareness is not surprising.

 

[Godot25]

Ea has been trying for 20 years with no success.

EA was close during BF4/BF1 era. Fact that they fumbled it so hard is their stupidity and not "COD is untouchable"

 

[Pelta88]

How do you think PS users would be able to play MS games?
Thought xcloud or through porting the game to PS?
Because this will give you a general idea to what MS means by gamepass.

You seem to be trying to delay providing the discussion with a link that backs your claim.

Before you slide down the rabbit hole of telling us what Microsoft "Means" or "Thinks" I want you to know it's ok to say "I don't have a link."

We're arm chair analysing here. All of us. I've stated things I thought before in this thread and was corrected. Most of us have. And that's ok. Running around in circles trying to change Microsoft's legally binding submissions to suit your own narrative, is not.

 

[Topher]

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.

Geez man.....what is with the snide comments? No need for this.

Microsoft had lawyers on this way back when they were dealing with CADE so I'm pretty sure they have lawyers handling this stuff for CMA as well. And no,I'm not redefining anything. I'm stating the simple fact that we do not know what was offered as far as Game Pass is concerned. This is what was said.

Factually, Game Pass is available on my smart phone and I can play games there. How? Yep.....via xCloud.

 

[DeepEnigma]

People should ignore posters who name call and attempt to shame others because they see positive benefits in this deal. There is nothing wrong with being for or against this deal if you can support your argument with logic and sound reasoning but posters making lazy 'shill' accusations should be dismissed immediately. The 'holier than thou' positions are tiresome.

 

[feynoob]

Game Pass is not xCloud. xCloud is only available through Game Pass Ultimate, not in base Game Pass subscription. It also doesn't cover every game and is a limited selection of titles.

What Microsoft wants is to be treated like EA Play, they aren't offering just streaming. They're offering native. The issue Sony has likely has to do with games that are available on Game Pass are also available on PlayStation so it's not just that Microsoft games would come in and be a net gain but it would also cannibalize sales of selected third party titles on their platform and essentially funnel money away from Sony to Microsoft.

We all know Game Pass would become incredibly popular wherever it is because the value is just too good to pass up as a consumer. It would ultimately start to leech users away from buying games towards playing what's in Game Pass.

Gamepass without 1st party games isn't gamepass.
The reason I stated xcloud is because MS would have to port their 1st party to Sony PS. We know what will happen to Xbox, if MS decides to do that.

You seem to be trying to delay providing the discussion with a link that backs your claim.

Before you slide down the rabbit hole of telling us what Microsoft "Means" or "Thinks" I want you to know it's ok to say "I don't have a link."

We're arm chair analysing here. All of us. I've stated things I thought before in this thread and was corrected. Most of us have. And that's ok. Running around in circles trying to change Microsoft's legally binding submissions to suit your own narrative, is not.

MS porting their 1st party games to PS= no need to buy Xbox.
MS will not do that. If they are putting their 1st games on gamepass, then it's through xcloud.
This way, PS users can have Xbox games through cloud.

Unless MS wants to kill their console.

 

[Ozriel]

You're completely disingenuous. Throughly and utterly. Your main aim seems to be damage control and repackaging Microsoft's own admissions.

Microsoft: We fucked up.

Ozriel: When Microsoft said they fucked up. They said it at 3pm EST so there's a potential time gap where they didn't fuck up if you consider the delay in Time Zones.

You've been doing that for over 700 pages straight. And I'm honestly wondering if you get paid for it. Microsoft presented the information that they offered gamepass to playstation. It's in their legally binding court submissions. The conversation where they didn't is a conversation you need to have with someone who is willing to suspend the belief in facts. And in short, that is not me.

Yeah, this seems to be you struggling to comprehend. Not about any 'damage control'.

Nobody disputing that MS offered Gamepass to PlayStation. All I've pointed out to far is that it's unlikely to be a native solution, since that would mean MS porting their first party library to PlayStation.

How you've misconstrued "MS offered GP to PlayStation but I'm sure it's most likely via cloud streaming" to "Microsoft never offered GP to PlayStation" is frankly baffling.

 

[Pelta88]

Geez man.....what is with the snide comments? No need for this.

Microsoft had lawyers on this way back when they were dealing with CADE so I'm pretty sure they have lawyers handling this stuff for CMA as well. And no,I'm not redefining anything. I'm stating the simple fact that we do not know what was offered as far as Game Pass is concerned. This is what was said.

Factually, Game Pass is available on my smart phone and I can play games there. How? Yep.....via xCloud.

So with 70 Billion on the line and 3 Billion in potential fines if the deal doesn't go through... Your contention is that when Microsoft said they offered GP to Playstation and PlayStation refused to carry the service, it wasn't actually Microsoft but the lawyers who mistook GP to means something else??

The problem with this is theory is that submission to regulators are not the equivalent of a forum post. They have a process known as due diligence. Every sentence word is checked repeatedly before submissions, as any misrepresentation could result in charges of Securities Fraud. Which would tank Microsoft's share price and legal standing.

When Microsoft offers the information that PlayStation refused to carry GP on their service to regulators. That's exactly what they mean, otherwise it becomes fraud under the legal framework of the regulatory process.

 

[Ozriel]

Game Pass is not xCloud. xCloud is only available through Game Pass Ultimate, not in base Game Pass subscription. It also doesn't cover every game and is a limited selection of titles.
We all know Game Pass would become incredibly popular wherever it is because the value is just too good to pass up as a consumer. It would ultimately start to leech users away from buying games towards playing what's in Game Pass.

It would basically give Microsoft leverage on Sony's platforms.

Microsoft serves Gamepass across console, PC and browser. Streaming IS a market they're heavily invested in, and is absolutely considered Gamepass. They've said it multiple times that their ecosystem covers and caters for people with no expensive gaming hardware.

If you've got one of those Samsung TVs, you can subscribe for Gamepass Ultimate from your couch and stream.

Sure, the library isn't 1:1, but that's not a dealbreaker, and newer games arrive on cloud same time with console.

What Microsoft wants is to be treated like EA Play, they aren't offering just streaming. They're offering native. The issue Sony has likely has to do with games that are available on Game Pass are also available on PlayStation so it's not just that Microsoft games would come in and be a net gain but it would also cannibalize sales of selected third party titles on their platform and essentially funnel money away from Sony to Microsoft.

There's no chance it'd be a native solution. Not just because it would mean Microsoft porting their entire first party to PlayStation, but licensing costs for 3rd party GP deals would skyrocket. they'd be paying more than double for everything.

That seems extremely implausible.

 

[ironmang]

But one thing is clear. They want to door open to do anything they want after that 10 years is over.

Shouldn't be surprising they want complete control over their property at some point.

 

[Dick Jones]

I was hoping to catch a sentence in the report with multiple fonts in it as a nod to our Sage. Sadly none yet.

 

[reksveks]

Microsoft had lawyers on this way back when they were dealing with CADE

MS giving 5 lawyers in Brazil power of attorney which is probably required.

Then Matheus basically replies to all/most of the requests

Source: https://sei.cade.gov.br/sei/modulos...yFX6gl2sGKAL6BCs1NvfGDcTA25PStaVelgicwm5iRue6

 

[sainraja]

You're saying Microsoft approached Sony requesting to go fully third party and put all their IP on PlayStation? Forza, Halo etc?

You're the one trying to redefine what the service is. MS has used cloud streaming to bring GP to multiple devices, including the SteamDeck running SteamOS.

Here's an article about Microsoft bringing Gamepass to Samsung TVs via streaming

https://gamerant.com/2021-samsung-tv-support-xbox-game-pass-streaming/

A Samsung TV isn't capable of playing games natively. A PS5 system is.

Now, I am not claiming to know what MS offered but that's a silly way to push back on that point lol.

Topher is right here.
That gamepass is just xcloud which is gamepass but through cloud.

For actual gamepass, you need MS to port their games to PS. We know that won't happen at all.

Most Bethesda games are already on PS and those are MS games now. If MS really wanted to be disruptive (go all the way in), and this is my opinion on it, they should have gone in with native and cloud streaming in their proposal to put Game Pass on competitive platforms.

Read the 27 page document posted by Reksveks.

It's clear that Microsoft is leaving the door open to do anything they want after the 10 year period. I don't think this automatically means that they will make CoD exclusive, but they want that option.

In response to the "Cliff Edge" question from the CMA, Microsoft wants to allay fears that it would be a cliff edge. They're basically saying 10 years is enough time for Sony to stop relying on CoD so heavily.

And right after they say 10 years is enough time for Sony to stop relying on CoD (in case we decide to make it exclusive after that 10 year period) they say "We probably wouldn't make it exclusive anyway, it would make too much money on Playstation".

But.. they had the same incentive line when discussing Zenimax.

I personally don't think they would take CoD full exclusive after the 10 year deal. They might engage in timed exclusivity (a week, 30 days) either for the full game or content/modes like raids/maps.

But one thing is clear. They want to door open to do anything they want after that 10 years is over.

Pretty much this. ^^

 

[freefornow]

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

I haven't seen that much scissoring since accidently opening an incognito window in my browser and inadvertently entering P in the address bar and somehow opening the alleged frequently visited address that was displayed.

 

[Smoke6]

PlayStation only represents 13% of ABK revenue ($975M) which is chump change for MS in the grand scheme of things. MS has/is investing over $80B into gaming division because they are looking to radically shake up their current market position. If making COD exclusive leads to their big gaming dream, they will do it in a second. For the record, $975M is equivalent to 5.4M GPU subscribers.

Yeah 5.4m full price subscribers

 

[TheGodfather07]

So now that we know microsofts concessions are 10 year deals for anybody that wants it, after which they can do whatever they want, what are the chances of regulators approving this? Especially the CMA. Would that be enough for them?

 

[feynoob]

Most Bethesda games are already on PS and those are MS games now. If MS really wanted to be disruptive, and this is my opinion on it, they should have gone in with native and cloud streaming in their proposal to put Game Pass on competitive platforms.

We are talking about overall Xbox/MS 1st party games.
Aside of those existing games, you will need to port the remaining games.
Putting those native on a competitive platform means huge drop on your business. It will negatively harm Xbox consoles, same as how putting gamepass with 3rd party games harms Sony revenue.

 

[feynoob]

So now that we know microsofts concessions are 10 year deals for anybody that wants it, after which they can do whatever they want, what are the chances of regulators approving this? Especially the CMA. Would that be enough for them?

50/50 depending on what CMA wants.

 

[Zephyrus0]

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.

the one happening right now.

 

[Ozriel]

A Samsung TV isn't capable of playing games natively. A PS5 system is.

Now, I am not claiming to know what MS offered but that's a silly way to push back on that point lol.

Hmm. I'll have to look for ways to simplify this down even further so even you can understand.

Microsoft says they approached Sony about putting Gamepass on PlayStation. Some of us are speculating that it'd be via a streaming app…and using the Samsung TV as an example was to show that 'Gamepass' doesn't necessarily mean native games.

Not exactly rocket science.

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

the one happening right now.

What is happening right now, friend?