Support NeoGAF

[Bernoulli]

They already know they have the internal communications lol.

but this was just posted now

 

[DeepEnigma]

How many of y'all have already sent this 'tip' to CMA via twitter or their comment box already, be honest ?

We know it wasn't SenjutsuSage

 

[Pelta88]

You know who doing a thousand miles per second running to this thread to defend Redfall's PS5 plans...

 

[DrFigs]

I wonder why Harvey Smith would say this publicly?

 

[adamsapple]

We know it wasn't SenjutsuSage

Ass of Can Whooping helping Jim from beyond the (temporary) grave.

 

[X-Wing]

Don't forget people,
"The way Playstation grows is by making Xbox smaller"
-Phil Spencer

Phil was just projecting. He still doesn't understand how a smaller company, with less money, less studios and less developers keeps beating him in both quantity and quality. So he will buy any ally Sony has to try to suffocate them.

 

[NickFire]

We know it wasn't SenjutsuSage

On April 25, the narrative will shift. From that day forward we will know that Phil only changed his mind because the Redfall devs demanded to narrow their focus to the best consoles on the market only. It was the hardest decision of Phil's life cancelling the PS5 version, but it was necessary to bring forward the best possible game.

 

[Ordnasella_Edadnirt]

Incredible. Jim Ryan took a lot of shit because of the "we believe in generations" debacle. Phil Spencer gets caught lying almost every week and has this permanent free pass. This industry deserves to burn.

Spencer changed idea?

This CEO's from megacorps are consistenly liying and or spinning narratives, everything negative that they say about their rivals they are doing the same, they are trying to grow their business or protect it at all cost, Jim by trying to block the ABK deal and Phill by buying two publishers in a row are some of the examples of that.

 

[Thirty7ven]

Incredible. Jim Ryan took a lot of shit because of the "we believe in generations" debacle. Phil Spencer gets caught lying almost every week and has this permanent free pass. This industry deserves to burn.

One of the things that doesn't get talked about nearly enough is how the English media wants Xbox to be bigger because of the kind of access MS gives them. They are American and they are loud.

The media doubled down on it with this generation, because Sony started being hush hush, and the narrative around launch was how much more hype there was for Xbox. It was all baloney of course, and English media hate that. MS feeds the media and they snowball their jizz around each others mouths.

 

[Astray]

but this was just posted now

No way this decision gets done without internal memos, emails, or meeting minutes.

CMA has had access to all that from the beginning, hence them talking about what Microsoft did with Bethesda's games.

 

[feynoob]

The gift of this purchase.
This is a high level production of drama.

 

[VectorVictor]

The absolute vast majority of Playstation owners don't buy COD to play.
It's Sony's fault they shelved all their own shooters, not MSs or ABKs.
What happened to Resistance? What happened to SOCOM? What happened to Killzone? After Killzone 2 and 3, some people were saying I was the best Shooter of that time. What, they do one other one after it and can it?
People go on about how MS should stop doing Gears and Halo because it's been done to death and they should be doing new IPs. You know, just like Sony has done, however, on the.other side we see COD being done every single year, and now it's too Important to lose? Which one is it?

At some point Sony needs to take responsibility for their own actions. They went all in on their third person adventure games, at the expense of their shooters, and become totally reliant on third parties to cover that need for them.
I guess they learnt a lesson out of this, and the good thing for PS players is that I think they might well be getting some new first party shooters in the future.

This right here.

Sony can act like a petulant child all they want with this acquisition (which will likely go through with very few remedies), but at the end of the day, they had an opportunity to make a AAA FPS franchise and failed twice over to bring them to fruition.

Maybe instead of depending on a third party, Sony should be resurrecting one or both of these franchises and get them some proper development to make the truly worthwhile (especially Killzone, which has the higher ceiling, especially considering the current political climate).

 

[DrFigs]

The absolute vast majority of Playstation owners don't buy COD to play.
It's Sony's fault they shelved all their own shooters, not MSs or ABKs.
What happened to Resistance? What happened to SOCOM? What happened to Killzone? After Killzone 2 and 3, some people were saying I was the best Shooter of that time. What, they do one other one after it and can it?
People go on about how MS should stop doing Gears and Halo because it's been done to death and they should be doing new IPs. You know, just like Sony has done, however, on the.other side we see COD being done every single year, and now it's too Important to lose? Which one is it?

At some point Sony needs to take responsibility for their own actions. They went all in on their third person adventure games, at the expense of their shooters, and become totally reliant on third parties to cover that need for them.
I guess they learnt a lesson out of this, and the good thing for PS players is that I think they might well be getting some new first party shooters in the future.

There's such a huge double standard on this. why hasn't microsoft made a competent shooter? why do they need to buy COD to compete with playstation? why is sony the only one that needs to take these risks?

 

[ulantan]

There's such a huge double standard on this. why hasn't microsoft made a competent shooter? why do they need to buy COD to compete with playstation? why is sony the only one that needs to take these risks?

Simple because they think sony need to be punished for xboxs lack of offerings

 

[DeepEnigma]

Simple because they think sony need to be punished for xboxs lack of offerings

 

[Rebootizing]

who remember the video of spencer

 

[DeepEnigma]

who remember the video of spencer

Yep, another "white lie" to go on the list.

 

[Tomeru]

The absolute vast majority of Playstation owners don't buy COD to play.
It's Sony's fault they shelved all their own shooters, not MSs or ABKs.
What happened to Resistance? What happened to SOCOM? What happened to Killzone? After Killzone 2 and 3, some people were saying I was the best Shooter of that time. What, they do one other one after it and can it?
People go on about how MS should stop doing Gears and Halo because it's been done to death and they should be doing new IPs. You know, just like Sony has done, however, on the.other side we see COD being done every single year, and now it's too Important to lose? Which one is it?

At some point Sony needs to take responsibility for their own actions. They went all in on their third person adventure games, at the expense of their shooters, and become totally reliant on third parties to cover that need for them.
I guess they learnt a lesson out of this, and the good thing for PS players is that I think they might well be getting some new first party shooters in the future.

I say, flat earthers have better logic than some of these takes.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

Interesting, what makes you think that?

Just seeing things between yesterday's reveal of MS thinking the 10-year offer to Sony is sufficient because they can develop a COD competitor (meaning something of its size in the market) in that time frame, now reveals of things always suspected like Starfield and even RedFall having PlayStation versions in the works which got canned the moment Microsoft acquired Zenimax, potentially for questionable reasons.

I know they said they would not consider making any Zenimax games exclusive unless they felt a good reason to do so, and maybe with RedFall being a new IP and a "smaller" game they felt they could justify that one, but none of that applies to Starfield IMO. Bethesda's biggest game yet, in the style of previous releases like Fallout 4 that did some 20 million in sales, or Skyrim which did 30+ million in sales, both being multiconsole games....by Microsoft's own expressed logic Starfield should've been a multiplat release but it's not. Their language around making TES6 exclusive to Xbox & PC is even more ridiculous considering that would be a direct follow-up to Skyrim.

I think all of these little nuggets coming out and clearer intents from Microsoft in why some of these COD offers are structured the way they are, is revealing what they really are making these publisher purchases for: to foreclose on content that would have come to PlayStation had the publishers remained independent. People can argue if it's any worst than timed exclusives Sony would make with 3P publishers, but personally I'd say its in a whole other league. This is Microsoft permanently removing content off PlayStation platforms and holding all the negotiating power when (or IF) they decide to port the game to a PlayStation. Meanwhile Sony's deals could have always been contested by Microsoft by putting in higher bids, and the timed exclusives would eventually come to other platforms.

Some of these regulators were always keeping an eye on how Microsoft handled Zenimax after that deal was approved, to use as a means of predicting what they could try doing if Microsoft also get ABK. I think groups like the CMA have kept this in mind and it's why they offered divestiture of COD & Activision as their choice concession. I think at least some of these regulators know MS really just wants control of these big IP and to use them in pressure to foreclose on rivals like PlayStation; some of the moves being shown with Zenimax games are reaffirming those concerns.

I don't even think it's the act itself that's the main issue; it's the fact MS are using non-Xbox money to do it, and have a crap-ton of non-Xbox money they can use to eventually do this with enough big publisher acquisitions to where too much of the market dynamics change through means outside of actual fair competition. So if this ABK deal is approved, and how it's approved, is going to send a signal to Microsoft that they can either continue this in the future, or that this is the last straw.

So Microsoft pays the bills and sony gets a free game to make billions on lol. That sounds fair for Sony and everyone except Microsoft. Who will pay 69 billion to get zero in return except stock on a company that will be worth a 1/10 of that. So 60 billion for BK and foot the bill so sony can make more money really fair. A company with no income is worthless since platform holders get all the money.

No, you didn't read it. Sony has to pay a licensing fee for each individual game. The price of that fee changes depending on if they rely on Activision's teams to make the port, versus Sony assigning one of their own teams to make the port, or a mix of the two. In return for that license they get publishing rights to that game on their platform. For PS+ they would have to pay an additional license fee, per game.

Microsoft helps fund for the PC & mobile versions of Activision games because that benefits them and their planned new mobile storefront. They do not pay for COD or any Activision game on PlayStation; Sony has to pay for that. Microsoft get to retain a 33% stake in Activision. Activision still has income, or do you think COD and other Activision games would suddenly stop selling on PC, iOS and Android? Activision could diversify their product offerings into transmedia like film and animation; that's even more revenue and increases the value of Microsoft's 33% stake, a stake they can increase the size of in time.

All of that in addition to Microsoft having full ownership of Blizzard and King (remember this whole deal was really about King, right?), and possibly able to renegotiate a cheaper purchasing price as a result. In return ABK shareholders can maybe get some combination of MS stock options and an option to retain some stock in the divested Activision, and buy stock in the future which, other companies would be able to as well (Apple, Google, Nintendo, Sony, etc.).

 

[feynoob]

Just seeing things between yesterday's reveal of MS thinking the 10-year offer to Sony is sufficient because they can develop a COD competitor (meaning something of its size in the market) in that time frame, now reveals of things always suspected like Starfield and even RedFall having PlayStation versions in the works which got canned the moment Microsoft acquired Zenimax, potentially for questionable reasons.

I know they said they would not consider making any Zenimax games exclusive unless they felt a good reason to do so, and maybe with RedFall being a new IP and a "smaller" game they felt they could justify that one, but none of that applies to Starfield IMO. Bethesda's biggest game yet, in the style of previous releases like Fallout 4 that did some 20 million in sales, or Skyrim which did 30+ million in sales, both being multiconsole games....by Microsoft's own expressed logic Starfield should've been a multiplat release but it's not. Their language around making TES6 exclusive to Xbox & PC is even more ridiculous considering that would be a direct follow-up to Skyrim.

I think all of these little nuggets coming out and clearer intents from Microsoft in why some of these COD offers are structured the way they are, is revealing what they really are making these publisher purchases for: to foreclose on content that would have come to PlayStation had the publishers remained independent. People can argue if it's any worst than timed exclusives Sony would make with 3P publishers, but personally I'd say its in a whole other league. This is Microsoft permanently removing content off PlayStation platforms and holding all the negotiating power when (or IF) they decide to port the game to a PlayStation. Meanwhile Sony's deals could have always been contested by Microsoft by putting in higher bids, and the timed exclusives would eventually come to other platforms.

Some of these regulators were always keeping an eye on how Microsoft handled Zenimax after that deal was approved, to use as a means of predicting what they could try doing if Microsoft also get ABK. I think groups like the CMA have kept this in mind and it's why they offered divestiture of COD & Activision as their choice concession. I think at least some of these regulators know MS really just wants control of these big IP and to use them in pressure to foreclose on rivals like PlayStation; some of the moves being shown with Zenimax games are reaffirming those concerns.

I don't even think it's the act itself that's the main issue; it's the fact MS are using non-Xbox money to do it, and have a crap-ton of non-Xbox money they can use to eventually do this with enough big publisher acquisitions to where too much of the market dynamics change through means outside of actual fair competition. So if this ABK deal is approved, and how it's approved, is going to send a signal to Microsoft that they can either continue this in the future, or that this is the last straw.



No, you didn't read it. Sony has to pay a licensing fee for each individual game. The price of that fee changes depending on if they rely on Activision's teams to make the port, versus Sony assigning one of their own teams to make the port, or a mix of the two. In return for that license they get publishing rights to that game on their platform. For PS+ they would have to pay an additional license fee, per game.

Microsoft helps fund for the PC & mobile versions of Activision games because that benefits them and their planned new mobile storefront. They do not pay for COD or any Activision game on PlayStation; Sony has to pay for that. Microsoft get to retain a 33% stake in Activision. Activision still has income, or do you think COD and other Activision games would suddenly stop selling on PC, iOS and Android? Activision could diversify their product offerings into transmedia like film and animation; that's even more revenue and increases the value of Microsoft's 33% stake, a stake they can increase the size of in time.

All of that in addition to Microsoft having full ownership of Blizzard and King (remember this whole deal was really about King, right?), and possibly able to renegotiate a cheaper purchasing price as a result. In return ABK shareholders can maybe get some combination of MS stock options and an option to retain some stock in the divested Activision, and buy stock in the future which, other companies would be able to as well (Apple, Google, Nintendo, Sony, etc.).

Didn't your teacher teach you how to make your arguments short?
Every argument that you ou write seems like a biography.

 

[DForce]

The absolute vast majority of Playstation owners don't buy COD to play.
It's Sony's fault they shelved all their own shooters, not MSs or ABKs.
What happened to Resistance? What happened to SOCOM? What happened to Killzone? After Killzone 2 and 3, some people were saying I was the best Shooter of that time. What, they do one other one after it and can it?
People go on about how MS should stop doing Gears and Halo because it's been done to death and they should be doing new IPs. You know, just like Sony has done, however, on the.other side we see COD being done every single year, and now it's too Important to lose? Which one is it?

At some point Sony needs to take responsibility for their own actions. They went all in on their third person adventure games, at the expense of their shooters, and become totally reliant on third parties to cover that need for them.
I guess they learnt a lesson out of this, and the good thing for PS players is that I think they might well be getting some new first party shooters in the future.

This is such a dumb take.

Microsoft is over there saying they need this deal to go through because they need to be more completive.

What stopped them from being competitive before? Their output in first-party titles over the past 8 years sure as hell wasn't getting the job done. The reason why people wanted to see Microsoft stop doing Halo, Gears, and Forza is because they needed something new and fresh because those titles can only be milked for so long.

Sony was successful by making new IPs and taking risks while Micorosft was sticking with the same formula.

Microsoft is buying major publishers because they need a quick fix for their past mistakes. They're telling people they want to be more competitive when they should've started YEARS ago.

 

[azertydu91]

Didn't your teacher teach you how to make your arguments short?
Every argument that you ou write seems like a biography.

Yep he also wrote the wikipedia page for comunism ...(it is not a political joke just that it is one of the longest page on wiki.

 

[Clintizzle]

Before 23rd March 2023: "Yikes, Redfall looks rough. GamePass showing its lack of quality. I have no interest in this game"

After 23rd March: "Wow, we got spencer'd again. I can't believe he this did this to us. Literally stealing games from my children and children around the world. CMA!!! Loook!!!"

 

[Thirty7ven]

Before 23rd March 2023: "Yikes, Redfall looks rough. GamePass showing its lack of quality. I have no interest in this game"

After 23rd of March: "Wow, we got spencer'd again. I can't believe he this did this to us. Literally stealing games from my children and children around the world. CMA!!! Loook!!!"

Said nobody.

Redfall doesn't look good, but Phil's lies look even worse.

If the deal ends up falling through get ready for the internet to dance on Phil's grave of lies.

 

[DryvBy]

This right here.

Sony can act like a petulant child all they want with this acquisition (which will likely go through with very few remedies), but at the end of the day, they had an opportunity to make a AAA FPS franchise and failed twice over to bring them to fruition.

Maybe instead of depending on a third party, Sony should be resurrecting one or both of these franchises and get them some proper development to make the truly worthwhile (especially Killzone, which has the higher ceiling, especially considering the current political climate).

Microsoft had a AAA FPS franchise and ran it into the ground through bad management. No one but fanboys want them to buy more games to turn into a steaming pile.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Before 23rd March 2023: "Yikes, Redfall looks rough. GamePass showing its lack of quality. I have no interest in this game"

After 23rd March: "Wow, we got spencer'd again. I can't believe he this did this to us. Literally stealing games from my children and children around the world. CMA!!! Loook!!!"

Nobody is saying this strawman you erected. People are calling out the PR bullshit.

 

[feynoob]

Microsoft had a AAA FPS franchise and ran it into the ground through bad management. No one but fanboys want them to buy more games to turn into a steaming pile.

Yet it's much better than AAA fps that sony brings.

Let's not make those games seem like they are shit.
Even with their issue, they are still have the quality of fps feels.

Main issue is MS is leaving these guys alone without any supervision. There is no deadline or anything, which makes these devs complacent.

 

[sainraja]

I wonder why Harvey Smith would say this publicly?

Yeah, I was wondering the same thing.

 

[DryvBy]

Yet it's much better than AAA fps that sony brings.

Let's not make those games seem like they are shit.
Even with their issue, they are still have the quality of fps feels.

Main issue is MS is leaving these guys alone without any supervision. There is no deadline or anything, which makes these devs complacent.

Leaving them alone would be a blessing. Maybe Phil could step away and take a dump finally since he constantly looks like Constipation Phil. Give the devs a chance to make a working product.

 

[feynoob]

Leaving them alone would be a blessing. Maybe Phil could step away and take a dump finally since he constantly looks like Constipation Phil. Give the devs a chance to make a working product.

Leaving them alone is what caused this shit in the first place.
They need to have some one that is watching them and making them hit their deadline.

343i created too much mess, because they didn't have to worry about their deadline.

 

[reinking]

Maybe instead of depending on a third party, Sony should be should be buying publishers.

FIFY

 

[Riky]

The only reason they were able to even acquire Minecraft is because the original owner insisted to specific terms including the game remain multiplatform. That was the only way they were ever going to sell, so MS had that choice made for them.

I didn't know you'd seen the contract, please share the details with the rest of us.

Also the ones for Fallout 76 and Elder Scrolls online.

 

[DeepEnigma]

I didn't know you'd seen the contract, please share the details with the rest of us.

Also the ones for Fallout 76 and Elder Scrolls online.

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

There's such a huge double standard on this. why hasn't microsoft made a competent shooter? why do they need to buy COD to compete with playstation? why is sony the only one that needs to take these risks?

How is it a double standard? Sony was free to make ABK an offer as well, and if the roles were reversed, could have said the exact same thing… ten years is enough for MS to make a competitor.

 

[SoloKingRobert]

^^ This basically shows that Microsoft plans on making Call of Duty an exclusive. People are saying Sony is treating COD like water, but it is water for both companies, and one of them is willing to spend $70b for it.

I mean Sony has Battlefield, Titanfall etc... and that new Deviation Games Studio who wants to develop an innovated shooter, "the best of the best". They're not losing out.

 

[NonPhixion]

How is it a double standard? Sony was free to make ABK an offer as well, and if the roles were reversed, could have said the exact same thing… ten years is enough for MS to make a competitor.

10 years would be enough for MS to make a competitor, but 20 years hasn't been enough for them to compete? Poor MS. Hope this deal goes thru so they can finally compete.

 

[Ezekiel_]

Deathloop & Ghostwire Tokyo were not MS agreements; they were Zenimax agreements that MS were forced to either honor or pay the fee for breaking. The only reason they were able to even acquire Minecraft is because the original owner insisted to specific terms including the game remain multiplatform. That was the only way they were ever going to sell, so MS had that choice made for them.

Imagine if Minecraft is under a '10 year deal' too

10 year is up next year.

2014 article still relevant today : https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014...-microsoft-owned-but-not-microsoft-exclusive/

 

[Astray]

Just seeing things between yesterday's reveal of MS thinking the 10-year offer to Sony is sufficient because they can develop a COD competitor (meaning something of its size in the market) in that time frame, now reveals of things always suspected like Starfield and even RedFall having PlayStation versions in the works which got canned the moment Microsoft acquired Zenimax, potentially for questionable reasons.

I know they said they would not consider making any Zenimax games exclusive unless they felt a good reason to do so, and maybe with RedFall being a new IP and a "smaller" game they felt they could justify that one, but none of that applies to Starfield IMO. Bethesda's biggest game yet, in the style of previous releases like Fallout 4 that did some 20 million in sales, or Skyrim which did 30+ million in sales, both being multiconsole games....by Microsoft's own expressed logic Starfield should've been a multiplat release but it's not. Their language around making TES6 exclusive to Xbox & PC is even more ridiculous considering that would be a direct follow-up to Skyrim.

I think all of these little nuggets coming out and clearer intents from Microsoft in why some of these COD offers are structured the way they are, is revealing what they really are making these publisher purchases for: to foreclose on content that would have come to PlayStation had the publishers remained independent. People can argue if it's any worst than timed exclusives Sony would make with 3P publishers, but personally I'd say its in a whole other league. This is Microsoft permanently removing content off PlayStation platforms and holding all the negotiating power when (or IF) they decide to port the game to a PlayStation. Meanwhile Sony's deals could have always been contested by Microsoft by putting in higher bids, and the timed exclusives would eventually come to other platforms.

Some of these regulators were always keeping an eye on how Microsoft handled Zenimax after that deal was approved, to use as a means of predicting what they could try doing if Microsoft also get ABK. I think groups like the CMA have kept this in mind and it's why they offered divestiture of COD & Activision as their choice concession. I think at least some of these regulators know MS really just wants control of these big IP and to use them in pressure to foreclose on rivals like PlayStation; some of the moves being shown with Zenimax games are reaffirming those concerns.

I don't even think it's the act itself that's the main issue; it's the fact MS are using non-Xbox money to do it, and have a crap-ton of non-Xbox money they can use to eventually do this with enough big publisher acquisitions to where too much of the market dynamics change through means outside of actual fair competition. So if this ABK deal is approved, and how it's approved, is going to send a signal to Microsoft that they can either continue this in the future, or that this is the last straw.

I think a lot of these things are coming out because of regulator and Sony pressure on MS, and not because MS suddenly doesn't want to finalize the ABK purchase.

Harvey Smith's Redfall PS5 remarks are some guy speaking out of turn, and not really part of MS's PR offensive re:ATVI deal. He's probably gonna get 5 angry emails in his inbox by the time he gets home.

 

[Pelta88]

When you search the conversations you've had in this thread about Redfall. And remember the insistence that Redfall was never coming to PS5 from certain folk.

Absolutely hilarious.

 

[DeepEnigma]

When you search the conversations you've had in this thread about Redfall. And remember the insistence that Redfall was never coming to PS5 from certain folk.

Absolutely hilarious.

They changed their PR narrative now. Beep! Boop!

 

[feynoob]

When you search the conversations you've had in this thread about Redfall. And remember the insistence that Redfall was never coming to PS5 from certain folk.

Absolutely hilarious.

If a company buys another company, they will automatically cease production and withhold content/product from their rivals. It's a common sense.

If people can't see that fact, then they are too deep in to this CW shit.

 

[The Pleasure]

And again what does this have to do with this acquisition or MS' current leadership? I gave numerous examples earlier of companies that did questionable things in the past that has no bearing on what they do today.

MS has no monopoly in gaming and that is what is relevant to this discussion. No one can honestly argue that this acquisition harms consumers as a whole. Even Sony will continue to get CoD but with parity over having an advantage and that is hardly something to stop this deal over.

Minecraft remains an inconvenient truth. It's hard to argue that MS doesn't honor contracts or creates buggy versions of software on platforms they don't own when this title and it's spin-offs continues to standout.

Oh look. A garbage post that is not paying attention to how Microsoft's lies and treachery shaped the pc industry into what it is today. Perhaps we need the death of Netscape? Where microsoft is quoted as wanting to kill them? Nope nothing to do with how they want to own another industry. Let them do what they want right? Microsoft is worse then ma bell as they hold far more power and their approach is far more insideous.

 

[DeepEnigma]

If a company buys another company, they will automatically cease production and withhold content/product from their rivals. It's a common sense.

If people can't see that fact, then they are too deep in to this CW shit.

People have issue with the double speak and "white lies."

 

[Dane]

Just seeing things between yesterday's reveal of MS thinking the 10-year offer to Sony is sufficient because they can develop a COD competitor (meaning something of its size in the market) in that time frame, now reveals of things always suspected like Starfield and even RedFall having PlayStation versions in the works which got canned the moment Microsoft acquired Zenimax, potentially for questionable reasons.

I know they said they would not consider making any Zenimax games exclusive unless they felt a good reason to do so, and maybe with RedFall being a new IP and a "smaller" game they felt they could justify that one, but none of that applies to Starfield IMO. Bethesda's biggest game yet, in the style of previous releases like Fallout 4 that did some 20 million in sales, or Skyrim which did 30+ million in sales, both being multiconsole games....by Microsoft's own expressed logic Starfield should've been a multiplat release but it's not. Their language around making TES6 exclusive to Xbox & PC is even more ridiculous considering that would be a direct follow-up to Skyrim.

I think all of these little nuggets coming out and clearer intents from Microsoft in why some of these COD offers are structured the way they are, is revealing what they really are making these publisher purchases for: to foreclose on content that would have come to PlayStation had the publishers remained independent. People can argue if it's any worst than timed exclusives Sony would make with 3P publishers, but personally I'd say its in a whole other league. This is Microsoft permanently removing content off PlayStation platforms and holding all the negotiating power when (or IF) they decide to port the game to a PlayStation. Meanwhile Sony's deals could have always been contested by Microsoft by putting in higher bids, and the timed exclusives would eventually come to other platforms.

Some of these regulators were always keeping an eye on how Microsoft handled Zenimax after that deal was approved, to use as a means of predicting what they could try doing if Microsoft also get ABK. I think groups like the CMA have kept this in mind and it's why they offered divestiture of COD & Activision as their choice concession. I think at least some of these regulators know MS really just wants control of these big IP and to use them in pressure to foreclose on rivals like PlayStation; some of the moves being shown with Zenimax games are reaffirming those concerns.

I don't even think it's the act itself that's the main issue; it's the fact MS are using non-Xbox money to do it, and have a crap-ton of non-Xbox money they can use to eventually do this with enough big publisher acquisitions to where too much of the market dynamics change through means outside of actual fair competition. So if this ABK deal is approved, and how it's approved, is going to send a signal to Microsoft that they can either continue this in the future, or that this is the last straw.



No, you didn't read it. Sony has to pay a licensing fee for each individual game. The price of that fee changes depending on if they rely on Activision's teams to make the port, versus Sony assigning one of their own teams to make the port, or a mix of the two. In return for that license they get publishing rights to that game on their platform. For PS+ they would have to pay an additional license fee, per game.

Microsoft helps fund for the PC & mobile versions of Activision games because that benefits them and their planned new mobile storefront. They do not pay for COD or any Activision game on PlayStation; Sony has to pay for that. Microsoft get to retain a 33% stake in Activision. Activision still has income, or do you think COD and other Activision games would suddenly stop selling on PC, iOS and Android? Activision could diversify their product offerings into transmedia like film and animation; that's even more revenue and increases the value of Microsoft's 33% stake, a stake they can increase the size of in time.

All of that in addition to Microsoft having full ownership of Blizzard and King (remember this whole deal was really about King, right?), and possibly able to renegotiate a cheaper purchasing price as a result. In return ABK shareholders can maybe get some combination of MS stock options and an option to retain some stock in the divested Activision, and buy stock in the future which, other companies would be able to as well (Apple, Google, Nintendo, Sony, etc.).

Talk that to other multiplatform studios that Sony bought, no one was asking if that was impacting multiplatform or PC projects that were meant to be released simultaneously, projects switching platforms from other brands without being announced are old as time (RE4, SSX 1) why no one is talking about Deathloop and Ghostwire that were announced back at E3 2019 with no platform exclusivity being mentioned?

 

[DeepEnigma]

Talk that to other multiplatform studios that Sony bought, no one was asking if that was impacting multiplatform or PC projects that were meant to be released simultaneously, projects switching platforms from other brands without being announced are old as time (RE4, SSX 1) why no one is talking about Deathloop and Ghostwire that were announced back at E3 2019 with no platform exclusivity being mentioned?

And no-one ever did when MS bought dev STUDIOS either.

When you buy the oldest and largest third party PUBLISHER after just buying another one of the largest third party publishers... people will ask questions.

 

[Dane]

And no-one ever did when MS bought dev STUDIOS either.

When you buy the oldest and largest third party PUBLISHER after just buying another one of the largest third party publishers... people will ask questions.

To bolster their first party segment, wasn't this what you all were always complaining?

 

[Banjo64]

People have issue with the double speak and "white lies."

A white lie is a small lie. Saying that CoD will always be on PlayStation for as long as there is a PlayStation but then also laying the ground for exclusivity after 10 years isn't a white lie. It's a bare faced lie.

 

[TheGodfather07]

Lol its too funny that a developer comes out and so explicitly confirms what pretty much everybody except a few extremely brain dead individuals already knows. It's like he's been reading here and did it to shut them up about such a stupid narrative. Look at his wording. "No playstation 5". He wanted to make it as clear as possible with no way to twist out of.

 

[DeepEnigma]

A white lie is a small lie. Saying that CoD will always be on PlayStation for as long as there is a PlayStation but then also laying the ground for exclusivity after 10 years isn't a white lie. It's a bare faced lie.

Hence I put it in quotes. I should add the trademark symbol to it, go full meme.

White Lies™

To bolster their first party segment, wasn't this what you all were always complaining?

With games they would have had anyways, but playing takeaway of storied franchises that were multiplat longer than most were even alive on here?

How noble of them!

 

[reksveks]

Spoiler: One mention of Redfall from me and it seems irrelevant

Did anything interesting happen whilst I was at the office?