Support NeoGAF

[Pelta88]

I could've sworn Phil said "case by case basis ".

Previously on Damage Control...

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

Why are they purchasing Activision Blizzard instead of using 343i or even the recently purchased id Software to make a call of duty competitor?

Call of Duty even runs on id tech. So it's not like they wouldn't already have all the tools necessary.

Sony could have offered to buy them. Some of you seem confused here, someone else mentioned a "double standard" earlier. If Sony were the ones buying ABK, the same logic would apply. It would be MS getting ten years to, if they choose, try to create something that would replace CoD in case Sony removed it once the decade was up.

There also seems to be a mislaid undertone of MS being lazy or something by purchasing ABK. Those people conveniently ignore the fact that Sony is fighting this deal so hard because they don't want MS to be in control of the free CoD revenue Sony gets for doing absolutely nothing. It's silly.

 

[KingT731]

Sony could have offered to buy them. Some of you seem confused here, someone else mentioned a "double standard" earlier. If Sony were the ones buying ABK, the same logic would apply. It would be MS getting ten years to, if they choose, try to create something that would replace CoD in case Sony removed it once the decade was up.

There also seems to be a mislaid undertone of MS being lazy or something by purchasing ABK. Those people conveniently ignore the fact that Sony is fighting this deal so hard because they don't want MS to be in control of the free CoD revenue Sony gets for doing absolutely nothing. It's silly.

So what do you think both parties get right now???

 

[DForce]

I could've sworn Phil said "case by case basis ".

Phil contradicts himself all the time and that's the problem.

You also have Xbox fans who said "case-by-case" is in reference to old games.

At this point, Xbox fans should know that the "case-by-case" was pure PR bullshit. lol

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

So what do you think both parties get right now???

 

[Nydius]

There also seems to be a mislaid undertone of MS being lazy or something by purchasing ABK.

There's nothing "mislaid" about it. Microsoft is being completely lazy here. I'm tired of typing the same multiparagraph monologue over and over and over again so just Google all the studios Microsoft owned from 2002 to present and how many of them they mismanaged, shuttered, sold off, or let fall into irrelevance. Google all the various genres of games Microsoft once owned and published from 2002-2010 before they became utterly obsessed with Halo, Gears, Forza and Kinect above everything else.

They could easily have a stable of exclusives across all genres had they invested in the studios and properties they owned. Instead, they completely fucked all of them up, and are now in a position where they have to buy their way to relevance by picking up established studios that have already done all the work of brand building.

Yes, Microsoft is being lazy as fuck because they have mismanaged the Microsoft Game Studios brand for twenty years. And as we've seen with Halo Infinite and the current development hell that is Fable and Perfect Dark, the continued delays of Forza Motorsport, they're still mismanaging their studios.

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

There's nothing "mislaid" about it. Microsoft is being completely lazy here. I'm tired of typing the same multiparagraph monologue over and over and over again so just Google all the studios Microsoft owned from 2002 to present and how many of them they mismanaged, shuttered, sold off, or let fall into irrelevance. Google all the various genres of games Microsoft once owned and published from 2002-2010 before they became utterly obsessed with Halo, Gears, Forza and Kinect above everything else.

They could easily have a stable of exclusives across all genres had they invested in the studios and properties they owned. Instead, they completely fucked all of them up, and are now in a position where they have to buy their way to relevance by picking up established studios that have already done all the work of brand building.

Yes, Microsoft is being lazy as fuck because they have mismanaged the Microsoft Game Studios brand for twenty years. And as we've seen with Halo Infinite and the current development hell that is Fable and Perfect Dark, the continued delays of Forza Motorsport, they're still mismanaging their studios.

Ah, so the same strategy as Sony, just a couple generations later.

 

[GHG]

Sony could have offered to buy them. Some of you seem confused here, someone else mentioned a "double standard" earlier. If Sony were the ones buying ABK, the same logic would apply. It would be MS getting ten years to, if they choose, try to create something that would replace CoD in case Sony removed it once the decade was up.

There also seems to be a mislaid undertone of MS being lazy or something by purchasing ABK. Those people conveniently ignore the fact that Sony is fighting this deal so hard because they don't want MS to be in control of the free CoD revenue Sony gets for doing absolutely nothing. It's silly.

Sony aren't the ones quite literally saying to regulators right now "COD isn't that big a deal, Sony can make their own".

Context matters, and as always you're so quick to defend Microsoft while playing the "but Sony" card that you're missing it. Great job as always.

 

[Badlucktroll]

You're a bit young for this one. Happened before Windows 95 and it was a pivotal moment that fucked computing as a whole and established a monopoly in the pc field way back when which made 9x a monopoly at the time and continues to have chilling effects to this day.

I remember a computer scientist when i was in college was talking about this, and he said the dominant operating system should have been UNIX and not Win9x

 

[DryvBy]

Sony could have offered to buy them. Some of you seem confused here, someone else mentioned a "double standard" earlier. If Sony were the ones buying ABK, the same logic would apply. It would be MS getting ten years to, if they choose, try to create something that would replace CoD in case Sony removed it once the decade was up.

There also seems to be a mislaid undertone of MS being lazy or something by purchasing ABK. Those people conveniently ignore the fact that Sony is fighting this deal so hard because they don't want MS to be in control of the free CoD revenue Sony gets for doing absolutely nothing. It's silly.

This post is so retarded, I thought I was in a Special Olympics OT.

 

[Drell]

Ah, so the same strategy as Sony, just a couple generations later.

We're back with this "deals = publishers buyout" false equivalency that MS fanboys love so much. Can anyone tell me at how many times we are?

Edit: My bad, didn't read this right, it's that psygnosis buyout again.

 

[wolffy71]

"When we all play we all win"

There's literally nobody that doesn't realize this already

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

We're back with this "deals = publishers buyout" false equivalency that MS fanboys love so much. Can anyone tell me at how many times we are?

Edit: My bad, didn't read this right, it's that psygnosis buyout again.

I'm not talking about deals, I'm talking about all the developers Sony has in their stable that they didn't create or build up, they bought. It's only bad when MS does it.

Queue "that was different" response below.

 

[wolffy71]

Is there anyone who thinks if Sony has the ability or desire to buy Activision, that they wouldn't do the exact same thing that MS would do?

These companies are ran by people who are tasked with making investors the best return possible.

There may be some decisions that would vary but they would be made because they thought it would be the best return on investment.

Anyone out here thinking these guys are out to do public good are seriously fooling themselves.

This whole evil vs good angle some of you guys take is so naive.

 

[Drell]

Is there anyone who thinks if Sony has the ability or desire to buy Activision, that they wouldn't do the exact same thing that MS would do?

These companies are ran by people who are tasked with making investors the best return possible.

There may be some decisions that would vary but they would be made because they thought it would be the best return on investment.

Anyone out here thinking these guys are out to do public good are seriously fooling themselves.

This whole evil vs good angle some of you guys take is so naive.

Yes Sony would absolutely be tempted to buy Activision if they had trillion dollars, I have no doubt. And if Sony was also having a monopoly on PC OS, I'd see them the same way I see MS now. The problem is not who to workship, it's who can kill the competition which would not be beneficial for us.

 

[bitbydeath]

There's literally nobody that doesn't realize this already

You would think so, but around 400-500 pages of this thread featured that very argument.

 

[In Cold Blood]

It makes plenty of sense.

"Hey 150M people that have been paying $60 per year to play COD on your platform of choice. Now the only way for you to play the latest entry is to pay us $30 per month. And now we don't have to pay platform fees."

Even if MS only converted 50% of the user base to GamePass they would stand to increase revenue by more than 3x.

The FPSs Sony made couldn't compete with COD. That's sort of the point they are making.

Socom PS3, MAG, Resistance 3, Killzone Shadowfall — all bombed. They might have been better than COD in one way or another but nobody has been successful in standing up a competitor to COD.

Even Respawn, contributors to the COD legacy couldn't repeat their success with Titanfall. So it's not for a lack of trying.

What does COD do that's so special?
Does it have some totally revolutionary gameplay mechanics? No, it plays like the majority of shooters.
Does it have graphics that are a generation ahead of every other game? No.
Does it have world leading story telling? Absolutely not.
So why is it so big? It was being promoted. Sony themselves are to blame for paying ABK money for the right to promote the shit out of it. They xouod have spent that time and money developing and promoting their own Shooter IPs. Halo managed to be the biggest Shooter of its era, and that game was Xbox exclusive. The term "Halo killer" didn't come around because it was just another stink average Shooter.
Sony have themselves to blame here, and while you may say that they could not have conceived that MS would have actually bought ABK and it was safe to do deals with COD, it turned out to be wrong.

I also think you are selling those other IPs short. Maybe they fell away because Sony wanted new IPs. I can tell you as a 360 gamer, ai was jealous as fuck of Killzone 2 and 3. Maybe if GG had of made a better Killzone Shadow fall game it would have kept that hype going, but maybe they were burnt out of KZ and wanted to do something new. Whatever the reason, ABK didn't stop making COD when one of its entries was meh. Infact, they doubled down. They made more of them. They put every single studio they owned into helping make them.
On top of that, maybe if Sony had of put their games on PC as well there would have been a bigger audience for those games?
Maybe some lessons could be learnt?

 

[Astray]

There's literally nobody that doesn't realize this already

Sometimes you have to raise your voice for the people in the back to hear.

 

[Astray]

What does COD do that's so special?

Ask the company that's paying 69 billion for the privilege of owning it.

 

[bender]

I remember a computer scientist when i was in college was talking about this, and he said the dominant operating system should have been UNIX and not Win9x

 

[poppabk]

Ask the company that's paying 69 billion for the privilege of owning it.

Yep it prints money.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

Capcom was locking to that dead console just like they did for a year over Code Veronica on Dreamcast. Mikami had a feud with Sony over their policies and would even meet with Microsoft over it, Nintendo snagged their most hyped games and still had RE0 and RE1 for more than 10 years, it was during 2004 that with Capcom Five falling out and the previous games not being financial hits that made Capcom to have Killer 7 and RE4 PS2 versions announced before the Gamecube counterparts being released, with the former going gold on Gamecube by the fall of that year but Capcom had little faith on it so they decided to shelve it for months to be released simultaneously on both platforms.

Right, that just proves the point. Mikami's main issue with Sony was that they wouldn't let him name Code: Veronica RE3. Considering how history has regarded both games, Mikami not getting his wish there was probably for the best.

Deathloop and Ghostwire had no platforms announced and no signs of being Playstation exclusive, so people obviously would assume it was multiplatform as every Bethesda release since Oblivion, it was a shocker that these two were exclusive on PS5 rather than Xbox Series since Bethesda and Microsoft have a long time relationship since Morrowind with all their titles having Xbox marketing.

Yes but still, timed exclusives. The Xbox versions were never cancelled, just momentarily postponed. That is literally not the same thing as saying a game was outright cancelled for one platform to prioritize the other when it was originally coming to both...which is what's happened with RedFall.

I am not even saying Microsoft are wrong for that choice; it's their property now, they can do what they want. But unfortunately for them, some of these choices are having some bad implications to what they might do with ABK content if/when they acquire that publisher.

And that's "unfortunate" mainly in the case of how regulators will start putting two and two together, which hurts Microsoft's arguments for ABK and their arguments against divestiture.

Sony could have offered to buy them. Some of you seem confused here, someone else mentioned a "double standard" earlier. If Sony were the ones buying ABK, the same logic would apply. It would be MS getting ten years to, if they choose, try to create something that would replace CoD in case Sony removed it once the decade was up.

There also seems to be a mislaid undertone of MS being lazy or something by purchasing ABK. Those people conveniently ignore the fact that Sony is fighting this deal so hard because they don't want MS to be in control of the free CoD revenue Sony gets for doing absolutely nothing. It's silly.

No one gives a shit about these so-called "Sony too!" hypotheticals. It's just a way to run away from the reality that Microsoft is the one buying ABK, not Sony, therein Microsoft are the ones that have to worry about these antitrust issues, not Sony.

It's essentially whataboutism in the worst way: to justify in some way your support for the deal. You can support the deal all you want but find a real reason to do so.

 

[Astray]

Yep it prints money.

It prints money, it has a hardcore fanbase that chases it around, and it's basically a well-oiled machine at this point, you never hear about development difficulties on a future COD iteration.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

Anyway, now that Microsoft's behavioral remedies and the real substance of those remedies are out in the open, what do y'all think?

Are these behavioral access remedies (10 years max with an implication of COD going exclusive after 10 years, and a possibility to breach contracts before 10 years) enough for the CMA?

I don't think they are anywhere in line with divestment in effect.

CMA won't be going for these behavioral access remedies, especially with the 1-2 punch of MS alluding to a foreclosure strategy with COD on PS after the 10-year period, and Harvey Smith confirming a PS5 version of RedFall (a game that absolutely would not contribute significantly to an increase in Game Pass subscribers or Xbox console sales relative to loss in revenue from skipping platforms like PlayStation, two of the conditions MS stated for when they WOULD consider making a game exclusive).

If anything they might ask for even stricter structural remedies, or at least still insist on COD/Activision divestiture. I think they could work with Microsoft on a "fairer" divestiture though where they can retain partial stake in the divested company, only need to pay for Xbox versions of their game (TBH maybe even waiver that or heavily reduce the cost for Microsoft, while Sony & Nintendo have to pay for versions of games for their own platforms) but all platform holders retain publishing rights of the games for their respective consoles.

Stuff like that.

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

No one gives a shit about these so-called "Sony too!" hypotheticals. It's just a way to run away from the reality that Microsoft is the one buying ABK, not Sony, therein Microsoft are the ones that have to worry about these antitrust issues, not Sony.

It's essentially whataboutism in the worst way: to justify in some way your support for the deal. You can support the deal all you want but find a real reason to do so.

I've posted why I support the deal already

I am aware Sony isn't buying ABK, and I literally said if the shoe were on the other foot, Sony would be in the same position as MS.

 

[fallingdove]

What does COD do that's so special?
Does it have some totally revolutionary gameplay mechanics? No, it plays like the majority of shooters.
Does it have graphics that are a generation ahead of every other game? No.
Does it have world leading story telling? Absolutely not.
So why is it so big? It was being promoted. Sony themselves are to blame for paying ABK money for the right to promote the shit out of it. They xouod have spent that time and money developing and promoting their own Shooter IPs. Halo managed to be the biggest Shooter of its era, and that game was Xbox exclusive. The term "Halo killer" didn't come around because it was just another stink average Shooter.
Sony have themselves to blame here, and while you may say that they could not have conceived that MS would have actually bought ABK and it was safe to do deals with COD, it turned out to be wrong.

I also think you are selling those other IPs short. Maybe they fell away because Sony wanted new IPs. I can tell you as a 360 gamer, ai was jealous as fuck of Killzone 2 and 3. Maybe if GG had of made a better Killzone Shadow fall game it would have kept that hype going, but maybe they were burnt out of KZ and wanted to do something new. Whatever the reason, ABK didn't stop making COD when one of its entries was meh. Infact, they doubled down. They made more of them. They put every single studio they owned into helping make them.
On top of that, maybe if Sony had of put their games on PC as well there would have been a bigger audience for those games?
Maybe some lessons could be learnt?

The "meh" COD entries sold like gangbusters.

Also, lots of maybes in your comment. Maybe if Sony spends $500M, and maybe if they spend 50% of the time that COD is guaranteed to be on their platform, and maybe if they put the title on PC on day 1, and maybe if the game represents the very best of the FPS genre, and maybe if the game is bigger than any title Sony have ever made — including Last of Us, Spider-Man, and God of War, then maybe they will be able to deliver an IP that meets or exceeds the popularity of an annualized brand that has taken 16 multi platform mainline games (40+ games total) to develop.

 

[Astray]

The "meh" COD entries sold like gangbusters.

There are literally years where there are two COD entries on the top 10 NPD sales list. It's an insane driver of revenue.

 

[Wulfer]

Is there anyone who thinks if Sony has the ability or desire to buy Activision, that they wouldn't do the exact same thing that MS would do?

These companies are ran by people who are tasked with making investors the best return possible.

There may be some decisions that would vary but they would be made because they thought it would be the best return on investment.

Anyone out here thinking these guys are out to do public good are seriously fooling themselves.

This whole evil vs good angle some of you guys take is so naive.

Let us not forget it was Sony who turned down Windows as a OS or Platform from the beginning.
https://www.playstationlifestyle.ne...le-partnership-with-before-the-xbox-released/

Back then Sony wanted the whole cake to itself and yet MS is bad when they do the same thing??? There's a double standard going when these discussions are made.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

I've posted why I support the deal already

I am aware Sony isn't buying ABK, and I literally said if the shoe were on the other foot, Sony would be in the same position as MS.

That's just it: the shoe isn't on the other foot. It's on Microsoft's foot, and the seams are starting to fall apart.

I am not 100% against the acquisition but I definitely think structural remedies should probably be involved at this point. It's obvious these behavioral remedies won't be enough to assuage longer-term concerns of regulators considering Microsoft are already sending out signals of their true intent right after these 10-year deals are finished with.

Which, hey, it's their right to do what they want with what they own, if the regulators let them. But that's IF they let them, and I think there are some parts of ABK where maybe Microsoft shouldn't get exactly what they obviously want.

Let us not forget it was Sony who turned down Windows as a OS or Platform from the beginning.
https://www.playstationlifestyle.ne...le-partnership-with-before-the-xbox-released/

Back then Sony wanted the whole cake to itself and yet MS is bad when they do the same thing??? There's a double standard going when these discussions are made.

Why would Sony have wanted a 3P company to provide the OS for their custom gaming hardware? Also at what point did they make these offers to Nintendo and Sony before going into Xbox?

Considering Microsoft made a version of Windows CE for the Dreamcast, and that system was a commercial failure, that didn't bolster Microsoft's reputation of delivering successful console OSes, so what were they expecting from Sony and Nintendo? Microsoft had no track record with hardware, OS, or software in console gaming prior to Xbox. Sony at least had successful hardware experience with the SNES sound chip and technological progress on the Play Station, plus software on the Famicom (CBS Sony), SNES, Genesis, and Sega CD (Sony Imagesoft). Even then both Nintendo and Sega rejected to work with them.

Sony wanting the "whole cake" in retaining tight vertical integration of their console hardware and BIOS/OS, is NOT the same thing as Microsoft wanting the "whole cake" in buying massive multiplatform 3P publishers. How are you even confusing the two?

 

[Yoboman]

Sony could have offered to buy them. Some of you seem confused here, someone else mentioned a "double standard" earlier. If Sony were the ones buying ABK, the same logic would apply. It would be MS getting ten years to, if they choose, try to create something that would replace CoD in case Sony removed it once the decade was up.

There also seems to be a mislaid undertone of MS being lazy or something by purchasing ABK. Those people conveniently ignore the fact that Sony is fighting this deal so hard because they don't want MS to be in control of the free CoD revenue Sony gets for doing absolutely nothing. It's silly.

Sony can invest in expensive hardware and their own product lineup because they have such healthy third party relationships helping to drive growth and adoption of their platforms. That goes for MS too

Reducing the value of the third party market by Microsoft buying them all up introduces more financial risk to Sony creating the level of hardware gamers want or the types of single player games they want when Sony need to divert resources to cover gaps in the market

 

[In Cold Blood]

The "meh" COD entries sold like gangbusters.

Also, lots of maybes in your comment. Maybe if Sony spends $500M, and maybe if they spend 50% of the time that COD is guaranteed to be on their platform, and maybe if they put the title on PC on day 1, and maybe if the game represents the very best of the FPS genre, and maybe if the game is bigger than any title Sony have ever made — including Last of Us, Spider-Man, and God of War, then maybe they will be able to deliver an IP that meets or exceeds the popularity of an annualized brand that has taken 16 multi platform mainline games (40+ games total) to develop.

Well if Sony loses COD, or even if they never lose COD but have to send hundreds of millions of dollars a year to Microsoft, which in turn helps prop up Xbox, you can bet your bottom dollar that internally Sony will be asking the same questions.

 

[In Cold Blood]

Ask the company that's paying 69 billion for the privilege of owning it.

You think they are paying 69 billion just for COD?
They are paying that for King, Blizzard, Diablo, WOW, Tony Hawk, Crash, Infinity Ward, Toys for Bob, Trayarch, Beenox, High Moon, Raven, Sledgehammer etc etc etc.
The big mistake for Sony is they concentrated on COD.

 

[Astray]

You think they are paying 69 billion just for COD?

If so then just divest and be done with it. Headache resolved.

 

[In Cold Blood]

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.

Wasn't it all the Sony fans who were saying MS should compete?
Well, they are competing now, and the opposition can't compete on that same level. Becareful what you wish for.

MS didn't invest in their first parties. In the Xbox 360 and Xbox One era they relied on thrid party exclusives like Gears, Lost Planet, Ryse, Titanfall, Bioshock, Alan Wake, Dead Rising etc etc, and thought that this was a better strategy than owning the studios themselves. The issue was that these became harder to get. Try getting Capcom or EA to make you an exclusive game now.
They worked that out as the third party exclusives become harder and more expensive to get.
But make no bones about it, while Sony invested better than MS in first party studio, they also didn't invest as much as they should have which is evidenced by how many studios they are buying now. It wasn't that long ago Sony was shutting studios rather than buying them.
The new push in gaming is content, and ownership of those IPs.

You can bitch on about what MS should have done 8 years ago, but that landscape has changed now forever. If this goes through, MS will own alot of the biggest and most valuable IPs around.
It's Sony who now has to react to what MS has done. If you spend time looking at what happened 8 years ago and now what needs to happen in the next 5 years from Sony, you are making a mistake.

 

[In Cold Blood]

If so then just divest and be done with it. Headache resolved.

Why would they? Just because Sony is upset at the thought of MS owing their most Important game, one that they have said funds the development of their own first parties?
Nah, they owe Sony nothing.

 

[Drell]

Let us not forget it was Sony who turned down Windows as a OS or Platform from the beginning.
https://www.playstationlifestyle.ne...le-partnership-with-before-the-xbox-released/

Back then Sony wanted the whole cake to itself and yet MS is bad when they do the same thing??? There's a double standard going when these discussions are made.

 

[3liteDragon]

Why would they? Just because Sony is upset at the thought of MS owing their most Important game, one that they have said funds the development of their own first parties?
Nah, they owe Sony nothing, other than some revenge.

How old are you exactly?

 

[clarky]

If so then just divest and be done with it. Headache resolved.

Who would be able to buy it? That comes with its own set of massive problems.

 

[Astray]

Who would be able to buy it? That comes with its own set of massive problems.

Surprisingly many takers.

Amazon/Meta etc would gladly take it and definitely have the funds for it, or alternatively float it on the stock market as a spinoff.

 

[In Cold Blood]

How old are you exactly?

What upset you that I wrote?
Why should MS divest COD? The only company pushing for that is Sony. Why are they pushing for it? Self interest.
If someone says MS should just divest it, you need to have a reason other than Sony want them to.

 

[Wulfer]

That's just it: the shoe isn't on the other foot. It's on Microsoft's foot, and the seams are starting to fall apart.

I am not 100% against the acquisition but I definitely think structural remedies should probably be involved at this point. It's obvious these behavioral remedies won't be enough to assuage longer-term concerns of regulators considering Microsoft are already sending out signals of their true intent right after these 10-year deals are finished with.

Which, hey, it's their right to do what they want with what they own, if the regulators let them. But that's IF they let them, and I think there are some parts of ABK where maybe Microsoft shouldn't get exactly what they obviously want.



Why would Sony have wanted a 3P company to provide the OS for their custom gaming hardware? Also at what point did they make these offers to Nintendo and Sony before going into Xbox?

Considering Microsoft made a version of Windows CE for the Dreamcast, and that system was a commercial failure, that didn't bolster Microsoft's reputation of delivering successful console OSes, so what were they expecting from Sony and Nintendo? Microsoft had no track record with hardware, OS, or software in console gaming prior to Xbox. Sony at least had successful hardware experience with the SNES sound chip and technological progress on the Play Station, plus software on the Famicom (CBS Sony), SNES, Genesis, and Sega CD (Sony Imagesoft). Even then both Nintendo and Sega rejected to work with them.

Sony wanting the "whole cake" in retaining tight vertical integration of their console hardware and BIOS/OS, is NOT the same thing as Microsoft wanting the "whole cake" in buying massive multiplatform 3P publishers. How are you even confusing the two?

You don't understand... Back then Sony didn't even want to meet with Bill Gates. They thought of him as the enemy and the only true competitor that Sony couldn't beat. They hated Gates and Windows before Xbox was thought of. Xbox came after these talks broke down. Xbox was partnering with Sega on Dreamcast details (like networking and Windows CE OS) in the Dreamcast. MS wasn't gong to enter the gaming market until Sony threaten Windows. The thought of no Windows is what shifted Xbox in high gear from idea drawing boards to reality! The PS2 was that fear. You gotta remember or read more. These details are in black and white. Alot of the articles are gone now but, the PS2 tech still shows the fact it had a Linux OS to challenge Windows. Sony even promoted the PS2 as the next home computer and who needs Windows when you have a PS2. These are facts on the matter look below. Sony scared Microsoft into action about its place in gaming!

"Sony released a Linux-based operating system, Linux for PlayStation 2, for the PS2 in a package that also includes a keyboard, mouse, Ethernet adapter and HDD. In Europe and Australia, the PS2 comes with a free Yabasic interpreter on the bundled demo disc. This allows users to create simple programs for the PS2. A port of the NetBSD project and BlackRhino GNU/Linux, an alternative Debian-based distribution, are also available for the PS2."

"Optional hardware includes additional DualShock or DualShock 2 controllers, a PS2 DVD remote control, an internal or external hard disk drive (HDD), a network adapter, horizontal and vertical stands, PlayStation or PS2 memory cards, the multitap for PlayStation or PS2, a USB motion camera (EyeToy), a USB keyboard and mouse, and a headset."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_2#:~:text=Sony released a Linux -based operating

Its seems stupid now but, Sony didn't think that in 2000...

Sony even had a Printer for the PS2 in 2002!!!

https://www.ign.com/articles/2002/01/18/sony-releases-new-ps2-printer

It's easy to forget all this stuff because the articles aren't there anymore and black then we read magazines like PSX, Gamefan and Next-gen!

 

[Three]

---

You think they are paying 69 billion just for COD?
They are paying that for King, Blizzard, Diablo, WOW, Tony Hawk, Crash, Infinity Ward, Toys for Bob, Trayarch, Beenox, High Moon, Raven, Sledgehammer etc etc etc.
The big mistake for Sony is they concentrated on COD.

A lot of it is COD. When you buy a cake you don't say you didn't spend $25 on cake because part of that is the baker.

 

[Ezekiel_]

Why would they? Just because Sony is upset at the thought of MS owing their most Important game, one that they have said funds the development of their own first parties?
Nah, they owe Sony nothing, other than some revenge.

 

[Astray]

Why should MS divest COD? The only company pushing for that is Sony. Why are they pushing for it? Self interest.

CMA are the ones pushing this idea, Sony merely supported it after the fact.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

Let us not forget it was Sony who turned down Windows as a OS or Platform from the beginning.
https://www.playstationlifestyle.ne...le-partnership-with-before-the-xbox-released/

Back then Sony wanted the whole cake to itself and yet MS is bad when they do the same thing??? There's a double standard going when these discussions are made.

dont you know sony uses PCs with windows OS to make their games?

every PlayStation game is secretly a Xbox game...

 

[quest]

Who would be able to buy it? That comes with its own set of massive problems.

Tencent and the Saudi investors are about it. I'm sure either be cool to get Activision at 50% off or more. If the CMA and Sony are confident Microsoft wouldn't lose 10's of billions with a divestment they should offer to make up any money Activision sells for below 50 billion. Instead the cma expects Microsoft to eat 10's of billions to own bk.

 

[Wulfer]

dont you know sony uses PCs with windows OS to make their games?

every PlayStation game is secretly a Xbox game...

Of course but, they're ported into the console OS for whatever OS the hardware is running. "Coding to the Metal" is only a term used by developers who only code for a specific hardware OS. (Usually the developer rips the OS out and codes directly to the hardware.) That's what Playstation, Saturn, PS2 etc. did best (hard to code for) but, did best.

 

[3liteDragon]

What upset you that I wrote?
Why should MS divest COD? The only company pushing for that is Sony. Why are they pushing for it? Self interest.
If someone says MS should just divest it, you need to have a reason other than Sony want them to.

lol I'm not upset at anything, it's just funny seeing you use terms like "revenge" & "street beef" in an acquisition thread & the CMA's the regulatory body requesting divestiture, Sony's agreeing with them.

 

[IFireflyl]

Anyone know what Ezekiel_ and J Jim Ryan other Clone said to get banned? I'm not surprised, but I am curious.

 

[bender]

Let us not forget it was Sony who turned down Windows as a OS or Platform from the beginning.
https://www.playstationlifestyle.ne...le-partnership-with-before-the-xbox-released/

Back then Sony wanted the whole cake to itself and yet MS is bad when they do the same thing??? There's a double standard going when these discussions are made.