Support NeoGAF

[Yoboman]

Sony will have what they did with Sega. They fucked Sega. Ms will fuck them. It is just a matter of time.

22 years and still waiting by my count

 

[Three]

It would probably fall under similar scrutiny as the nvidia/arm deal, so basically a no go. Sony acquiring Epic is a fanboy wet dream.

Much more likely Sony go for something like Capcom or Konami where there’s value across gaming, tv, and film. T2 is probably too expensive.

At this point, MS will probably acquire IO, CDPR, and Ubi before the end of this gen.

MS acquired Havok and there was no vertical merger concerns and Zenimax which was responsible for idTech the engine games like COD use. Not that I think they will but I'm not sure how UE is different to Havok and idtech being bought. They would need to continue to license it of course.

 

[Iced Arcade]

No regulator is going to give Sony control of Fortnite and Unreal Engine.

If Epic puts themselves up for sale, they’d be snapped up by Tencent in a flash.

Epic makes most of its money from licensing to out the Unreal Engine so it wouldn't be worth it unless you planned on being a 3rd party licensing house for the tech.

Fortnite would definitely fall under the same conditions as CoD with remedies to get approval.

 

[feynoob]

Did it? I read the word "maybe" in there. I never read anything equal to what you paraphrased, hence why I was asking for exact "nuke" quotes so I could understand why everyone thinks it is passing now, automatically with the CMA.

I can only guess I've missed something, because everyone else is saying it is a slam dunk here.

They dismissed the console concern. So sony has no leverage on that department now.

 

[Sony]

Sony will have what they did with Sega. They fucked Sega. Ms will fuck them. It is just a matter of time.

Out of curiosity, how did Sony fuck Sega? From my understanding, Sega pretty much did themselves.

 

[DForce]

Sony will have what they did with Sega. They fucked Sega. Ms will fuck them. It is just a matter of time.

The only thing Sony did was release a better console than Sega.

Sega screwed themselves over with poor decisions.

Sega also had an opportunity to make a console with Sony, but Sega of Japan declined.

 

[PaintTinJr]

They dismissed the console concern. So sony has no leverage on that department now.

The wording doesn't say that. Merely the data no longer supports the argument the same and so they've changed the "provisional" wording, while still seeking feedback on the changes and have had no change of stance on the Cloud SLC that was the reason for them to need MSFT to divest A or have behavioural remedies equal to divestment of A.

Maybe less incentive to foreclose isn't the same as we believe they definitely won't try to foreclose. My take is the wording is subtle and nuanced , hence why I'm asking for your silver bullet quote/s.

 

[poppabk]

Why not though?

Activision is way bigger than Epic.

Because Epic licenses out tech to other games companies as a major part of its business.

 

[C2brixx]

They are a regulator they don't foster competition lol

From the CMA mission statement...

Our mission is to make markets work well for consumers, businesses and the economy. Improving outcomes for consumers is at the heart of everything we do. Our remit includes:

• investigating mergers which could restrict competition

The inverse would be not investigating (or blocking) mergers which would foster competition.

 

[Heisenberg007]

Ironically, this largely describes the impact of the exclusivity deals with Square Enix for AAA Final Fantasy games.

And that’s also bad. Did you think I was justifying Sony/SE timed-exclusivity deals? No, my friend.

A publisher acquisition is similar to that but 10x worse. As it means permanent exclusives (instead of timed) and almost all IPs instead of 1-2 games here and there.

 

[Three]

Because Epic licenses out tech to other games companies as a major part of its business.

So did Havok. To almost every big game out there.

 

[feynoob]

The wording doesn't say that. Merely the data no longer supports the argument the same and so they've changed the "provisional" wording, while still seeking feedback on the changes and have had no change of stance on the Cloud SLC that was the reason for them to need MSFT to divest A or have behavioural remedies equal to divestment of A.

Maybe less incentive to foreclose isn't the same as we believe they definitely won't try to foreclose. My take is the wording is subtle and nuanced , hence why I'm asking for your silver bullet quote/s.

Removing the console concern is the big news, because Sony was the biggest obstacle there.
If CMA didnt remove that concern, there would have a high chance for divestment or full block. But since they removed that concern, it just become behavioral remedies, instead of divesment.
And since the focus is only on cloud, it become easier task for MS, who are busy handing out those contract to those cloud providers.

 

[Smoke6]

don't know the situation now, but gaming division is one of the most lucrative sector of sony, so much so that it actually helped the entire compamny recoup from blunders like the movie section in the past, they are NEVER gonna sell it.

and while i'm sure an exclusive cod would make things more balanced in the "console war", it will be nowhere near to push sony out of the market


you are doing a lot of head canon here...microsoft is not the kind of compamny that needs to immediately recoup from this kind of investment, they play the very long game because they can afford to.

Oh really? How so? How long as an investor would you have to wait to man a return on a $70b investment? If subs don’t go up or move the needle and of course you’re not gonna caring about sales, then what? Can you elaborate on what scenarios they’re playing with to these investors?

 

[Yoboman]

Oh really? How so? How long as an investor would you have to wait to man a return on a $70b investment? If subs don’t go up or move the needle and of course you’re not gonna caring about sales, then what? Can you elaborate on what scenarios they’re playing with to these investors?

Investors don't give a shit how Microsoft spends money as long as the stock price keeps increasing, which it has.

 

[Elios83]

Any chance you can highlight the parts you consider to be the "nuke"? as I feel like I've missed what everyone else has been reading and took a completely different view from the 17 page document.

Given how vague the financial modelling was, that was amended and the document's request for further feedback of the amended figures, I fully expect another attempt supplied - before the deadline - to model Microsoft's ability to withdraw CoD from PlayStation over 5years and make a financial success of doing so.

The problem is that they dismissed the console market related concerns completely even if they're indeed asking for feedback and even if the updated findings are labeled as preliminary, so it's not clear what could change.
It's obvious that thinking that a company like Microsoft wouldn't be capable of absorbing losses if that means damaging their main competitor in that market is naive at best (but given the stupidity of believing that Microsoft could be profitable with COD removing it from Playstation and putting it on Gamepass because of a wrong model what can you expect?) but they won't embarrass themselves with an other 180, at that point they could just try to block the acquisition using the excuse of cloud concerns but that's unlikely because the remedies Microsoft are offering there are stronger and being accepted by the involved companies like nVidia.

What is clear though is that there were procedural mistakes in their judgement process and it's unlikely they can fixed and the impact carefully assessed in a month given that previous investigations lasted 6-9 months.
Which leaves the question if this can be leveraged to claim that their decision is compromised and the whole thing needs to be re-examined with the proper time.

 

[PaintTinJr]

Removing the console concern is the big news, because Sony was the biggest obstacle there.
If CMA didnt remove that concern, there would have a high chance for divestment or full block. But since they removed that concern, it just become behavioral remedies, instead of divesment.
And since the focus is only on cloud, it become easier task for MS, who are busy handing out those contract to those cloud providers.

You keep saying they've removed the concern while not using their words verbatim to make that statement, Even if what you said was true, it doesn't fix the bigger Cloud SLC divestment issue and I don't believe they are saying they have no concenr,
IMO their nuanced wording still demonstrates their belief of an underlying concern, while they state the updated data supports they would have no incentive to foreclose.

In science you can have a hypothesis you test with an inadequate method and draw a conclusion that matches the method and contradicts the hypothesis. On being presented with a superior model, the original hypothesis can be proved true.. and that's what I was taking from the document. IMO the CMA still believe their hypothesis but are in need of a superior model to prove it.

 

[RickMasters]

And that’s also bad. Did you think I was justifying Sony/SE timed-exclusivity deals? No, my friend.

A publisher acquisition is similar to that but 10x worse. As it means permanent exclusives (instead of timed) and almost all IPs instead of 1-2 games here and there.

Given that most post 2023 square games will never be coming to Xbox, I don’t think square is a great example for you to use.….. we already have people having wet dreams that Sony already secretly bought them to help them cope with this news so er….. maybe use another example?

 

[Zephyrus0]

Not that simple. Sony is the market leader in many countries. The amount it would take to make up those sales would be ludicrous.

sony is the market leader because sony invested in their studios.
MS started the xbox 360 era with a bang. They gained a lot of ground and were ahead of sony pratically everywhere.
But MS sat on their asses after 06.
They let EA get bioware.
They let epic games go.
They let bungie go.
This after all 3 of these made excellent, highlight of the generation, games exclusive for them.
And after that they released nothing worth noticing.


MS wants a stronghold on the western market. It's why they're going so hard after western IP's with the most acclaim.
The intention is to push sony out. If sony loses a significant portion of the western market, they'll be done. They can't compete with nintendo in their home.

 

[Nubulax]

Sony will have what they did with Sega. They fucked Sega. Ms will fuck them. It is just a matter of time.

Another Sony killed Sega person..... Ya its not like Sega made any terrible decisions on their own or anything that lead to their demise... Not to mention Sony was the one that ACTUALLY got screwed ... by Nintendo... to even be in the console space... and came out with the technology devs were wanting to push their games forward (see and look into FF7 development on PS vs N64)

 

[Yoboman]

Another Sony killed Sega person..... Ya its not like Sega made any terrible decisions on their own or anything that lead to their demise... Not to mention Sony was the one that ACTUALLY got screwed ... by Nintendo... to even be in the console space... and came out with the technology devs were wanting to push their games forward (see and look into FF7 development on PS vs N64)

They got rejected by Sega as well following that moment where Nintendo screwed them over

 

[feynoob]

You keep saying they've removed the concern while not using their words verbatim to make that statement, Even if what you said was true, it doesn't fix the bigger Cloud SLC divestment issue and I don't believe they are saying they have no concenr,
IMO their nuanced wording still demonstrates their belief of an underlying concern, while they state the updated data supports they would have no incentive to foreclose.

In science you can have a hypothesis you test with an inadequate method and draw a conclusion that matches the method and contradicts the hypothesis. On being presented with a superior model, the original hypothesis can be proved true.. and that's what I was taking from the document. IMO the CMA still believe their hypothesis but are in need of a superior model to prove it.

From CMA website
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/cma-narrows-scope-of-concerns-in-microsoft-activision-review

Martin Coleman, chair of the independent panel of experts conducting this investigation, said:

Provisional findings are a key aspect of the merger process and are explicitly designed to give the businesses involved, and any interested third parties, the chance to respond with new evidence before we make a final decision.
Having considered the additional evidence provided, we have now provisionally concluded that the merger will not result in a substantial lessening of competition in console gaming services because the cost to Microsoft of withholding Call of Duty from PlayStation would outweigh any gains from taking such action.
Our provisional view that this deal raises concerns in the cloud gaming market is not affected by today’s announcement. Our investigation remains on course for completion by the end of April.

 

[Oddvintagechap]

Because Epic licenses out tech to other games companies as a major part of its business.

Sony already does this in the film industry. Companies use their cameras and other tech to make films. So they will keep on licensing, more so cause they would have spend 30 billion to buy Epic games in the first place, they wouldn’t be able to afford not to.

Plus Sony invests in Epic every year since 2020 ($250m in 2020; $200m in 2021; $1bn in 2022), Sony has spent $1.45 billion buying equity in Epic Games. They already own 5%, it’s logical they will keep raising their ownership.

 

[RickMasters]

Nobody tried though did they I guess nobody felt the need to at the time the games were coming to all platforms I mean did Bethesda even offer Sony/Nintendo a shot at buying them out or was it straight to ms for the sale? not that any of them could outbid and in essence that's my point they have so much cash once they decided this is the route they want to go down with acquisitions nobody was/is going to be able to compete with them any more .... I dunno it's done now so that's that anyway .

MS and bathesda have always had close ties. I don’t doubt they were willing to be acquired by MS and maybe even wanted it. I doubt Sony or Nintendo would ever have been considered before MS….

 

[Lasha]

The more I think about the more this acquisition, the less sense it makes from a gamepass angle.

All the big IPs brought in are monthly revenue generators. Warzone, WoW, and Overwatch. It's not about the value gamepass would get from them because there isn't one.

It's about cash flow. These games all bring in steady cash. All have big dev teams that need constant influx of cash for constant development and content.

Non of that makes any sense if you start pulling games from users.

What does gamepass gain from a free game being listed, nothing.

Diablo is the big one that probably helps GP. Stand alone COD is there but it's all about WZ.

In short there's zero chance any of these games go exclusive. It's mostly about revenue.

"Gamepass subscribers always get the current battlepass and a 1000 warzone bux allowance per month"

That's the kind of leverage owning COD gives Microsoft. Gamepass already gives you all heros in LoL, mobile legends, and valorant.

 

[Nubulax]

They got rejected by Sega as well following that moment where Nintendo screwed them over

That was actually something I did not know about how that went down. If thats true, how the hell can anyone even be sorry for Sega.. like.. objectively... how can you be mad

 

[Lasha]

Oh really? How so? How long as an investor would you have to wait to man a return on a $70b investment? If subs don’t go up or move the needle and of course you’re not gonna caring about sales, then what? Can you elaborate on what scenarios they’re playing with to these investors?

Microsoft's investment generates an immediate return. You're confusing return on investment with break even. Activision is a profitable company which owns many valuable IP. It's not like the 70 billion is gone. Microsoft could always repackage and sell Activision and get it's money back.

 

[In Cold Blood]

Sony will have what they did with Sega. They fucked Sega. Ms will fuck them. It is just a matter of time.

Sony should be fine, but they just need to make sure they don't neglect subscription and streaming, as they are where the future is headed, regardless of if they want it to or not.

 

[Demon2blades]

MS and bathesda have always had close ties. I don’t doubt they were willing to be acquired by MS and maybe even wanted it. I doubt Sony or Nintendo would ever have been considered before MS….

I they had close ties before yeah you're right , I've personally been enjoying the Amazon prime drops for eso I guess that will change in the future when Amazon contact runs out ..... Yeah but they didn't give Sony/Nintendo a second thought .

 

[PaintTinJr]

From CMA website
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/cma-narrows-scope-of-concerns-in-microsoft-activision-review
Martin Coleman, chair of the independent panel of experts conducting this investigation, said:

Provisional findings are a key aspect of the merger process and are explicitly designed to give the businesses involved, and any interested third parties, the chance to respond with new evidence before we make a final decision.
Having considered the additional evidence provided, we have now provisionally concluded that the merger will not result in a substantial lessening of competition in console gaming services because the cost to Microsoft of withholding Call of Duty from PlayStation would outweigh any gains from taking such action.
Our provisional view that this deal raises concerns in the cloud gaming market is not affected by today’s announcement. Our investigation remains on course for completion by the end of April.

Exactly, so still ls a lessening of competition. but just not the "substantial" lessening any more - is what the current data model shows. Third parties invited to respond, and Cloud SLC still the same, meaning the deal needs structural remedies or cancelled still, no?

 

[In Cold Blood]

Of course they would. Being a market leader isn't a reason to block an acquisition.

It's all about monopolies. If Sony is the dominate market player, and they are, there is no way they would be allowed to buy a big publisher.
By that sane token, if MS were neck and neck in the console race I doubt they would approve the deal as it would lessen competition and would set MS up as the dominant player.

 

[poppabk]

So did Havok. To almost every big game out there.

Yeah and I doubt MS would be able to buy them today so easily.

 

[Demon2blades]

Sony should be fine, but they just need to make sure they don't neglect subscription and streaming, as they are where the future is headed, regardless of if they want it to or not.

Thing Is what can Sony offer with subscription and streaming ? Most of their games are one and done affairs they don't have an elder Scrolls or a cod or the cash to bankroll a subscription model that could counter gamepass no one can , those gaas games they are developing need to be on as many platforms as possible to be successful I just don't see a way they can compete with gamepass with the backing of ms 's unlimited dollar.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

It's all about monopolies. If Sony is the dominate market player, and they are, there is no way they would be allowed to buy a big publisher.
By that sane token, if MS were neck and neck in the console race I doubt they would approve the deal as it would lessen competition and would set MS up as the dominant player.

Market leader =/= monopoly

 

[Elios83]

Exactly, so still ls a lessening of competition. but just not the "substantial" lessening any more - is what the current data model shows. Third parties invited to respond, and Cloud SLC still the same, meaning the deal needs structural remedies or cancelled still, no?

For CMA a SLC is basically their definition of a critical anticompetitive concern.
The SLC about the cloud market is still there.
Is that enough to ask for a block or a divestement just based on this single SLC given the remedies Microsoft is offering?
No one can tell, it's not impossible but I'd say it's unlikely. It's also not clear if Sony is both a console and cloud competitor.
The problem is that the SLC about the console market was removed, NOT because they don't consider the possible removal of COD from Playstation not worthy of being considered a SLC anymore but because they believe this scenario can't happen because Microsoft would lose a lot of money while their previous fucked up maths told them they could still be profitable with it (lol).
That means that technically Sony is out of the equation.

It's obvious though that CMA fucked up.
They admitted their analysis has procedural mistakes.
There are no data about how they have now concluded that a company like Microsoft can't absorb certain losses if that means seriously damaging their main competitor.

If this can be used against them to ask for a re-examination of the case I totally don't know.

 

[FoxMcChief]

I need it on my gamepass

I can do without square Enix.

 

[bentanchorbolt]

Can’t wait to play all these games on Game Pass. Tremendous value

 

[PaintTinJr]

For CMA a SLC is basically their definition of a critical anticompetitive concern.
The SLC about the cloud market is still there.
Is that enough to ask for a block or a divestement just based on this single SLC given the remedies Microsoft is offering?
No one can tell, it's not impossible but I'd say it's unlikely. It's also not clear if Sony is both a console and cloud competitor.
The problem is that the SLC about the console market was removed, NOT because they don't consider the possible removal of COD from Playstation not worthy of being considered a SLC anymore but because they believe this scenario can happen because Microsoft would lose a lot of money while their previous fucked up maths told them they could still be profitable with it (lol).
That means that technically Sony is out of the equation.

It's obvious though that CMA fucked up.
They admitted their analysis has procedural mistakes.
There are no data about how they have now concluded that a company like Microsoft can't absorb certain losses if that means seriously damaging their main competitor.

If this can be used against them to ask for a re-examination of the case I totally don't know.

I'm not sure it was the CMA, but what was supplied to the CMA IIRC in the document, so now Microsoft have supplied the maths, and Sony or someone else could counter again before the deadline.

 

[feynoob]

Exactly, so still ls a lessening of competition. but just not the "substantial" lessening any more - is what the current data model shows. Third parties invited to respond, and Cloud SLC still the same, meaning the deal needs structural remedies or cancelled still, no?

Nope, no structural remedies in this case. This is basically giving thumps up for approval.
They are only focusing on cloud section which is their main concern.

 

[Sanepar]

Sony should be fine, but they just need to make sure they don't neglect subscription and streaming, as they are where the future is headed, regardless of if they want it to or not.

Sony will not be fine. They don't have money to compete.
They lost blizzard, almost all wrpgs. Almost all relevant shooters.

Ms will not stop there. Their next target 100% will be CDPR and Sony will have what in terms of wrpg? Larian?

Sony is fucked on the long term and their future is to become a publisher not a platform anymore.

 

[FoxMcChief]

In light of recent news, we managed to get a respond from Sony to MS.

 

[poppabk]

Sony will not be fine. They don't have money to compete.
They lost blizzard, almost all wrpgs. Almost all relevant shooters.

Ms will not stop there. Their next target 100% will be CDPR and Sony will have what in terms of wrpg? Larian?

Sony is fucked on the long term and their future is to become a publisher not a platform anymore.

Come on people get a grip. I swear a week ago it was MS who were screwed and were gonna have to get out the hardware market and just become a software company.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

For CMA a SLC is basically their definition of a critical anticompetitive concern.
The SLC about the cloud market is still there.
Is that enough to ask for a block or a divestement just based on this single SLC given the remedies Microsoft is offering?
No one can tell, it's not impossible but I'd say it's unlikely. It's also not clear if Sony is both a console and cloud competitor.
The problem is that the SLC about the console market was removed, NOT because they don't consider the possible removal of COD from Playstation not worthy of being considered a SLC anymore but because they believe this scenario can't happen because Microsoft would lose a lot of money while their previous fucked up maths told them they could still be profitable with it (lol).
That means that technically Sony is out of the equation.

It's obvious though that CMA fucked up.
They admitted their analysis has procedural mistakes.
There are no data about how they have now concluded that a company like Microsoft can't absorb certain losses if that means seriously damaging their main competitor.

If this can be used against them to ask for a re-examination of the case I totally don't know.

I wonder if there is any recourse on regulating bodies when their decisions are proven wrong in the future.

For example, when MS does indeed take CoD away from PlayStation down the road, can Sony go back to CMA and demand compensation or regulatory measures to compensate for their decision resulting in exactly the opposite of what they thought would happen? Can they even sue the CMA or UK government?

I know of no recourse for when regulators screw up. Once it's over, it's over forever and Sony is permanently screwed once the merger goes ahead and MS forecloses on CoD for Sony in 1-10 years?

 

[sainraja]

It will, but not exclusive like Starfield and redfall.

And eventually exclusive. They only have to keep it on PlayStation for the current generation, based on what they have publicly said, but once they are in control of it, they can do with it what they want. What they want could include PlayStation, but it doesn't have to.

 

[Rac3r]

Holy fuck, this thread has become infested with countless retards in the last 48 hours. Some of the worst takes I've seen thus far. I'm out for now.

 

[XesqueVara]

Sony will not be fine. They don't have money to compete.
They lost blizzard, almost all wrpgs. Almost all relevant shooters.

Ms will not stop there. Their next target 100% will be CDPR and Sony will have what in terms of wrpg? Larian?

Sony is fucked on the long term and their future is to become a publisher not a platform anymore.

Why would MS acquire CDPR? They already have the WRPG gender covered and CDPR don`t come with any revelant IP, both the Witcher and CyberPunk are Liscensed ones.

 

[feynoob]

Holy fuck, this thread has become infested with countless retards in the last 48 hours. Some of the worst takes I've seen thus far. I'm out for now.

Welcome to the madness comrade

 

[sainraja]

Epic would be the hardest to get past regulators imo including EA and T2. The engine is too widely used by everyone.

I am also not sure if the 32bn private valuation is going to cause issues. Especially if Tencent wants to cause issues.

Whoever goes after EPIC doesn't have to prevent the sale of their engine or block it from others, nor do they have to stop work on it, so I don't understand why that would be a problem if it were to happen?

 

[feynoob]

And eventually exclusive. They only have to keep it on PlayStation for the current generation, based on what they have publicly said, but once they are in control of it, they can do with it what they want. What they want could include PlayStation, but it doesn't have to.

COD is a community based like minecraft. MS would be utterly stupid to make it exclusive.
This new age is MTX era. Too many dumb people spend alot of money on season passes, battle passes and skins. As long as these people exist, the game would be multiplatform. MS can make insane money like fifa ultimate.

 

[Elios83]

I'm not sure it was the CMA, but what was supplied to the CMA IIRC in the document, so now Microsoft have supplied the maths, and Sony or someone else could counter again before the deadline.

Yes but it's an other contradiction on their side.
They removed the console market SLC from the equation but they still use the word "provisionally", they're still asking for feedback but what this feedback is supposed to accomplish?
Are they ready for an other public 180 relatively to the console market?
The decision would be a joke and would be immediatly called out for procedural mistakes by Microsoft.
Sony should call out the whole thing as well in their upcoming reply since dropping the console market SLC altogether without a clear proof that Microsoft would not be able to sustain the losses to foreclose COD access is a super weak analysis on their side.
But it's totally unclear if this could lead to somewhere in the UK legal system.

In any case we'll find out what happens in the next few weeks, if Sony's legal team believes they have been totally put out of the equation we'll see them trying to get the best deal they can with MS before the EU/CMA make their final decision. If instead they believe there are possibilities to appeal in some way, to prove procedural mistakes and that the FTC actually has some chances to drag this on for a good while they might hold their position.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

COD is a community based like minecraft. MS would be utterly stupid to make it exclusive.
This new age is MTX era. Too many dumb people spend alot of money on season passes, battle passes and skins. As long as these people exist, the game would be multiplatform. MS can make insane money like fifa ultimate.

MS doesn't care, they already make $200 billion in revenue a year. It's the equivalent of thinking you and I care about if we make an extra $0.05 a year.

Their goal is conquest and monopoly and they have the resources to do it without actually trying to make money from gaming or Xbox division itself.