Microsoft / Activision Deal Approval Watch |OT| (MS/ABK close)

Do you believe the deal will be approved?

  • Yes, will be approved without changes.

    Votes: 221 24.9%

  • Yes, will be approved but with structural changes to ABK.

    Votes: 102 11.5%

  • Yes, will be approved but only with behavioral concessions.

    Votes: 262 29.6%

  • No, will not be approved.

    Votes: 301 34.0%
  • Total voters
    886
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
feynoob said:
Passionate, quality, keen for the game. These quotes are backhanded.
Sony is making them appear like they are people who are not in toxic relationships with COD.

We are talking about the same people that cry about COD shit state, then continue to buy it again even though the last game was shit.
Click to expand...
You are taking a PR fluff comment way too seriously.
 
Kvally said:
Hence why I mentioned ND did "most" of the work. Here nor there, it sounds like it was mostly ND according to ND and DF, and it sounds like ND going forward wants to do most of the work. Galaxy is also NOT credited on the Steam page, but they are for the Uncharted collection.


Click to expand...
I guess so, but personally, I still question how much involvement they had given the graphic credits Iron Galaxy. I can check out those other threads, but I also don't care that much about this either way. Hopefully, the fact that ND did most of the work is credible information.

EDIT
ND is credited for Uncharted also on the Steam page you linked but to your point, for TLOU, they only list ND so maybe something changed from announcement to release.
 
Last edited:
DeepEnigma said:
You are taking a PR fluff comment way too seriously.
Click to expand...
Kylie Jenner Blank Stare GIF
 
Kvally said:
Are you saying it's ok that Sony and MS release buggy games because one or the other does it?
Click to expand...
No I'm saying the guy is looking for an excuse to paint something as nefarious while continually suggesting MS would never do such a thing up and down this thread. I think his excuses for why those bad ports were different under MS as dev and publisher would be entertaining.

wolffy71 said:
Simple question... you just spent $600 on a Playstation, invested $100s more on software and more in hardware. The next version of COD drops and it runs a little better on xbox, or PC. Do you immediately go out and buy a new Xbox or PC?

Further there of the people that would want to, how many could actually afford it.

If you could afford it, how many would then abandon the Playstation for all their other games? Or would you just use both platforms?

Then from xbox pov... You spend $70 billion on a game. Then you say we are gonna make this game for the biggest portion of gamers and purposely release it in a poor state. Do you even consider how the terrible 1st impression of ur 70b game could harm your business going forward? Do you risk alienating the largest user base just so you can acquire the people from the 1st part of this post?

The entire concept of it damaging Sony is so silly and overly dramatic. It just doesn't make any real sense.
Click to expand...
This would be unlikely for an established buyer but imagine a next gen console release where you're making the decision.

MS decides that it doesn't want to support PS6 as well as xbox next, or even release a PS6 version but a PS5 only version that runs on PS6, it gets that update year(s) later (Psychonauts 2). Imagine it makes an excuse that a COD update would come to PS with all of the performance benefits if only Sony supports gamepass on PS (Minecraft) and it getting that update years later when they succumb to it. Imagine showing the soon releasing raytraced COD on Xbox Next only and people thinking PS6 doesn't even have "raytracing hardware" (Minecraft). What decision do you think those CoD players would make?
 
Three said:
Now do Gears of War Ultimate edition on PC or maybe Quantum Break releasing completely broken on nvidia cards. Should be fun seeing the excuses when MS started committing to PC too.
Click to expand...
MS would be responsible for the quality of those games too. I am not arguing a double standard here. In addition MS wasn't the one accusing other developers of trying to releases broken buggy games on their platforms to hurt their business by the way.
 
DarkMage619 said:
MS would be responsible for the quality of those games too. I am not arguing a double standard here. In addition MS wasn't the one accusing other developers of trying to releases broken buggy games on their platforms to hurt their business by the way.
Click to expand...
You were arguing it as a double standard, you even said so. Instead Sony are just aware that inferior ports for other platforms that the platform holder is less invested in is a real possibility.

You were suggesting that Sony participate in a practice of degrading ports on other platforms because they had possibly 1 or 2 bad ports while continously saying that there are no instances of MS doing it. So I wanted to show your double standard. why somehow, some way, those MS bad ports weren't participating in that practice but unsurprisingly different in your mind.
 
Last edited:
Three said:
You were arguing it as a double standard, you even said so. Instead Sony are just aware that inferior ports for other platforms that the platform holder is less invested in is a real possibility.

You were suggesting that Sony participate in a practice of degrading ports on other platforms because they had possibly 1 or 2 bad ports while continously saying that there are no instances of MS doing it. So I wanted to show your double standard. why somehow, some way, those MS bad ports weren't participating in that practice but unsurprisingly different in your mind.
Click to expand...
The double standard is Sony demanding optimal games and speculating that MS would release broken games to hurt their brand while releasing games that did not meet their own standard. I am suggesting that before a company accuse another of releasing sub-optimal games they should look in the mirror and follow their own standard. If you want to accuse MS of the same thing feel free to post any comments made by MS leadership where they accused Sony of trying to hurt their brand by releasing buggy games.

Kvally said:
Everyone doesn't have ChorizoPicozo blocked???
Click to expand...
I thought we were having a reasonable discussion then it clearly went off the rails. I wish him well.
 
adamsapple said:
I don't keep anyone blocked. Sometimes you gotta read a take so bad that it puts things into perspective.
Click to expand...
I originally blocked him, not only because of his incessant trolling, but he was hammering the emoji button to my all my replies (aka Ezekiel) and I thought adding him to ignore would stop the emojis. But it didn't. But I keep him ignored as a precedent. I only have so much time to read through posts.
 
Kvally said:
I originally blocked him, not only because of his incessant trolling, but he was hammering the emoji button to my all my replies (aka Ezekiel) and I thought adding him to ignore would stop the emojis. But it didn't. But I keep him ignored as a precedent. I only have so much time to read through posts.
Click to expand...


one-for-my-homies-mike-myers.gif
 
Three said:
No I'm saying the guy is looking for an excuse to paint something as nefarious while continually suggesting MS would never do such a thing up and down this thread. I think his excuses for why those bad ports were different under MS as dev and publisher would be entertaining.


This would be unlikely for an established buyer but imagine a next gen console release where you're making the decision.

MS decides that it doesn't want to support PS6 as well as xbox next, or even release a PS6 version but a PS5 only version that runs on PS6, it gets that update year(s) later (Psychonauts 2). Imagine it makes an excuse that a COD update would come to PS with all of the performance benefits if only Sony supports gamepass on PS (Minecraft) and it getting that update years later when they succumb to it. Imagine showing the soon releasing raytraced COD on Xbox Next only and people thinking PS6 doesn't even have "raytracing hardware" (Minecraft). What decision do you think those CoD players would make?
Click to expand...
A fraction of players that are mainly COD players would switch. One issue with multiplayer is switching consoles means switching friends lists. Even with more and more games going crossplay this is still an issue.

Likely those that don't really care about Sony 1st party games would be more likely but I wouldn't expect a huge number if I was xbox.

And again xbox would run the risk of turning off an entire generation of gamers and ruining the loyalty that COD has built. It wouldn't make sense.
 
If this deal goes through, I hope Ms make COD exclusive to Xbox just to see the results.

I don't think it would ruin Playstation, but I wonder how much it would boost Xbox, and for how long?
 
Last edited:
Roxkis_ii said:
If this deal goes through, I hope Ms make COD exclusive to Xbox just to see the results.

I don't think it would ruin Playstation, but I wonder how much it would boost Xbox, and for how long?
Click to expand...
If this deal goes through I'd like to see the game remain multi-platform and have sales from other platforms fund more Xbox first party games. It's a win win.
 
Roxkis_ii said:
If this deal goes through, I hope Ms make COD exclusive to Xbox just to see the results.

I don't think it would ruin Playstation, but I wonder how much it would boost Xbox, and for how long?
Click to expand...
It would ruin COD and Xbox in the process.
Exclusive of COD is huge gambler that would tank the franchise.

It's like erasing 20% of destiny users.
 
The_Mike said:
I do, but sometimes I pick "show ignored posts" to make sense of what people reply to.
Click to expand...
Same for me, but sometimes i read it and the dribbel they are saying sometimes, I block them in an instant and 2 weeks later i try again....but they keep on saying the same dribbel. Then i ignore them again, for a long time, i dont even bother to read what they are saying.
 
Last edited:
reksveks said:
I would argue that they are rightly limited in by laws for a reason and it's to ensure that regulators can't abuse their power by having never ending investigations.


I haven't seen that before and not sure it is possible. It feels logically a bit iffy.
Click to expand...
AFAIK that is the design of our system in the UK that civil service/ quangos/ regulators have clearly defined remits, so they can't exceed their power, which would be exactly why they'd need input from someone else, like a judge or panel of judges - which in the UK are probably held in much higher regard than the US, as by default they come across a non-partisan, as would be required to even be inline for such roles, their loyalty being to the law, its history and our democracy, so the CMA referring themselves to the CAT wouldn't look out of place in the UK, and would just look like they got their powers extended by a higher authority, to rubber stamp their take.

I mean the process has to be something along those lines because every CMA case is effectively a new thing and prescribing a set time to handle all cases gives unfair advantage to the buyer burying the CMA in work to get their deal through. That might be the way procedure works in other nations, but in the UK, the view is that no one asked two companies to merge and if the burden to ratify the merger disadvantages the buyer by a time delay, then that's their issue, not the government and not the people they represent.
 
Last edited:
DarkMage619 said:
The double standard is Sony demanding optimal games and speculating that MS would release broken games to hurt their brand while releasing games that did not meet their own standard. I am suggesting that before a company accuse another of releasing sub-optimal games they should look in the mirror and follow their own standard. If you want to accuse MS of the same thing feel free to post any comments made by MS leadership where they accused Sony of trying to hurt their brand by releasing buggy games.
Click to expand...
But there is no double standard. The only double standard is your own. You need to decide is a poor PC port of a few first party games like TLOU, MCC, Quantum break evidence of platform holders releasing inferior ports on other platforms. If it is then Sony has a point and this is the reality, inferior ports due to platforms happen. If it isn't due to it being a PC but just bad ports happening then your point is moot. Why would I need to post MS leadership accusing somebody of inferior ports? That's irrelevant to the point and it's you who is doing it on their behalf. It's your logic that's broken and contradictory, not anybody elses.
 
Last edited:
Three said:
But there is no double standard. The only double standard is your own. You need to decide is a poor PC port of a few first party games like TLOU, MCC, Quantum break evidence of platform holders releasing inferior ports on other platforms. If it is then Sony has a point and this is the reality, inferior ports due to platforms happen. If it isn't due to it being a PC but just bad ports happening then your point is moot. Why would I need to post MS leadership accusing somebody of inferior ports? That's irrelevant to the point and it's you who is doing it on their behalf. It's your logic that's broken and contradictory, not anybody elses.
Click to expand...
Please Understand™
 
DarkMage619 said:
There will most likely be an independent auditor that will confirm parity of CoD versions. There is no merit to the accusation that MS will degrade the game to harm the PlayStation brand. MS has developed games on PlayStation before and this issue has never come up. It's even more ridiculous to make that claim considering Activision is also well versed at PlayStation development and Sony has been quite clear that will say just about anything to try and get this deal blocked.
Click to expand...
You are getting ahead of yourself IMO. If PlayStation make the case for past transgression by Xbox actively using contracts to damage the quality of results on PlayStation consoles - as I suspect they will have from the PS3/360 even if just a comparison of Bayonetta on PS3 in Japan that IIRC got patched to a locked 60fps, but was never patched in the West with its abysmal frame-rate - Sony could show previous behaviour which would strengthen their argument about a gradual foreclosure strategy with CoD, and damaging their platform's reputation.
 
When you come into the "Microsoft Activision Deal approval" thread and the conversation is about whether PlayStation first party studios, are actually first party studios...

wtf-umm.gif
 
Last edited:
PaintTinJr said:
AFAIK that is the design of our system in the UK that civil service/ quangos/ regulators have clearly defined remits, so they can't exceed their power, which would be exactly why they'd need input from someone else, like a judge or panel of judges - which in the UK are probably held in much higher regard than the US, as by default they come across a non-partisan, as would be required to even be inline for such roles, their loyalty being to the law, its history and our democracy, so the CMA referring themselves to the CAT wouldn't look out of place in the UK, and would just look like they got their powers extended by a higher authority, to rubber stamp their take.
Click to expand...
If you can find a case of the CMA referring themselves to the CMA to vet their decision, it would be good to see.

PaintTinJr said:
I mean the process has to be something along those lines because every CMA case is effectively a new thing and prescribing a set time to handle all cases gives unfair advantage to the buyer burying the CMA in work to get their deal through. That might be the way procedure works in other nations, but in the UK, the view is that no one asked two companies to merge and if the burden to ratify the merger disadvantages the buyer by a time delay, then that's their issue, not the government and not the people they represent.
Click to expand...
The process has to balance both the regulators and companies needs (you may disagree with the balance), but that's why there is time limits written in law. If the CMA wants to argue to the CAT that MS hadn't provided the data in time then they may have a case but we are really speculating at that point. However they can't go beyond the law.
 
Three said:
But there is no double standard. The only double standard is your own. You need to decide is a poor PC port of a few first party games like TLOU, MCC, Quantum break evidence of platform holders releasing inferior ports on other platforms. If it is then Sony has a point and this is the reality, inferior ports due to platforms happen. If it isn't due to it being a PC but just bad ports happening then your point is moot. Why would I need to post MS leadership accusing somebody of inferior ports? That's irrelevant to the point and it's you who is doing it on their behalf. It's your logic that's broken and contradictory, not anybody elses.
Click to expand...
I think he was just trying to point out the irony.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

MS/ABK is advertising games that don't exist for data collection
46
2K
POKEYCLYDE replied
My apologies to Ubisoft, Sony, Activision, EA, MS etc. for making a big deal out of $70 games
2 3 4
156
6K
MDSLKTR replied
Microsoft, Activision Deny Report Regarding Financial Performance
Business Hardware  2 3
131
11K
Jaybe replied
What happened to all the people that were cheering over that MS Activision acquisition?
Drama  5 6 7 8 9
414
18K
GateofD replied
Microsoft has Closed the Activision Blizzard King Deal
22 23 24 25 26
1K
99K
MasterCornholio replied
Top Bottom