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.
Banjo64 said:
Sarah Bond was being questioned and as part of the questioning she was asked about AAA games and what constitutes an AAA game.

Following this she was asked if smaller scale games could still thrive, alongside questions about M$'s Game Pass and First Party portfolio (simple question, just about the breadth of content).

She then was asked to give some examples of smaller games thriving, which is where she said Epic were a small indie dev before Fortnite released. She listed it alongside games such as Vampire Survivors.

Nothing scandalous. Just a hilarious insight in to her knowledge considering Gears of War and Unreal Engine.
Click to expand...
not to mention Unreal Tournament… yep Epic is totally comparable to a game made by one person
 
Varteras said:
What wouldn't I give for a scoring system that points you for intellect, integrity, or entertainment value. If you stay below a threshold for too long, auto-banned.
Click to expand...

Some people already abuse the report feature, can you imagine how hard that would get abused.
 
Varteras said:
What wouldn't I give for a scoring system that points you for intellect, integrity, or entertainment value. If you stay below a threshold for too long, auto-banned.
Click to expand...
They do that and I will go
GIF by VPRO
 
feynoob said:
They own the IP. They can decide what they want with.
MLB forced Sony to make Xbox version.
Click to expand...

Well Disney wanted it on PlayStation 5 before. It was Microsoft that wanted it as an exclusive. If it wasn't for the renegotiation the game wouldn't have become exclusive. Not the same situation as Spiderman or MLB.
 
devilNprada said:
Why would Disney have to buy back the rights to their streaming service?
I am not giving you are hard time here.. please just show me where it has been established that Sony did not own those rights?
Click to expand...
Okay.
Activision had the rights to Spider-Man.
Marvel were unhappy with Activision's shit Spider-Man games.
Marvel got the rights off Activision and Bobby Kotick told them to find their "unicorn" (dev who can make a better Spider-Man game)
Marvel went to Xbox to make an exclusive Marvel game and Xbox said no.
Marvel then went to Sony and offered any Marvel IP and Sony asked Insomniac.
Insomniac asked for Spider-Man and got it.

Now if Sony owned the gaming rights, then why did Marvel look to take the Spider-Man property off Activision? Sony would own the rights and Marvel fuck all. Sony would be looking for the IP back.

Sony only owns the movie rights.
 
MasterCornholio said:
Well Disney wanted it on PlayStation 5 before. It was Microsoft that wanted it as an exclusive. If it wasn't for the renegotiation the game wouldn't have become exclusive. Not the same situation as Spiderman or MLB.
Click to expand...

Feynoob is right tho, if Disney wanted to, they could have pressed it, but they didn't.
 
Last edited:
Is it only me who wants to believe that the CEO of PlayStation, Jimbo Ryan really said "We have some good stuff cooking"? lmao

image.png


Maybe Jimbo really wanted to skip the FTC trial just to anonymously shitpost here on GAF. :messenger_tears_of_joy:
 
Last edited:
MasterCornholio said:
Well Disney wanted it on PlayStation 5 before. It was Microsoft that wanted it as an exclusive. If it wasn't for the renegotiation the game wouldn't have become exclusive. Not the same situation as Spiderman or MLB.
Click to expand...
Yet Disney took MS money and allowed that to happen.
Like I said before, it's all about the $$$.
 
feynoob said:
It doesn't matter who went to who.
What matters is both companies own the IPs and they have the final decision.
Disney could have simply said no, make the game multiplatform. They didn't.
Click to expand...
Because MS paid for exclusivity and Sony didn't have to. This isn't rocket science.

Disney could have said no as there was a deal in place but we all know Spencer loves to overpay with the other MS divisions money
 
Well to be fair epic really doesn't release many games. The only AAA games they've really released were gears, the unreal games and Fortnite. Everything else were mobile games or shadow complex. So technically they were kinda small and Indieish
 
GHG said:
Some people already abuse the report feature, can you imagine how hard that would get abused.
Click to expand...
What I would like instead is a downvote reaction that counts as a negative point towards your reaction score. No ban consequences or anything but itd help weed out trolls
 
Dick Jones said:
Because MS paid for exclusivity and Sony didn't have to. This isn't rocket science.

Disney could have said no as there was a deal in place but we all know Spencer loves to overpay with the other MS divisions money
Click to expand...
That is why it's about $$$.
MasterCornholio said:
It wasn't that way with Spiderman. Microsoft simply couldn't make it.

Two different situations.
Click to expand...
It's not whether MS can make spiderman or not.
It's about Disney and marvel being ok with both outcome, considering both companies are getting the $$$.
 
adamsapple said:
Feynoob is right tho, if Disney wanted to, they could have pressed it, but they didn't.
Click to expand...

True but Disney didn't ask Microsoft to do this. It was the other way around and they came to an agreement. Regardless there was a version that was planned and due to Microsoft it was cancelled. That's how it went. Not the same thing as MLB or Spiderman if that's what you believe.
 
feynoob said:
That is why it's about $$$.

It's not whether MS can make spiderman or not.
It's about Disney and marvel being ok with both outcome, considering both companies are getting the $$$.
Click to expand...

Your wrong though. Microsoft shot marvel in the face. Sony invited them in.

Hopefully that makes more sense to you.
 
MasterCornholio said:
True but Disney didn't ask Microsoft to do this. It was the other way around and they came to an agreement. Regardless there was a version that was planned and due to Microsoft it was cancelled. That's how it went. Not the same thing as MLB or Spiderman if that's what you believe.
Click to expand...

No I'm not saying this is the same as the Spider Man scenario, just that Disney is the IP holder and this wouldn't have happened without their go. MLB is the closer example, without MLB's intervention, that game would also still be PS exclusive.
 
adamsapple said:
No I'm not saying this is the same as the Spider Man scenario, just that Disney is the IP holder and this wouldn't have happened without their go. MLB is the closer example, without MLB's intervention, that game would also still be PS exclusive.
Click to expand...
I thought you were leaving about 20 minutes ago?
 
adamsapple said:
No I'm not saying this is the same as the Spider Man scenario, just that Disney is the IP holder and this wouldn't have happened without their go. MLB is the closer example, without MLB's intervention, that game would also still be PS exclusive.
Click to expand...

Oh but still believe that drop the act it's not the same as Spiderman.

Jeez learn to read.

:p

Just kidding but yes Microsoft made the move to cancel the PS5 version and they could do it with the previous contract. So they made a new one with Disney that drops the PS5 version in exchange for some money.

I disagree with feynoob feynoob saying it's the same as MLB and Marvel.
 
Darsxx82 said:
The owner of the IP sets the rules, yes... and can also dedicate himself to just choosing between several proposals. The proposal of having an Indiana Jones game with a lot more budget and production values may be perfectly sufficient. Going out on PS5, sorry, does not assure you to sell millions more and that the game is a success.
Click to expand...

No it won't, because to do that they would be defining the value of their IP as being less significant than the licensee's ability to exploit it effectively.

The presumption would always be that this team, working to this budget and this timescale is going to deliver a high-quality product on these platforms. Why would they partner with anyone that would be so careless as to tarnish their very valuable IP?

They are the ones doing the favours here! Doubly so when their erstwhile partner is the one flip-flopping in order to better serve their own interests!
 
Last edited:
DeepEnigma said:
So no more "moneyhats™" Just a deal between two parties?

You sound like a "Sony Pony" defending such accusations. I wonder why that is?
Click to expand...

The moneyhat is implied with the renegotiation. But things like that or the promise of exclusive development don't stop the IP holder, see MLB. They *made* Sony make an Xbox and Switch version despite the franchise being pretty successful as an exclusive.
 
Foilz said:
Well to be fair epic really doesn't release many games. The only AAA games they've really released were gears, the unreal games and Fortnite. Everything else were mobile games or shadow complex. So technically they were kinda small and Indieish
Click to expand...

This would be like arguing that Guerrilla Games is "kinda small and indieish" because they only release one game every 4-5 years. I'm other words, ludicrous.

You cannot disentangle Epic Games from Unreal Engine. They are one and the same. You cannot argue Epic Games is some small "indieish" company when they are the de facto standard for engines, have basically created an entire subset of gaming via Fortnite, and are out here moneyhatting games away from Steam.

Anyone who calls Epic Games an indie developer deserves the laughter they have directed toward them.
 
Dick Jones said:
Okay.
Activision had the rights to Spider-Man.
Marvel were unhappy with Activision's shit Spider-Man games.
Marvel got the rights off Activision and Bobby Kotick told them to find their "unicorn" (dev who can make a better Spider-Man game)
Marvel went to Xbox to make an exclusive Marvel game and Xbox said no.
Marvel then went to Sony and offered any Marvel IP and Sony asked Insomniac.
Insomniac asked for Spider-Man and got it.

Now if Sony owned the gaming rights, then why did Marvel look to take the Spider-Man property off Activision? Sony would own the rights and Marvel fuck all. Sony would be looking for the IP back.

Sony only owns the movie rights.
Click to expand...

So... Disney then now pays royalties to Sony for a series based on a video game Sony pays royalties to Disney for...

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