Bojanglez
The Amiga Brotherhood
Too late Microsoft already got hold of her familycmon sony bribe the judge (with help from yakuza)
Microsoft / Activision Deal Approval Watch |OT| (MS/ABK close)
- Status
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
Who is shouting? The FTC is trying to block the acquisition. The CMA has already blocked the acquisition.
The CMA, in particular, was extremely graceful in how they dealt with everything -- especially in the face of Brad Smith's childish rants and hissy fits.
poppabk
Cheeks Spread for Digital Only Future
Same reason that this was the first we have really heard about the CoD revenue splits. Generally you don't want someone you are going to negotiate with to know the details of contracts that you have signed with competitors. You don't think Take 2 aren't doing the math on GTA6 revenue splits right now.
Topher
Identifies as young
Not the same thing at all. We are not talking about revenue splits. Revenue splits are not common, "generic" items in a contract.
poppabk
Cheeks Spread for Digital Only Future
I don't recall MS fighting to not have this specific clause disclosed?
Last edited:
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
Here you go
[Link: https://media.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2...ZfYnlfaWQmY3Q9Zw/BAcRTiSmUp2JJqjgNX/giphy.gif] 
cc:
GHG
,
Topher
,
DeepEnigma
,
Banjo64
- I reckon you guys will need it very soon 
GHG
Member
The fact that it's only for COD will also contribute to Jim/Sony's reluctance to agree to anything with them, especially if them agreeing puts Microsoft in a more favourable position with regulators.
Topher
Identifies as young
If everything was done in good faith probably wouldn't need to be in court
Last edited:
Dick Jones
Banned
If Microsoft had a track record of good faith then I'm sure they would probably get it with less pushback. Its just in their DNA to "embrace, extend, and extinguish"
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Fought against what ? Phil, in court, already said that the CoD games will continue to release on PS5 *and* future PS consoles.
splattered
Member
But Jim Ryan says this isn't an exclusivity play, and that COD would remain on PS regardless... I honestly think that Sony is more worried about Microsoft being directly associated with these franchises while being played on an Xbox or PlayStation than even not getting them himself anymore at all. He is more worried about Microsoft gaining positive brand image from these titles than he is whether his own fan base gets to play them or not. In my opinion this sort of falls in line with their reaching out to all AAA pubs trying to secure every deal they could to keep Xbox out of the game before the launch of this generation. Square, Bethesda, Activision. Trying to lock out any big games they could from Xbox period. I mean we heard it straight from MS in this hearing ultimately that's WHY they went in and bought Bethesda. What choice does MS have if Sony is going to leverage their market position to extinguish Xbox from having attractive 3rd party game options for their playerbase? Two to three times the normal cost just for a 6 month to one year exclusivity contract? Really puts MS in a tough spot.
Pelta88
Member
There are two key instances which to me, signals that the judge has already made up her mind up.
1. Asking Phil if he's willing to go under oath that he's committing to keep COD on PS. That was really strange. She let him have the floor to make that pledge like some type of boy scout. But when the FTC lawyer asked him to make the same under oath about cloud, she told him to move on.
2. The second is her interruptions about breaks when Microsoft seems stuck in questioning.
FTC lawyers are far from incompetent. They're actually pretty astute. Microsoft hurdle remains the CMA and Activision's renegotiation clause + Fees
1. Asking Phil if he's willing to go under oath that he's committing to keep COD on PS. That was really strange. She let him have the floor to make that pledge like some type of boy scout. But when the FTC lawyer asked him to make the same under oath about cloud, she told him to move on.
2. The second is her interruptions about breaks when Microsoft seems stuck in questioning.
FTC lawyers are far from incompetent. They're actually pretty astute. Microsoft hurdle remains the CMA and Activision's renegotiation clause + Fees
Topher
Identifies as young
Thirty7ven
Banned
Major Nelson touching base with ree minions
You can't write this shit
You can't write this shit
Ar¢tos
Member
I only sign contracts that give the other party unilateral unlimited power, it's like, super normal, isn't it?!?Has nothing to do with the "generic" contract terms at all.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
GHG
Member
Honestly what else did you expect him to say to his employee's to reassure them?
That was also after very early conversations with Microsoft, before any contracts or durations were discussed. If Phil gave him the "our goal is to keep it on Playstation for as long as playstation exists" spiel, only to then say "haha 3 years bitch" at a later date then do you think his stance would remain the same as it was in that initial email addressed to his employees?
It's important to take the timeline of events into account when looking at all of this. For example Jim said the following long after that email he sent to his employees:
"I hadn't intended to comment on what I understood to be a private business discussion, but I feel the need to set the record straight because Phil Spencer brought this into the public forum,"
"Microsoft has only offered for Call of Duty to remain on PlayStation for three years after the current agreement between Activision and Sony ends. After almost 20 years of Call of Duty on PlayStation, their proposal was inadequate on many levels and failed to take account of the impact on our gamers. We want to guarantee PlayStation gamers continue to have the highest quality Call of Duty experience, and Microsoft's proposal undermines this principle."
PlayStation: Xbox's Call of Duty offer was "inadequate on many levels"
PlayStation calls Xbox Call of Duty offer inadequate
www.gamesindustry.biz
The first and most important thing to understand is that he doesn't want the deal to go through at all, therefore he doesn't want to sign any deals regardless. And secondly, what Microsoft say publically vs what they say/offer behind the scenes are two very different things, that much has become very clear the longer the regulatory process for this acquisition has dragged on.
--------
And to address the rest of your post, Microsoft put themselves in a tough spot by attempting to leverage the success they had during the 360 generation with the most anti-consumer proposition the console gaming industry had seen to date. Sony and Nintendo have also done things that have put themselves in difficult positions (PS3 and Wii U respectively) and have both managed to course correct (and come back stronger since) without needing to spend near $100 billion buying out 3rd party industry property. They both managed to come back through turning to their first party studios and making them go into overdrive. With the PS3 Sony also had to contend with a ruthless Xbox team who were doing exactly the same things that Phil incessantly moans about today.
So if Phil and Co felt like that was the only way to drag xbox back up out of the mud then it says more about them than it does their competitors.
Last edited:
Ansphn
Member
Even if Microsoft used the judge family employment and bundled of money to pay them off, the CMA and CAT has to be paying attention closely. I'm sure they won't let an American mega corporation brute force their countries government body like Microsoft is doing to America. People are not understanding the ramifications if this deal goes through, the big corporations are all going to move in. Tencent will use this exact same strategy and so will Apple , Amazon and the Saudi princes.
Last edited:
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
For the umpteenth time, it was disclosed beforehand and the lawyers could/should have requested a different judge if they felt it would be a conflict of interest.
Gone
Banned
Do I think that I'm smarter than a lawyer that uses putting Nintendo at a third row in a paper about weekly sales as an argument? Yes, I do.
poppabk
Cheeks Spread for Digital Only Future
Also the judge is a woman.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
There are two key instances which to me, signals that the judge has already made up her mind up.
1. Asking Phil if he's willing to go under oath that he's committing to keep COD on PS. That was really strange. She let him have the floor to make that pledge like some type of boy scout. But when the FTC lawyer asked him to make the same under oath about cloud, she told him to move on.
2. The second is her interruptions about breaks when Microsoft seems stuck in questioning.
FTC lawyers are far from incompetent. They're actually pretty astute. Microsoft hurdle remains the CMA and Activision's renegotiation clause + Fees
Last edited:
Thirty7ven
Banned
Why would the judge protect MS and Phil Spencer there? I keep wondering.
poppabk
Cheeks Spread for Digital Only Future
Im guessing that cloud isn't a consideration either because of the way the FTC presented their case or because the judge knows that no-one gives a shit about CoD on cloud.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
And that lawyer segment was them repeatedly asking Phil if he will keep different games on PS, the judge also stopped an earlier line of questioning with "Your point has been made, move along."
No, we didn't. Would have been good fun if he was also present live.
Last edited:
Calverz
Member
Is there a session today? Where he features?
jm89
Member
I think there is still opportunity to delve into cloud.
I listened in a bit when the FTC lawyer asked about cod on cloud and he seemed to be a bit agressive, and it was nearing the end so wouldn't surprise me if patience was running thin for everybody.
I mean trying get a straight answer out of Phil is a teeth pulling exercise.
I listened in a bit when the FTC lawyer asked about cod on cloud and he seemed to be a bit agressive, and it was nearing the end so wouldn't surprise me if patience was running thin for everybody.
I mean trying get a straight answer out of Phil is a teeth pulling exercise.
Last edited:
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Resumes on Tuesday. I'm not sure if that Jim deposition will be public or not, sorry.
Last edited:
GHG
Member
It's the weekend dude, relax.
Topher
Identifies as young
Last edited:
dotnotbot
Member
Ignorance is a hell of a drug. Just go and become a lawyer if you think you're so sharp and see how that goes.
Last edited:
MasterCornholio
Member
Quick question. Don't you have to pass a test to become a lawyer in the US?
I think it's called a BAR or something like that.
DeadOblivion78
Banned
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
More apathetic handwaving. Which is precisely why there is regulation.
And this has nothing to do with "capitalism." All forms of systems suffer from human tendencies.
Last edited:
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
GHG
Member
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
GHG
Member
It's always funny when these gimps attempt to preface something with futile attempts at impartiality.
Fat Frog
I advertised for Google Stadia
Last edited:
GHG
Member
What did Phil smell like?
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Reminds me of the actors CNN would bring on in political voting season.
Desperation.
Last edited:
James Sawyer Ford
Banned
Question - Why wouldn't the judge approve an injunction?
The FTC laid out a case of clear contradictory statements to the public vs. what they actually enacted months later after prior acquisitions. They have a clear intent to foreclose properties from consoles or cloud, in fact, that's exactly what they've done for ALL aquisitions barring ones that have contractual agreements not to.
I just don't see what legal harm there would be in granting an injunction.
The FTC laid out a case of clear contradictory statements to the public vs. what they actually enacted months later after prior acquisitions. They have a clear intent to foreclose properties from consoles or cloud, in fact, that's exactly what they've done for ALL aquisitions barring ones that have contractual agreements not to.
I just don't see what legal harm there would be in granting an injunction.
MasterCornholio
Member
Have the FTC asked about the SEC filing and their appeal with the CMA?
Seems like a pretty obvious question to ask to be honest.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked