Support NeoGAF

[adamsapple]

In the CMA's updated PF, they dismissed console SLC concerns and one of the sections they specified pertained to partial foreclosure. Basically, saying that partial foreclosure of COD content on PS would not cause a significant shift in audiences from one platform to the other.

Whether people agree with that or not is up for debate, but that's what the CMA decided. The EC shared similar opinions, AFAIK. I don't have links to the actual parts of the CMA's updated PF though, hopefully someone else does.

They would be dumb to do that and incur litigation and more heavy fines and massive public PR headache.

 

[ChiefDada]

I get you. Being an M&A consultant you for sure know more than me on that front and I'll defer to your expertise. Before the FTC can win an appeal they have to decide if they're going to push it that far. Do you think they will go for an appeal between now and Friday?

For me, when you own a PC, PS5, and an Xbox... it comes less of a console warrior deal and more of the best of all worlds (Well, most, since I don't own a Switch). I really do like Gamepass. It's a fucking meme around here, but if you intend to play or even try the games on it, then that value in unmatched. I like options. PC is just PC. With Sony, they are unrivaled in their Singleplayer, first party offerings. I love them for that. I just can't see myself hugging just one plastic box and saying these companies care about me. You might prefer Sony's approach to the gaming industry, but what Microsoft is trying to accomplish in one bite, Sony has also tried to accomplish in smaller portions. To me, it's two different dynamics vying for the same end.

I work primarily with smaller private companies (~$5m- $500m) and primarily tax advisory (CPA), but often work tangentially with lawyers. I do think they file on the grounds of misapplication of legal standards going back to the judge's choice of words in her decision vs what the law actually requires. Bloomberg and others are currently reporting the FTC leaning towards this . I literally talked about this last week (see below). I guarantee you this is what the FTC will use to argue in their appeal. Winning an appeal because of "error of law" (strong imo, Judge language contradictory to applicable standards) vs winning an appeal on the grounds of having a competent/convincing argument are two different things (imo no, FTC did not do a good job).

Because the regulation the FTC is accusing Microsoft of violating centers around the possibility of substantially lessened competition.

Not a perfect example but close enough: Imagine if I'm a state attorney and I charged someone with illegally possessing a nuclear bomb. I specifically cite the state laws as my basis for the charges which specifically states that possession of a nuclear bomb is against the law. If I go into trial and build my entire case on why this guy having a nuclear bomb is bad for the rest of society, technically/legally, I should not win that case because I did nothing to prove that the accused was in possession of a nuclear bomb. Virtually everyone understands why it's not good for someone to be in possession of a nuclear bomb. Similarly, the judge would be viewed as a weirdo for telling the state to focus more on how/why this is bad for society.

Going back to FTC v. Microsoft - The antitrust regulations, specifically Section 7 of the Clayton Act, states that mergers that might substantially lessen competition is illegal. Period. It doesn't matter whether or not you agree, every business must abide by these laws and the judiciary must enforce these laws. That is the baseline, which effectively means that everyone should be in agreement that lessened competition is bad for consumers. This is the regulation the FTC accused Microsoft of violating and cited to support their case That is why FTC was appropriate in mentioning all the ways Sony's ability to compete could be reduced if the deal goes through was wholly appropriate and highly relevant.

 

[Jigsaah]

Sorry but we are talking about the biggest publisher here. He is right. If MS takes ea they will have 4 of top10 franchises nowadays(new fifa, cod, minecraft and apex) and even bf on their hands almost all relevant fps, rpgs on their portfolio. It is over if that happens.

Sony will need at least a partnership with someone with cash on hands to stay relevant.

I think If Microsoft goes for EA, they are gonna have more lawsuits on their hands. I can't see them winning those.

Sony, on the other hand can use this precedent to now freely go after Square, maybe even Take Two.

 

[Mobilemofo]

Ok. So,.now Microsoft.only has to leverage the ip's they have got.

No problem...

 

[Historia]

First of all to the bolded, stop using the word "monopoly" to describe Sony. Consumers can buy other consoles, they just prefer Playstation. That is not a monopoly and you and others really need to stop that bullshit. I get second hand embarrassment every time I read it.

Second, and to the main points, Regulators have no clue how this industry works and what they have just allowed. Microsoft will keep going - and according to legal precedent, it is not foolish to think that there will be no scrutiny since the highest of the highs has been allowed for them. I wasn't really referring to Sony buying any pubs, though I think they may and even Sony will have an easy time, but they don't have near unlimited funds like Microsoft.

Also, per the regulators poor understanding of the industry, in the event of some unlikely scrutiny, who's to say that Microsoft won't pull the "poor us, we suck" dance in court to justify buying up the next largest publisher after ABK?

I bet you a billion if they bomb ABK or COD lose relevancy in the next 5 years they pull the exact same shit and demand to buy EA.

Give them an inch, these mofo pull ten feet. They will not stop until they are the only one in the competition.

 

[freefornow]

Tweet from FTC Public Affairs Director. It ain't over yet boys.



Here's to another 1,385 pages of silliness/

FTC should know better.

From the judgement:

""Because § 7 of the Clayton Act bars mergers whose effect 'may be substantially to lessen competition, or to tend to create a monopoly,' 15 U.S.C. § 18, judicial analysis necessarily focuses on 'probabilities, not certainties.

"Thus, "t is well established that a section 7 violation is proven upon a showing of reasonable probability of anticompetitive effect." Warner, 742 F.2d at 1160."

Judge Cordley use of "probably" throughout the ruling is consistent with the above.

"Thus, to establish a likelihood of success on its ability and incentive foreclosure theory, the FTC must show the combined firm (1) has the ability to withhold Call of Duty, (2) has the incentive to withhold Call of Duty from its rivals, and (3) competition would probably be substantially lessened as a result of the withholding.

No appeal on those grounds.

Also, separate from above, Judge was not impressed with Professor Lee's testimony at all!

 

[Syphon Filter]

when is it 100 percent official? im hearing there is still something left.

 

[Sanepar]

I think If Microsoft goes for EA, they are gonna have more lawsuits on their hands. I can't see them winning those.

Sony, on the other hand can use this precedent to now freely go after Square, maybe even Take Two.

After we saw on this trial? US would allow they do anything. EU regulators are a joke. Imo is just a matter of time to have a better cash on hands scenario(2-3 years max).

Imagine going next gen with Cod and new Fifa exclusive.

 

[adamsapple]

when is it 100 percent official? im hearing there is still something left.

We can't say, they can close in the US and once the CMA and MS are able to agree on terms, in the UK too. EU has already approved, China has already approved. Japan has already approved.

So they don't have any roadblocks elsewhere.

 

[Jigsaah]

when is it 100 percent official? im hearing there is still something left.

So CMA and Microsoft are in talks to do some "small divestiture" to satisfy the CMA's concerns and close the deal.

When they first announced the verdict, I said welp they still gotta get through the CMA.

Then the CMA folded like a pancake.

So it'll probably be by the July 18th deadline. So within a week?

 

[kvltus lvlzvs]

I work primarily with smaller private companies (~$5m- $500m) and primarily tax advisory (CPA), but often work tangentially with lawyers. I do think they file on the grounds of misapplication of legal standards going back to the judge's choice of words in her decision vs what the law actually requires. Bloomberg and others are currently reporting the FTC leaning towards this . I literally talked about this last week (see below). I guarantee you this is what the FTC will use to argue in their appeal. Winning an appeal because of "error of law" (strong imo, Judge language contradictory to applicable standards) vs winning an appeal on the grounds of having a competent/convincing argument are two different things (imo no, FTC did not do a good job).

This is a very good post

 

[Jigsaah]

After we saw on this trial? US would allow they do anything. EU regulators are a joke. Imo is just a matter of time to have a better cash on hands scenario(2-3 years max).

Imagine going next gen with Cod and new Fifa exclusive.

I dunno I think there's a limit and a cooldown period. If they announced on July 18th, for an exxtreme example, that they are buying EA, it's gonna raise some eyebrows.

 

[adamsapple]

Snippets from the judge's ruling file. She did not find FTC's reliance on Ryan's testimony compelling.

 

[Mobilemofo]

People have gotten into deep shit for that kind of thing. This isn't fantasy.

Were closer to the demolition man style of living. Pray we don't facilitate the "3 shells" bathroom technique.

 

[Three]

"Thus, to establish a likelihood of success on its ability and incentive foreclosure theory, the FTC must show the combined firm (1) has the ability to withhold Call of Duty, (2) has the incentive to withhold Call of Duty from its rivals, and (3) competition would probably be substantially lessened as a result of the withholding.

No appeal on those grounds.

MS' internal data and emails showed the probability and ability to withhold CoD. They ran those numbers internally. People from MS ran the numbers for CoD foreclosure and said the numbers looked good. I'm not sure what more the Judge wanted to show the 'probability'.

 

[Venom Snake]

this is not a strong enough argument to go against Microsoft because Sony can always try to be better, like if Sony is competent enough then no way Microsoft can eradicate them from the market, no matter how desperately MS wants it to be. I think it is fair to say that the showcase deemed garbage by most presents Sony's complacency. This acquisition being closed will be another slap in the face to get Sony back to reality

A reality in which they are deprived of access to a large portion of the market? If "competence" is all it takes to maintain the status of a leader or at least a big player in the space, then why is MS buying 3P publishers like crazy? Can't they just be more "competent"?

 

[poppabk]

FTC should know better.

From the judgement:

""Because § 7 of the Clayton Act bars mergers whose effect 'may be substantially to lessen competition, or to tend to create a monopoly,' 15 U.S.C. § 18, judicial analysis necessarily focuses on 'probabilities, not certainties.

"Thus, "t is well established that a section 7 violation is proven upon a showing of reasonable probability of anticompetitive effect." Warner, 742 F.2d at 1160."

Judge Cordley use of "probably" throughout the ruling is consistent with the above.

"Thus, to establish a likelihood of success on its ability and incentive foreclosure theory, the FTC must show the combined firm (1) has the ability to withhold Call of Duty, (2) has the incentive to withhold Call of Duty from its rivals, and (3) competition would probably be substantially lessened as a result of the withholding.

No appeal on those grounds.

Also, separate from above, Judge was not impressed with Professor Lee's testimony at all!

Yeah the 'may be substantially to lessen competition' requires a prediction or a probability.

 

[Varteras]

I think you have a decent point. But you also have red dead, while not near as big, is no slouch either.

Oh I don't disagree. I just feel there is a bigger risk with those two than CoD. I'm sure RDR sells well, but I honestly don't believe it's anywhere near those two. Off the top of my head, which is a bit fuzzy right now, I don't even know that it would sell as well as Sony games if it was on one platform. That being said, I'd hope Sony kept existing franchises on Xbox. GTA has too much of a following to do that to people.

 

[Chiggs]

Snippets from the judge's ruling file. She did not find FTC's reliance on Ryan's testimony compelling.

Twitter Legal Experts: The judge is clearly an idiot who doesn't understand the nuance and spirit of the legendary 1954 Morris/Patten Act which states that any commercial entity looking to acquire a similarly large commercial entity needs to establish a set of pro-consumer mandates which govern and safeguard the...

Everyone else:

 

[StreetsofBeige]

Snippets from the judge's ruling file. She did not find FTC's reliance on Ryan's testimony compelling.

Yup.

Exactly what I said earlier in a post maybe an hour ago. Lots of winners in this deal including Nintendo gamers. And all the cloud stuff MS is pushing as they seem like the only company even caring about cloud gaming. Only potential loser are Sony gamers if and when MS cuts the cord on COD. And that is something nobody knows, except there is still a two year marketing deal currently under contract.

People dont understand when there's analysis on winners and losers, it doesn't mean 100% of people have to be winners. It's the collective whole.

 

[Kuwitzzer]

A reality in which they are deprived of access to a large portion of the market? If "competence" is all it takes to maintain the status of a leader or at least a big player in the space, then why is MS buying 3P publishers like crazy? Can't they just be more "competent"?

Then try to create your own games then? Maybe trip down the graphics so your studios can produce more games more consistently, maybe be innovative with hardware, I do not know but it is not the end of the world for Sony. MS is clearly not competent enough to create something by their own so they need to buy stuff.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

Then try to create your own games then? Maybe trip down the graphics so your studios can produce more games more consistently, maybe be innovative with hardware, I do not know but it is not the end of the world for Sony. MS is clearly not competent enough to create something by their own so they need to buy stuff.

Sony made shitloads of shooters during the PS3 era. Some good, some bad. Their problem was oversaturation. They made more shooters franchises than MS, EA and Activision combined. No wonder they never had one giant shooter franchise to deviate from the pack.

They just needed to focus on 1 or 2. They quit at the wrong time too, since when gamers were amping up on digital and mtx, they bailed from the shooter market right when GAAS picked up steam on console. Their fault nobody else's. Every other company still churned out their shooters.

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

"Thus, to establish a likelihood of success on its ability and incentive foreclosure theory, the FTC must show the combined firm (1) has the ability to withhold Call of Duty, (2) has the incentive to withhold Call of Duty from its rivals, and (3) competition would probably be substantially lessened as a result of the withholding.

No appeal on those grounds.

Also, separate from above, Judge was not impressed with Professor Lee's testimony at all!

(1) has the ability to withhold Call of Duty
Yes. Microsoft is more than capable of making Call of Duty exclusive, either directly, or indirectly through GamePass subsidy.

(2) has the incentive to withhold Call of Duty from its rivals
Yes. Microsoft has the incentive to withhold Call of Duty from it's rivals. "They can spend Sony out of business". That's a long-term strategy that they undoubtedly would love to see, and they have more than capable financial means of doing so as long as the regulators play softball. Making Bethesda games exclusive is also extremely financially unsound from a P/L standpoint, given Playstation is one of their primary consumer bases, and yet they managed to do it anyway.

(3) competition would probably be substantially lessened as a result of the withholding.
Yes. Foreclosing on CoD from Playstation, either directly or indirectly through GamePass, would lessen competition because it has a seismic shift to competing third parties in the marketplace that now not only have to compete against the #1 title every year with Call of Duty, but must do so in a way where they are at significant pricing disadvantage.

So, the reasoning is all sound that the Activision aquisition is anti-competition and bad for the consumers over the long-term. Making statements under oath that cannot be held-long term since the individuals making them will be long gone is not sufficient when you have an absolute MOUNTAIN of evidence showing a consistent behavior of foreclosure, desire to foreclose, and a desire to eliminate their primary competition from the marketplace through aggressive financial means their competitors have no ability to match.

 

[VideoGameEnjoyer]

Yup.

Exactly what I said earlier in a post maybe an hour ago. Lots of winners in this deal including Nintendo gamers. And all the cloud stuff MS is pushing as they seem like the only company even caring about cloud gaming. Only potential loser are Sony gamers if and when MS cuts the cord on COD. And that is something nobody knows, except there is still a two year marketing deal currently under contract.

People dont understand when there's analysis on winners and losers, it doesn't mean 100% of people have to be winners. It's the collective whole.

What if the last decade of output from Xbox first party has you extremely hesitant on anything they will be working on going forward?

All this winners and losers talk is corporation related. Are we saying Phil Spencer won, and Jim Ryan lost? Who cares? For us plebs, just give us high quality games, that's how we win. A possible discount or a game coming to subscription service doesn't matter. Is the game GOOD? Dismissing concerns about the hands these IP's are falling into is just ignoring the last decade of reality.

 

[Three]

Yup.

Exactly what I said earlier in a post maybe an hour ago. Lots of winners in this deal including Nintendo gamers. And all the cloud stuff MS is pushing as they seem like the only company even caring about cloud gaming. Only potential loser are Sony gamers if and when MS cuts the cord on COD. And that is something nobody knows, except there is still a two year marketing deal currently under contract.

People dont understand when there's analysis on winners and losers, it doesn't mean 100% of people have to be winners. It's the collective whole.

Except the winners are those who even MS are arguing aren't interested "due to latency," and CoD switch owners who nobody can even show the audience for. There are far more losers in this than winners and the winner would be solely MS. The "wins" are anecdotal ammo at best that would have happened regardless with the free market, the loss is obvious and bigger.

 

[Vognerful]

Snippets from the judge's ruling file. She did not find FTC's reliance on Ryan's testimony compelling.

but did she read the emails?

 

[Ginzeen]

cant believe the CMA is back to the table with MS. They could of played hard ball and forced them to the CAT. CMA was always the final defense for people against this merger. Now its looks like the CMA and MS will settle things.

 

[Venom Snake]

Then try to create your own games then? Maybe trip down the graphics so your studios can produce more games more consistently, maybe be innovative with hardware, I do not know but it is not the end of the world for Sony. MS is clearly not competent enough to create something by their own so they need to buy stuff.

I understand what you're getting at, but there's a nuance here: Sony also needs 3P to do what you're talking about. Without this, it will be alot more difficult for them to meet these expectations. What i fear is that the only way to regain some portion of this pie will be further acquisitions and thus - more of us getting screwed.

 

[Jumeira]

FTC appeal isn't going anywhere, Judges decision has built-in protections from any challenge against the decision.

Another L for them. Bad day for Sony, great day for the gaming industry. Reducing Sony dominance is a good for everyone.

 

[Varteras]

Microsoft, I have but one request. That hands off thing you do, yeah, stop doing that with every company BUT Blizzard. Either leave them the fuck alone, or root out the Activision taint that caused them to abandon anything that wasn't making the same money as Diablo or WoW. You know, other super fun games like StarCraft or Heroes.

 

[Chiggs]

Microsoft, I have but one request. That hands off thing you do, yeah, stop doing that with every company BUT Blizzard. Either leave them the fuck alone, or root out the Activision taint that caused them to abandon anything that wasn't making the same money as Diablo or WoW. You know, other super fun games like StarCraft or Heroes.

Can we also get a new Hexen game?

 

[Varteras]

Can we also get a new Hexen game?

Yeah! Oh! And some cake!

 

[Clintizzle]

 

[Kuwitzzer]

I understand what you're getting at, but there's a nuance here: Sony also needs 3P to do what you're talking about. Without this, it will be alot more difficult for them to meet these expectations. What i fear is that the only way to regain some portion of this pie will be further acquisitions and thus - more of us getting screwed.

Yes Sony needs 3P, and from what we can see, even if MS wants to acquire every single publisher in this entire planet, it will take time, a lot of time actually. While MS is busy buying 1 by 1, Sony can strategize in how to live with little 3rd party support. What about funding games from new studios? Absolutely! After all, that's what these publishers are doing anyway.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

At worst, it's a misunderstanding and a pointless one. The first console manufacturer to come out with $70 price point was SONY. Who cares about the publishers in the scope of this point?

Because platform holders who want to retain optimal relationships with publishers will try to create environments that are suitable for those 3P publishers. Sony values EA & ABK as 3P partners. They wouldn't want them to appear like they're being left out on their own with a bad choice, even if it was financially sound (to their numbers). As a publisher themselves, Sony were also interested in increasing their own profit margins.

Hence the decision to go with $70 games. And yes we can say Microsoft kept 3P considerations of the time in mind themselves with XBO's original DRM plans, but they messed up in way too many other areas to carry that off without backlash by everyone at large. The only people who seemed to have an issue with Sony doing $70 games were "journalists" who are already in MS's pocket one way or another, and diehard Xbox fans who wanted to use it as ammunition against PlayStation.

Oh my bad, you're right. 2 years then. Is it excusable that they skipped a year? Is it enough to simply have State of Plays given what we know Sony has done in the past? 2021's showcase was 42 minutes, barely 12 minutes over what a typical State of Play. Tell me as someone who loves what Sony does, that's good enough for you? It's not good enough for me, sorry. I gave this year's showcase a C...much better than most. Check the thread, review the poll if you wish. I'm saying the new format is trash and has been since 2020. If I had a dollar for everytime I've said something to the effect of "I miss Sony's Showmanship" I'd have a couple of happy meals right now. It's gone...it's no longer personable and I refuse to make excuses for it. Moving on.

No I agree, not having a showcase in 2022 was a mistake on Sony's part. Have said this a few times in the past. And the May showcase was nowhere near enough to make up for that skipped year.

Personally I am not too miffed about the 2021 PS Showcase being 40-so minutes. It's the quality that matters, and that showcase was much better than the much longer one we just had in May. It was also better (IMO) than Xbox's recent showcase, which was about an hour. And I also didn't have an issue with the 2021 Showcase because they had good-to-great State of Play events that same year.

The new format was born somewhat out of necessity, and by extension the events from practically all the big players since 2020 have been disappointing. We aren't getting those epic E3-style presentations back because E3 is dead, people let media influencers and journalists sell them on the idea we don't need E3 anymore, let the big companies sell them on the idea we don't need an E3, and made fun of E3 trying to come back after COVID lockdowns. All so we could get a Summer Games Fest that has to cipher reveals from other certain platform showcases to have a big reveal of its own, and with organizers who still seem disinterested in trying to make it at least something comparable to a digital E3 so it can be better.

The games media? Fuck the media. I'm talking people who matter. People like you, people like me. Final Fantasy...I mean you're going in a whole other direction but sure I'll address it. Final Fantasy is a great game, but it's not Sony's game. For what it's worth I hope it does well. Hell I made an entire thread consider selling my consoles just to get the PS5 for that game. You were fuckin there dude.

The media matters so far that they have the platforms that drive a lot of the discourse online. It's sad, because they suck at being respectable and professional about their job, and a lot of the media actively manufacture & engage in console warring for clicks and views...but we can't pretend they don't exist. Final Fantasy may not be Sony's game, but why does it need to be "owned" by Sony for them to provide it with support like it's a 1P title? Shouldn't them willing to do that for content and creators they don't outright own, be respected in a market where more people seem to think complete ownership is the only option in order to have any unique say in the content that gets made?

VR? Eh don't really care honestly. I don't even know how it's doing. As a consumer I'm not really interested. Here's what I'm saying. The players defend Sony at every turn even though they are getting less than what they used to from them. Sure they may deliver on AAA games and if that's all that matters to you, then I guess you're happy.

Sure, maybe some people in the PS community are doing what you describe, but I can tell you a lot others are not. I've seen more than a few people voice displeasure at a lot of Sony's initiatives the past year or so, and I've been increasingly vocal, myself. Just like how I am with Microsoft and Xbox, and even Nintendo. Because ideally I would like to see all three doing well, but I can't blindly say I want that when certain ones are doing some of the shadiest stuff in a vow of "competition".

I guess from this, you are saying Sony should be doing more 1P AA games? Well, I've been saying that as well! So we can agree there.

What I'm seeing is a step back from traditional showmanship, an audacity to raise prices (Microsoft now doing it too, to be fair, which I also hate), things like upgrading games still meaning folks have to rebuy games, lack of any real communication with the fans outside of this joke of a show this year. You could be fine with this...I've always disliked the format change. There's plenty of improvements Sony could be making and year after year they just, don't. They got the games, but if you think that's all that makes a great platform then I don't even know why I'm responding to this. This is the definition of resting on your laurels. If you think Sony doesn't have to respond, then why aren't you just putting a laugh emoji next to my first post on this topic, calling me a fool and calling it a day.

Here's the thing: I'm not necessarily in support of many of the things you just mentioned. However, I understand the market realities, the specific corporate realities WRT Sony, the audience realities when other platform holders like Nintendo have been doing some of these same things for even longer and get no pushback (well, real pushback) for it, and accept that those are all working concurrently. I accept that Sony have made certain decisions and I can tolerate them, even if I don't personally like them.

And again, with things like the lackluster showcase this year, I agree with you, Sony have to do better there. I think they need to do better in general with talking with the community, and while Microsoft are egregious with it to the point of forming para-social relationships and enabling some of the worst toxicity in gaming...they do communicate with their audience in a way at least on some level, Sony should probably be doing. And, they did in the past, with stuff like PlayStation Experience, but they've since stopped.

Sony need to rectify that, maybe they should also start up a weekly podcast and even get some legit PS figures in the community like Mystic as one of the hosts, answer viewer questions and stuff like that. FWIW I think Sony are doing a good job with the competitive tournaments that are community-centric, but some stuff outside the competitive gaming space would probably be good, too. And hell, maybe also partner with PlayStation fan websites and podcast, etc.

Bring Kevin Butler back while at it, he can be the public-facing community mascot. I loved those ads with them in the PS3 gen.

No, that would also be resting on their laurels. I mean I've already brainstormed who Sony could buy, in this very thread. So no, you're wrong about me.

Fair enough.

I've been okay with Sony or Microsoft buying studios. I specifically did not want THIS acquisition to go through. This was a step too far and disrupts the industry in a way that essentially sparks an arms war. One that if Microsoft wants, they could win handily.

Can agree with this, and that has also been a concern of mine. Additional concerns being, it sets up a blueprint for other companies with way smaller shares in gaming than Microsoft (but potentially just as big or even bigger than them) to buy up big 3P publishers and use MS's blueprint for a path to (lesser) resistance.

I'm searching for some semblance of an ebb and flow. Some kind of balance if you will. I want Sony and Microsoft going blow for blow, not one blowing out the other until they destroy one another.

In theory I understand what you mean but in practice this is not actually competition. Sometimes the result of genuine competition is one of the competitors gets blown out by their opponent. That's what has been happening to Microsoft for several years now, and I don't think Sony should 'dumb down' their competitive approach just so companies like Microsoft can appear like they're more competitive.

But, it's okay, Sony won't have to. Certain regulators and judges are dumbed down enough about the gaming market to let companies like Microsoft buy their way to being "competitive", instead :/

I think this scenario would best in the end for consumers like myself. That's why I felt Matt Booty's email was dangerous. That why seeing the unredacted list of studios Microsoft was looking at is daunting. I hoped that if the deal fell through that it would be reason to give Microsoft some pause. The whole ordeal still might, we'll have to see.

Well, I don't necessarily think Microsoft have any further roadblocks left to cross for this deal, TBH. Maybe they miss closing by the 18th by a hair, but given recent developments, I doubt ABK's board & shareholders will want to poison the well asking for a significantly higher premium on the stock. And a $68.7 billion payout looks better to their pockets than a $3 billion one.

Look, I'm going to apologize for maybe responding to your other post too brashly. Needless to say it's been a tumultuous day and, I would say, not necessarily in a good way. It's been increasingly difficult for me to parse who's actually upset about this deal for the right reasons, for the wrong reason, and same for those who are cheering it on (though in that case, I would say there are few if any 'right' reasons to cheer for this deal). Some posts have started to blur in my trying to read through everything, so I'll probably take a break from the thread for a while unless some other massive development takes place. Though, I'll still be reading through posts as usual.

So yeah, I'm sorry if my other post came off the wrong way, and that I've seemingly misinterpreted your POV in what I was replying to. I can see now that you have justified concerns, and we see eye-to-eye on a lot of these points of concern. As for what Sony does to account for these developments, that is anyone's guess. But at the end of the day, it's their business, and their market to lose.

I just hope they make the right decisions going forward. That's all any of us can really hope for.

They would be dumb to do that and incur litigation and more heavy fines and massive public PR headache.

I don't think that would be the case. Like I said, regulators don't care about partial foreclosure with console. It's not like Microsoft have promised that COD on non-Xbox consoles would have full parity, because it was Phil Spencer saying it, and his statements can't be used to bind Microsoft as a corporation to.

Phil can say the games will be full parity in a court hearing (not even a trial), but that doesn't mean Microsoft said it. And since there are regulators who already see no problem with partial foreclosure of COD content on console, since so much of the media are already on their side, AND they already have so many gamers willing to defend anything they do...I don't think Microsoft would see any long-term or major blowback in partial foreclosure of COD content.

Especially if they wrap it in some pseudo-"pro consumer" move :/

 

[Rac3r]

Facts, couldn't have said it better myself. All this did is give Microsoft another shot at competing. We'll see what they do with it.

Ehhh I feel like some of yall are downplaying how big this is. This is the largest tech acquisition ever made in the US. Xbox just tripled it's workforce (3x the size of SIE) and shot up to 30+ studios (~10 more development studios than SIE). A precedent has been set that opens the door for more large-scale acquisitions by other corps. The implications of this deal are massive.

 

[Three]

cant believe the CMA is back to the table with MS. They could of played hard ball and forced them to the CAT. CMA was always the final defense for people against this merger. Now its looks like the CMA and MS will settle things.

MS were the ones who stopped the appeal, not the CMA. The CMA wanted a delay anyway. Not sure why. The CMA just apparently agreed to listen to any proposals but their stance may not have changed.

It would be interesting to see MS's other possible lie to judge Corley about this deal being dead if it goes past July 18th. It could be that they won't actually do anything anymore past that date or it could be that they are just trying to get their way, to speed up the process and buy up as much as they can before the market transition data becomes too obvious. I think MS themselves have put a lot of their plans on hold due to this scrutiny.

 

[Jumeira]

I

Ehhh I feel like some of yall are downplaying how big this is. This is the largest tech acquisition ever made in the US. Xbox just tripled it's workforce (3x the size of SIE) and shot up to 30+ studios (~10 more development studios than SIE). A precedent has been set that opens the door for more large-scale acquisitions by other corps. The implications of this deal are massive.

This isnt some re revelation, this is how things work.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

So CMA and Microsoft are in talks to do some "small divestiture" to satisfy the CMA's concerns and close the deal.

When they first announced the verdict, I said welp they still gotta get through the CMA.

Then the CMA folded like a pancake.

So it'll probably be by the July 18th deadline. So within a week?

It has to be before July 18th because neither MS nor ABK want to go through the painful process of re-negotiating the acquisition and putting it to a vote before ATVI shareholders again.

We just have to see what concessions MS is actually willing to make and CMA will accept. I will laugh if MS just agrees to completely divest Xcloud entirely and fuck cloud TBH because that would prove beyond a shadow of a doubt it was never about cloud, it was about destroying Sony.

 

[Vognerful]

After all this, credit where credit is due. We should all thank the hero of this saga

 

[Beechos]

This is just like sports ms buying up all the big free agents and trading for star players.

 

[Alex Scott]

Ehhh I feel like some of yall are downplaying how big this is. This is the largest tech acquisition ever made in the US. Xbox just tripled it's workforce (3x the size of SIE) and shot up to 30+ studios (~10 more development studios than SIE). A precedent has been set that opens the door for more large-scale acquisitions by other corps. The implications of this deal are massive.

Yes. Xbox is now 3x times the size of PS. ABK was size of PS and it was as profitable as PS if not then more so.
Xbox now has more Tiple A team studios then PS.

 

[Jumeira]

MS were the ones who stopped the appeal, not the CMA. The CMA wanted a delay anyway. Not sure why. The CMA just apparently agreed to listen to any proposals but their stance may not have changed.

It would be interesting to see MS's other possible lie to judge Corley about this deal being dead if it goes past July 18th. It could be that they won't actually do anything anymore past that date or it could be that they are just trying to get their way, to speed up the process and buy up as much as they can before the market transition data becomes too obvious. I think MS themselves have put a lot of their plans on hold due to this scrutiny.

They wouldn't have stopped proceedings against CMA if an agreement wasn't imminent. A deal has been reached already, we should be hearing about it soon.

CMA wouldn't be able to defend itself in the CAT, they knew they had no leg to stand on now that ALL major regions had passed the deal in favour of MS and rejecting cloud as a dominant future of gaming. They needed the CAT trial to stop more then MS. The trial would've been set 2 weeks from now, they didn't have access to their preferred KCs, they were destroyed by the CAT for being absurd with the request for a delay over a decision they made. CMA have caved.

 

[Lasha]

It has to be before July 18th because neither MS nor ABK want to go through the painful process of re-negotiating the acquisition and putting it to a vote before ATVI shareholders again.

We just have to see what concessions MS is actually willing to make and CMA will accept. I will laugh if MS just agrees to completely divest Xcloud entirely and fuck cloud TBH because that would prove beyond a shadow of a doubt it was never about cloud, it was about destroying Sony.

More likely to divest the cloud business in the UK to satisfy the regulator.

 

[VideoGameEnjoyer]

I

This isnt some re revelation, this is how things work.

The status quo usually leads to 18 month legal battles?

Largest tech acquisition in country history according to the post you quoted. At what point is it something worth discussing and not just 'the way things work'?

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

Famous last words before all the other terrible aquisitions that have led to serious erosion of IP brand value being squandered by the acquiring conglomerate.

Not like we have any history/precedent of this happening in TV and film, right?

But hey - these enormous megacaps acquiring content surely has been great for consumers of said content?

 

[adamsapple]

After all this, credit where credit is due. We should all thank the hero of this saga

The hero we need, not the hero we deserved.

 

[Jumeira]

The status quo usually leads to 18 month legal battles?

Largest tech acquisition in country history according to the post you quoted. At what point is it something worth discussing and not just 'the way things work'?

Didn't say anything about whats worth discussing. Only that buying others is perfectly fine if proven not to be anti competitive.

 

[saintjules]

 

[Gravemind]

Yep, it's finally over.

Activision is going to belong Microsoft. Pretty massive win for them. Wow.

Gamepass about to get a lot more interesting