Support NeoGAF

[hlm666]

Microsoft are not going to take cod off playstation, the way they will leverage it to benefit gamepass is the near term is using some of the revenue to get gamepass day 1 deals. For which they will mainly be deals like plaguetale and exoprimal, day 1 gamepass but still on every other platform in the traditional way. You might see some xpboost/skin perks in gp ultimate which wont cause parity issues because they will just be keys redeemed ingame so if you really need that shit you can get gpu and redeem the key where ever the hell you want.

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

Fair enough. The answers you gave point you being an fanboy who wants markets to work one way for the plastic box they support and differently for every other market participant. I wanted to give you the chance to prove otherwise in case I misunderstood you.

I'm a fanboy because if Sony was the one acquiring Activision I'd take issue with it being anticompetitive and feel like a perpetual contract at a minimum should be required? Did you read ANYTHING I just said for my answers? I'm taking the same stance for Sony as I do Microsoft on this topic

Pro-Tip: I'm NOT pro-merger and consolidation. Doesn't matter if it's MS or Sony doing the wholesale purchase of independent publishers. It's bad for the industry, period.

You are obviously not debating in good faith when you follow up with the reply you just did, resulting to childish attacks. I'm through wasting anymore time engaging you after providing thoughtful answers to your questions.

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

It's absurd to expect one behaviour from Bungie and another from MS/Xbox.

No it isn't. Because they aren't anywhere close to the same scale.

I never expected MS to sign a perpetual contract with Zenimax, Playground, Ninja Theory, Et. Al. I don't expect it with Sony and Bungie.

I'm not necessarily a FAN of those acquisitions, but they don't represent antitrust concerns. Activision does.

If you can't see the distinction, then you're probably one of the same people wringing their hands about the false equivalency of Psygnosis 30 years ago

 

[ZehDon]

Sega, no

Square, no

Activision? Hell yes

EA? Likely

Take2? Maybe

But if the regulators approve MS and Activision then the precedent is set and all of those would be fair game under similar logic that they allowed MS to acquire Activision

That Sony swears under oath in court that all new versions will come to their competitors' platforms and offers said competitors a binding decade long availability contract including version and platform parity inclusive of their subscription services? I'm not sure Sony would go for that, to be honest. Microsoft doing it is unprecedented, and, according to NeoGAF's M&A experts, the only reason Microsoft is doing it is because they're committed to a clandestine multi-decade foreclosure strategy on PlayStation.

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

That Sony swears under oath in court that all new versions will come to their competitors' platforms and offers said competitors a binding decade long availability contract including version and platform parity inclusive of their subscription services? I'm not sure Sony would go for that, to be honest. Microsoft doing it is unprecedented, and, according to NeoGAF's M&A experts, the only reason Microsoft is doing it is because they're committed to a clandestine multi-decade foreclosure strategy on PlayStation.

Microsoft never made such an oath

Phil Spencer did

And Phil Spencer won't be the head of Xbox by the time they decide to foreclose on CoD, which I'm fairly confident will happen over time

 

[havoc00]

I have the feeling EA will die on their own, I can't see MS or Sony interested in them, lets see their financials after losing the FIFA license

Madden is still big so is the bf name, Nhl could be kept the same and turned into a fun arcade game more game pass content etc. nba street revival

 

[ZehDon]

Microsoft never made such an oath

Phil Spencer did

And Phil Spencer won't be the head of Xbox by the time they decide to foreclose on CoD, which I'm fairly confident will happen over time

Phil Spencer in his capacity as Executive vice-president of Gaming for Microsoft. The idea that Microsoft isn't bound by the sworn testimony of their representatives speaking in that capacity under oath in a court of a law is Twitter fantasy. Microsoft is bound to deliver ABKs games to PlayStation for the next decade. Full stop. I'd imagine, somewhere on paper, that's about as long as it'll take for Microsoft to break even on the ABK purchase - hence the willingness from Microsoft to do so. Vague temporal conjectures are a hedge-bet and you know it. "At some point in the future, Sony will raise the price of PS+! Quote me on it!". That statement is an almost certainty given its nature - but it doesn't validate my other bullshit today. In fifteen years, Microsoft can pull COD from PlayStation, and you'd be hard pressed to call it unfair at that time. Sony have ten years to ween themselves off their Call of Duty dependency - and I'd argue that's actually a good thing for PlayStation gamers.

 

[C2brixx]

Microsoft never made such an oath

Phil Spencer did

And Phil Spencer won't be the head of Xbox by the time they decide to foreclose on CoD, which I'm fairly confident will happen over time

 

[Lasha]

I'm a fanboy because if Sony was the one acquiring Activision I'd take issue with it being anticompetitive and feel like a perpetual contract at a minimum should be required? Did you read ANYTHING I just said for my answers? I'm taking the same stance for Sony as I do Microsoft on this topic

Pro-Tip: I'm NOT pro-merger and consolidation. Doesn't matter if it's MS or Sony doing the wholesale purchase of independent publishers. It's bad for the industry, period.

You are obviously not debating in good faith when you follow up with the reply you just did, resulting to childish attacks. I'm through wasting anymore time engaging you after providing thoughtful answers to your questions.

Your bias shows because you can't explain why a perpetual right to products produced by others is required at all. If you are truly anti-consolidation then you should want perpetual guarantees to content regardless of who the target and acquirer are. A model similar media regulation in many countries which require platform holders (e.g., Telecos) to offer any exclusive content to customers on other platforms at the same rate as its own subscribers. You should also support the expansion of regulation like the EU's gatekeeper laws to force console makers to allow publishers to directly to consumers instead of through a local monopoly which encourages consolidation.

What you wrote is inconsistent with the views you espouse. Your reasoning for Sony not being required to offer Microsoft perpetual access to Bungie boils down to a lack of regulatory investigation. Sony buying Square or Sega without giving Nintendo and Microsoft a perpetual guarantees of access to their games is OK which is inconsistent with your position as being against mergers and consolidation. You deflect any question about the inconsistency of your argument with vague mentions of "foreclosure" and "anti-trust" while being perfectly OK with anti-competitive behavior. The sum of what you wrote is why I came to my conclusion about your viewpoint.

 

[Heisenberg007]

After all the court hoopla and public conversations, even if Microsoft wants to make COD exclusive, they'd find it very difficult to do so.

Let's see how it plays out now and, especially when the next generation of consoles roll out. It'll be a very interesting time to say the least!

 

[Varteras]

Phil Spencer in his capacity as Executive vice-president of Gaming for Microsoft. The idea that Microsoft isn't bound by the sworn testimony of their representatives speaking in that capacity under oath in a court of a law is Twitter fantasy. Microsoft is bound to deliver ABKs games to PlayStation for the next decade. Full stop. I'd imagine, somewhere on paper, that's about as long as it'll take for Microsoft to break even on the ABK purchase - hence the willingness from Microsoft to do so. Vague temporal conjectures are a hedge-bet and you know it. "At some point in the future, Sony will raise the price of PS+! Quote me on it!". That statement is an almost certainty given its nature - but it doesn't validate my other bullshit today. In fifteen years, Microsoft can pull COD from PlayStation, and you'd be hard pressed to call it unfair at that time. Sony have ten years to ween themselves off their Call of Duty dependency - and I'd argue that's actually a good thing for PlayStation gamers.

Really can't argue much with this. I'd say Sony was shortsighted to allow so much of their revenue to be coming from a singular third-party franchise. I understand that there are various reasons why it worked out that way, and Sony loved the relatively free revenue. But anything not under your control could, at any inconvenient time, no longer be available to you, or so in a way that puts you at a disadvantage. Hindsight is 20/20, and they should have been making moves much earlier to reduce their dependency on Call of Duty. As you say, now they have at least a decade to figure out how to deal with this. I suspect it won't take them long to make moves. The upshot for everyone could be that this may cause Sony to invest in franchises that could alter the status quo as it has existed for a little too long now. Creating or backing IP that loosen the stranglehold franchises like Call of Duty have had on the market.

 

[Godot25]

Soo...FTC is maybe gonna appeal?
Jesus. I thought that after embarrassment that was their performance during trial they will at least try to save public face, get into negotiations with Microsoft to get them sign off concessions and present it as victory for people of USA.
Fact that they are even considering to continue embarrass themselves is pretty telling of their leader. Poor FTC lawyers...

 

[Lasha]

Soo...FTC is maybe gonna appeal?
Jesus. I thought that after embarrassment that was their performance during trial they will at least try to save public face, get into negotiations with Microsoft to get them sign off concessions and present it as victory for people of USA.
Fact that they are even considering to continue embarrass themselves is pretty telling of their leader. Poor FTC lawyers...

Lina Khan will continue her crusade as long as there are taxpayer dollars available to fund litigation.

 

[Slayer-33]

What delicious developments everyone. *Rubs hands together*

Sup guys

 

[MidGenRefresh]

They can ship the next release of the base game to PS5 but keep all DLC and shit tone of exclusive content to their platform. They can do so much with that statement.

The question to Nadella should be: are you ensuring 100% feature and content parity of Call of Duty between PlayStation and Xbox platform?

 

[The Pleasure]

But multiple regulators have approved the ACTV deal, hell EU called it Pro-competitive.

Europeans don't use deodorant. They're not the best judges of character. That and they have 70s porno hair styles.

 

[MidGenRefresh]

Europeans don't use deodorant. They're not the best judges of character. That and they have 70s porno hair styles.

If I had to choose between not using deodorant and not using the metric system, I'd pick not using deodorant every single time.

 

[Godot25]

So if Sony bought take2 would they be required to keep bringing gta and red dead to competitors? GTA makes COD look tiny.

Does it?
I mean, yeah. GTA V sold gangbusters. But 180 million sales came during 10 year period. Which means 18 million copies per year on average.
Meanwhile, COD is selling 20-30 million copies per year easily and is monetised in a way that that is raking few billion dollars per year in revenue for ABK. Not to mention COD Mobile.

 

[C2brixx]

They can ship the next release of the base game to PS5 but keep all DLC and shit tone of exclusive content to their platform. They can do so much with that statement.

The question to Nadella should be: are you ensuring 100% feature and content parity of Call of Duty between PlayStation and Xbox platform?

You know who can do all that right now? An independent 3rd party Activision. Hell that's what they are doing right now today to Sony's benefit.

 

[mrmustard]

I wonder how red o'l jimmy's face is right now

Quite a lot. But don't worry, good guy Phil already has taken care of him

 

[Varteras]

If I had to choose between not using deodorant and not using the metric system, I'd pick not using deodorant every single time.

You'd rather smell like my taint on a hot day than use a system of measurement that still gets the job done. This is why you'll never truly experience the smell of freedom.


By the way, it smells like pine sap and chemicals you can't possibly pronounce that are certainly not going to give you cancer.

 

[ChiefDada]

Substantially lessen competition. That substantially part is important because every merger lessens competition.

The term "substantial" isn't the contention, it's the "may be". "Reasonable probability that it might" (FTC) vs. Reasonable probability that it will" (Judge)

See an whitepaper written by Georgetown Law professor which discusses the inherent conundrum surrounding Section 7 of the Clayton Act. It's 20+ pages but surprisingly decent read from layman's perspective (kudos to the author). Copied key portion below but link to full paper is available to those who wish to understand FTC likely position on potential appeal.

The Appropriate Decision Standard for Section 7 Cases

The burden of proof to determine the “reasonable probability” that a merger violates Section 7 is not clear. Using the insightful puzzlement expressed by the c

deliverypdf.ssrn.com

A possible answer might lie in the court's quoting of Judge Bork's Rothery,15 opinion, which explains that the Section 7 test is more interventionist (i.e., tougher on defendants) than the Section 1 unreasonableness test.16 If Section 1 would require that the government show that the merger is more-likely-than-not to lessen competition," then it follows that "reasonable probability" and "likely" must imply that the government's burden is lower than "more-likelythan-not." However, it would have been helpful had the court made this distinction explicit.

In the recent U.S. v Bertelsmann case, the Judge Pan's opinion pierced the heart of this confusion: The root of these competing formulations may be uncertainty over how the government's preponderance-of-the-evidence burden interacts with Section 7's already probabilistic standard; combined, the two standards require the government to prove "by a preponderance of the evidence" that the effect of a challenged merger or acquisition "may be substantially to lessen competition."17 This is a useful statement of the problem. This conjunction in essence amounts to the confusing requirement that the plaintiff must establish a "probability of a probability," that is, as a sufficient probability of exceeding another specific probability threshold.18 The conjunction can be unpacked in concrete probability terminology as follows. The burden of proof may be on the plaintiff to show that a relevant proposition is more-likely-than-not to occur. But the relevant proposition may itself be a probability threshold.19

 

[Godot25]

(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.

1. Microsoft offered Sony a deal to include COD in PS Plus day one if they are afraid of "Game Pass effect" as a form of foreclosure. Of course it would not be for free (duh? Microsoft is also paying for third-party games on GP). Sony declined offer.
2. So if Booty wrote in email "we can spend Sony out of business" in 2019 and Ryan wrote in 2021 that he is not afraid about COD foreclosure, first email must be valid even today because...reasons, while second does not need to be valid because "circumstances changed?" Not to mention ability to spend someone out of business does not mean we are doing it . You should be probably glad that only a fraction of Jimbo and other PS execs emails were published during trial because I'm 100% that there is nothing about "starving Xbox out of content" or something like that. I'm sure third-party exclusivity deals are altruistic in their nature and are meant to help developers
3. Even you don't know what foreclosure of COD would do to PlayStation and COD itself. Yes, on one hand it could drive substantial portion of PlayStation users into Xbox ecosystem. But it could also drive only a small portion of PlayStation users into Xbox ecosystem and Microsoft would effectively loose money by doing it. And it could also kill commercial popularity of COD which EA implied - they saw potential COD exclusivity as a opportunity window for Battlefield on PlayStation. If you want to tell me with straight face that you know what foreclosure of COD would bring, you are just lying. Because even economist are struggling to predict it.

And of course, Sony received proposal for 10 year deal. And please, don't bring perpetuity deal ever again. It's not happening ever. Extend it for 15 years? Maybe. Sony bet on deal being blocked thanks to their crying and complaining and they lost. They still have a chance to sign though.

 

[MidGenRefresh]

You'd rather smell like my taint on a hot day than use a system of measurement that still gets the job done. This is why you'll never truly experience the smell of freedom.


By the way, it smells like pine sap and chemicals you can't possibly pronounce that are certainly not going to give you cancer.

Ahh, I really love to go into politics and shitting on the US but that's not allowed so let's focus on games.

Everyone is COD this, COD that and I'm here thinking:

This IP has so much potential, I'm sure Xbox will take advantage of it... not.

 

[Varteras]

1. Microsoft offered Sony a deal to include COD in PS Plus day one if they are afraid of "Game Pass effect" as a form of foreclosure. Of course it would not be for free (duh? Microsoft is also paying for third-party games on GP). Sony declined offer.
2. So if Booty wrote in email "we can spend Sony out of business" in 2019 and Ryan wrote in 2021 that he is not afraid about COD foreclosure, first email must be valid even today because...reasons, while second does not need to be valid because "circumstances changed?" Not to mention ability to spend someone out of business does not mean we are doing it . You should be probably glad that only a fraction of Jimbo and other PS execs emails were published during trial because I'm 100% that there is nothing about "starving Xbox out of content" or something like that. I'm sure third-party exclusivity deals are altruistic in their nature and are meant to help developers
3. Even you don't know what foreclosure of COD would do to PlayStation and COD itself. Yes, on one hand it could drive substantial portion of PlayStation users into Xbox ecosystem. But it could also drive only a small portion of PlayStation users into Xbox ecosystem and Microsoft would effectively loose money by doing it. And it could also kill commercial popularity of COD which EA implied - they saw potential COD exclusivity as a opportunity window for Battlefield on PlayStation. If you want to tell me with straight face that you know what foreclosure of COD would bring, you are just lying. Because even economist are struggling to predict it.

And of course, Sony received proposal for 10 year deal. And please, don't bring perpetuity deal ever again. It's not happening ever. Extend it for 15 years? Maybe. Sony bet on deal being blocked thanks to their crying and complaining and they lost. They still have a chance to sign though.

They have little reason to sign now, based on sworn testimony alone, it seems. Now, if offered 15 years off the jump? Sure. Sign. 10 again? No need. They're already covered.

 

[The Pleasure]

If I had to choose between not using deodorant and not using the metric system, I'd pick not using deodorant every single time.

Reported for Extreme Smash Bros

 

[Godot25]

They didn't need to

1. It wasn't an anti trust case

2. Bungie made Sony give them full control in their contract otherwise they weren't going to sell

Lol. That's hilarious.
Because plenty people on this forum told me that Sony can just change it's mind and force Bungie to make their games PS5, PC only
They also told me that multiplatform releases only covers Destiny 2 and future games will not be on Xbox.

So...now they can't force Bungie?
So how exactly it is then?

 

[ryzen1]

You'd rather smell like my taint on a hot day than use a system of measurement that still gets the job done. This is why you'll never truly experience the smell of freedom.


By the way, it smells like pine sap and chemicals you can't possibly pronounce that are certainly not going to give you cancer.

Well, if your freedom scent consists of pine sap and unpronounceable chemicals, I'll stick to the metric system and its fresh air of logical measurements ;D

 

[Varteras]

Ahh, I really love to go into politics and shitting on the US but that's not allowed so let's focus on games.

Everyone is COD this, COD that and I'm here thinking:

This IP has so much potential, I'm sure Xbox will take advantage of it... not.

Sadly, I think most franchises will just not come back. Or if they do, it'll be a one-and-done attempt. Most likely by third-parties Microsoft contracts, too. I don't think they have the development bandwidth for their first-party to tackle any of them, really. Which is wild to say, but so many Activision studios are tied up making CoD. You'd have to stop annual releases to pull off anything significant with them. MAYBE ask, like, Obsidian if they want to tackle that as a side project.

 

[Godot25]

They have little reason to sign now, based on sworn testimony alone, it seems. Now, if offered 15 years off the jump? Sure. Sign. 10 again? No need. They're already covered.

No, they are not covered.
If people believes this "Microsoft will foreclose COD from PlayStation ASAP," bullshit and "Spencer's promise under oath is not valid for his successor" fact is that no regulatory body (as far as I know) included console SLC in their final report and Microsoft is not obligated to release COD on PlayStation outside this year (since Sony has marketing deal). EU and CMA basically said that it makes no financial sense to make COD exclusive.

If it is true what they are saying (I don't think so), Microsoft can just replace Spencer and withdraw COD from PlayStation.

Fact that Sony is in no rush to sign a deal signals pretty much that they know they will have COD with or without deal. Exactly like Ryan said in january 2022.

 

[Varteras]

Well, if your freedom scent consists of pine sap and unpronounceable chemicals, I'll stick to the metric system and its fresh air of logical measurements ;D

Dude! Come on. CANCER! Everyone is getting it. Don't be square. Or long for this world.

 

[Goblinlinguitic]

This is where I get a good laugh. Any implications that the CMA was "being a dick" to Microsoft. They are a highly professional and respected body. This wasn't a competition. They were fighting Microsoft about as much as someone who uses the toilet to take a shit instead of drinking out of it to be different. They were doing their job and coming to what they felt was the best, most accurate conclusion.

you keep saying few times.. CMA are highly professional and respected body
first the console market and now this 2nd time reviewing their own judgment on this case , what highly professional and respected body does that?

 

[MidGenRefresh]

Sadly, I think most franchises will just not come back. Or if they do, it'll be a one-and-done attempt. Most likely by third-parties Microsoft contracts, too. I don't think they have the development bandwidth for their first-party to tackle any of them, really. Which is wild to say, but so many Activision studios are tied up making CoD. You'd have to stop annual releases to pull off anything significant with them. MAYBE ask, like, Obsidian if they want to tackle that as a side project.

Most of the key people that worked on Arcanum are now associated with Microsoft and work in Obsidian and inXile. Tim Cain works as a contractor for Obsidian. They have all the pieces to bring this one back to life. Most likely not going to happen.

 

[Varteras]

No, they are not covered.
If people believes this "Microsoft will foreclose COD from PlayStation ASAP," bullshit and "Spencer's promise under oath is not valid for his successor" fact is that no regulatory body (as far as I know) included console SLC in their final report and Microsoft is not obligated to release COD on PlayStation outside this year (since Sony has marketing deal).

If it is true what they are saying (I don't think so), Microsoft can just replace Spencer and withdraw COD from PlayStation.

Fact that Sony is in no rush to sign a deal signals pretty much that they know they will have COD with or without deal. Exactly like Ryan said in january 2022.

The CEO of Xbox stated, under oath, to a judge, that CoD will release on PlayStation for a long time to come. He spoke in capacity as a representative of Microsoft. That is legally binding. To go back on that is to invite a criminal case even if Spencer isn't there anymore.

you keep saying few times.. CMA are highly professional and respected body
first the console market and now this 2nd time reviewing their own judgment on this case , what highly professional and respected body does that?

One who was willing to change their stance based on new information and a review of their conclusion. Just because you don't like how it went doesn't change that they are respected and professional.

 

[Zheph]

Ahh, I really love to go into politics and shitting on the US but that's not allowed so let's focus on games.

Everyone is COD this, COD that and I'm here thinking:

This IP has so much potential, I'm sure Xbox will take advantage of it... not.

Who owns the IP? I still remember the gnome baby ogre questline...

 

[Ogbert]

If the CMA realised they had made an erroneous judgement they would announce the fact and allow Microsoft to close the transaction.

Reaching an erroneous conclusion (if that's the case) does not mean that they no longer have concerns that require remedy. Rather, those concerns are not enough to flat out block the Transaction. So they reopen the talks.

I think people are placing too much weight on the FTC result as it applies to they CMA. They were independent actions with the UK essentially waiving the static console concerns. It was almost entirely focussed on the cloud.

There must have been a substantive change in the CMA's reasoning.

 

[Godot25]

The CEO of Xbox stated, under oath, to a judge, that CoD will release on PlayStation for a long time to come. He spoke in capacity as a representative of Microsoft. That is legally binding. To go back on that is to invite a criminal case even if Spencer isn't there anymore.

So I don't understand why many people here are requesting perpetual deal from Microsoft including James Sawyer Ford

If Spencer's under oath statement is enough, then it is enough.

 

[ChiefDada]

Ok last post from me tonight; I will be surprised if the FTC doesn't contest the Judge statement bolded below on the basis of "factual error".

c. Effect on Innovation
The FTC also insists the merger will decrease innovation because game developers and publishers will not want to work with Microsoft. But the only evidence the FTC identifies is Sony's reluctance to share its intellectual property with Microsoft and provide development kits for its consoles. But this is not merger-specific and it fails to account for all the other developers who might now be incentivized to collaborate with Xbox or one of its studios like Activision or Bethesda. Cf. UnitedHealth Grp., 650 F. Supp. 3d at 151 ("The Government did not call a single rival payer to offer corporate testimony that it would innovate less or compete less aggressively if the proposed merger goes through. Nor did any of the rival payer employees who did testify support the Government's theory.") Protecting Sony's decision to delay collaboration with Microsoft and therefore PlayStation users' access to Microsoft's content is not pro-competitive.

Simply put, she f***d up. She either didn't understand or forgot during her write-up that other developers and publishers don't make console hardware (This explains why she was getting on the FTC about Sony). Sony is the only other console manufacturer under the supposition - agreed upon by both FTC and the court - that Gen 9 console market includes only Sony and Microsoft. Therefore, it IS merger-specific.


Ok, I've done my part in keeping this beautiful mess of a thread going. Goodnight!

 

[Varteras]

So I don't understand why many people here are requesting perpetual deal from Microsoft including James Sawyer Ford

If Spencer's under oath statement is enough, then it is enough.

It is. It is legally binding and Microsoft would have to go through all kinds of trouble to get out of it. They are on public record as giving a judge their word and the context of the situation at the time would be noted. They are far better off adhering to what they swore to an authority.

 

[MidGenRefresh]

Who owns the IP? I still remember the gnome baby ogre questline...

Activision.

 

[ProtoByte]

Reaching an erroneous conclusion (if that's the case) does not mean that they no longer have concerns that require remedy. Rather, those concerns are not enough to flat out block the Transaction. So they reopen the talks.

I think people are placing too much weight on the FTC result as it applies to they CMA. They were independent actions with the UK essentially waiving the static console concerns. It was almost entirely focussed on the cloud.

There must have been a substantive change in the CMA's reasoning.

Oh my god, just accept it. World governments are not principled. They do things out of convenience. If people seriously cannot admit that the CMA is relenting because a bigger, badder dog in the American government has given an already powerful megaconglomerate the greenlight alongside the rest of the world, it's no wonder how some of these takes can be as reality breakingly wrong as they are.

 

[Drell]

Europeans don't use deodorant. They're not the best judges of character. That and they have 70s porno hair styles.

We don't need deodorants because we take showers.

 

[Godot25]

It is. It is legally binding and Microsoft would have to go through all kinds of trouble to get out of it. They are on public record as giving a judge their word and the context of the situation at the time would be noted. They are far better off adhering to what they swore to an authority.

So it is settled then. Microsoft will release COD on PlayStation (even outside PS5 gen as Spencer confirmed) and this whole "Sony will be foreclosed" is just desperation attempt to have this deal blocked...

 

[Goblinlinguitic]

The CEO of Xbox stated, under oath, to a judge, that CoD will release on PlayStation for a long time to come. He spoke in capacity as a representative of Microsoft. That is legally binding. To go back on that is to invite a criminal case even if Spencer isn't there anymore.



One who was willing to change their stance based on new information and a review of their conclusion. Just because you don't like how it went doesn't change that they are respected and professional.

then the ''highly respected and profesional body'' trying to delay the CAT tribunal because they needed more time

 

[PaintTinJr]

The term "substantial" isn't the contention, it's the "may be". "Reasonable probability that it might" (FTC) vs. Reasonable probability that it will" (Judge)

See an whitepaper written by Georgetown Law professor which discusses the inherent conundrum surrounding Section 7 of the Clayton Act. It's 20+ pages but surprisingly decent read from layman's perspective (kudos to the author). Copied key portion below but link to full paper is available to those who wish to understand FTC likely position on potential appeal.

The Appropriate Decision Standard for Section 7 Cases

The burden of proof to determine the “reasonable probability” that a merger violates Section 7 is not clear. Using the insightful puzzlement expressed by the c

deliverypdf.ssrn.com

Do you think if Microsoft - or any company inclined to litigate issues - had been on the receiving end of this decision that doesn't exactly align with the wording of the the act - by extension the test as you have put in context with the excellently reference they would have appealed the decision on that reason?

 

[Zheph]

Activision.

yeah its dead man

 

[Varteras]

then the ''highly respected and profesional body'' trying to delay the CAT tribunal because they needed more time

And? Part of their process. Again, you not liking it, mostly because you don't understand it, doesn't make them being "jerks to Microsoft" an objective fact. It's just a persecution complex you're having on behalf of a company.

 

[Goblinlinguitic]

We don't need deodorants because we take showers.

apart from french , but then all north europeans have poor hygiene

 

[PaintTinJr]

After all the court hoopla and public conversations, even if Microsoft wants to make COD exclusive, they'd find it very difficult to do so.

Let's see how it plays out now and, especially when the next generation of consoles roll out. It'll be a very interesting time to say the least!

His reiterating of the word "shipped" could easily be argued by Microsoft that it means physical only.

 

[MidGenRefresh]

yeah its dead man

Let man dream. I know it wont' happen but now Microsoft owns the IP and most of the OG team that worked on the game is under Microsoft umbrella. It just makes too much sense... that's why it won't happen.