Support NeoGAF

[adamsapple]

But we know that will NOT happen in reality. Like come on adamsapple

Have you seen CyberPunk 2077 running on the PS4 and Xbox One?............COD will be worse on the Switch.

What does an open world RPG have to do with a linear corridor based shooter ..

Secondly it will likely be developed for the next Nintendo hardware, not the current one.

and finally, they have already said a game like that would be made tailored to relative hardware, so don't expect them to just throw in the same Black Ops 4 with its 250GB size straight from the PS4 on the Switch/Switch 2.

 

[mckmas8808]

Why would Sony be entitled to a perpetual share of Microsoft's revenue for free? 10 years is enough time for Sony to find ways to insulate against the risks of losing COD.

And this is my problem with this deal......amongst others. Why is the bolded so easy to assume will happen to COD on Playstation? If what MS says to the public is true, Playstation should NEVER lose COD. But we all know that's a lie.

I mean, Sony hasn't even tried to buy a publisher yet so how can we really say that. In my opinion, what's good for one is good for the other.

Sony could use their acquisition of Bungie, still having them create new IP that are multiplat. Yes this was a condition of the acquistion to begin with, set forth by Bungie, but still I think it's a valid defense.

Do we really want Sony to start buying up Publishers though?

It's a 300+ GB game as is on current gen.

There is only so much you can "scale down." It will not be the same experience, at all.

Dang. I literally never thought of the game size point at all. But you are 100% right.

 

[ckaneo]

This really is such a good point.

Only if the old farts sitting in courts can understand it now.

It's only a good point if you are naive. The FTC doesn't want to win, they want to delay until Activision calls out

 

[DeepEnigma]

I interpret that as a dare, which the FTC just accepted.

Now let's see if the FTC argues to the Court of Appeal's that a stay would pose no harm to MS because they are re-opening negotiations anyway.

And I've got to stop drinking coffee and watching this thread today.

Ogbert
@ChiefDada

"In its Order, the Court at first recited the proper Warner Communications standard. Op. at 22-23. But when the Court turned to whether the FTC had made a sufficient showing as to anticompetitive effects, the Court inexplicably deviated from Warner Communications. Instead, the Court applied the standard applicable to trials on the antitrust merits, relying on government cases seeking permanent injunctions."

 

[mayham2199]

I would agree with u until the day gamepass is dominant. Studios and pubs out will be fucked. Xbox consumers don't buy games and when this expand will be a problem for anyone outside their ecosystem.

That's another thing is I'm just not so sure how dominant gamepass can be. I'm not saying it wont work I just know how gamers are. Gamers damn near destroyed Xbox when they attempted to get rid of used games. Can you imagine that happening in any other entertainment industry?.

I'm just not confident a sub service will dominate in gaming. It's not like TV and music where everybody does it so much they are willing to pay monthly for it. Even Phil Spencer has made comments that the growth on console has pretty much peaked. PC is still growing but that makes more sense since PC has a much larger user base. We wont really know for a long time either way but it is going to be interesting to see where the industry is headed.

 

[Heisenberg007]

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

"Before the merger Sony paid Activision for exclusive marketing rights that allowed Sony to market Call of Duty on PlayStation, but restricted Xbox's ability to do the same."

It was in her court that Activision confirmed that they asked Microsoft to bid on Call of Duty's marketing, and Microsoft declined.

If Microsoft declined and wasn't willing to bid on the marketing rights, how did Sony "restricted" Xbox's ability to do the same?

Mommy Corley really is thick.

 

[Edgelord79]

Lack of industry understanding by regulatory bodies led to this. This was always 50-50 and will continue to be.

 

[DForce]

Depends who the gamer is and what happens.

Since your a big Ps fan of course you feel nervous MS might cut the cord.

But if your an Xbox gamer, PC gamers, cloud streamer or Nintendo gamer (with a 10 year deal), how does this deal hurt them?

- Nintendo doesn't need a 10 year deal. ABK can do it without MS' help.
- Xbox gamers already have ABK games
- PC gamers already have ABK games
- This deal isn't required to stream games.

You're pointing out the positives of this question which doesn't require MS' help. they can do this without them. There are more positives than negative when you're talking about a major install base on PS which will

 

[feynoob]

Is the court result is today or tomorrow?
Would Monday be affected by this decision?

 

[Kenneth Haight]

Multiple of your points can be answered by the info that the Switch (or Nintendo) version will not be cloud, they have committed native versions relative to the hardware.

Here's the alpha footage

 

[DeepEnigma]

It's only a good point if you are naive. The FTC doesn't want to win, they want to delay until Activision calls out

MS is already delaying it themselves with the CMA agreement to pause CAT litigation and potentially work out a new deal.

The FTC wants to shine a spotlight on how neutered lobbying and politicians on the take have done for big corpo to them the past 40+ years. And they're still going to get a 25% budget cut soon as well. It's a money black hole, nothing more now. Toothless tiger.

 

[OuterLimits]

"FTC is unconstitutional!" still takes the cake for me

To be fair, the founders would probably consider 95% of the current Federal Government unconstitutional. Particularly the Executive Branch power.

 

[DForce]

A lot can happen in 10 years. The landscape could be completely different, with a deal like this being the catalyst to that shift. Or it could end up changing very little.

Hell, COD may be a dead franchise in 10 years. Bad management, lack of new ideas, more competitive IPs could bring about an entirely different situation.

In the short term, the deal looks positive for gamers. I don't see Playstation losing COD and there may be a chance they earn more revenue than they have been since Bobby Kotick put both Sony and Microsoft in a headlock and took a bigger cut. If things go back to 70/30 that would mean more money for Sony. That funds more AAA 1st party games, not less. I don't think people have considered this possibility.

I think it's best to focus on now and the near future. I would say anything that may happen within this current generation of consoles.

PS gamers will lose out on many ABK games outside of COD. In 10 years, there's a chance these games will be taken away from other platforms.

If CoD is for 10 years on Nintendo and the 10 years is up, then there's no more COD. If ABK remains third party then those games will stay on Nintendo platforms.

 

[Heisenberg007]

It's only a good point if you are naive. The FTC doesn't want to win, they want to delay until Activision calls out

The point is Microsoft is delaying on its own by asking CAT to pause the appeal. So there really is no need to disallow FTC a stay because there is literally 0 harm in that.

It's not like Microsoft is planning to close the acquisition illegally over the CMA, isn't it?

 

[mckmas8808]

"Before the merger Sony paid Activision for exclusive marketing rights that allowed Sony to market Call of Duty on PlayStation, but restricted Xbox's ability to do the same."

It was in her court that Activision confirmed that they asked Microsoft to bid on Call of Duty's marketing, and Microsoft declined.

If Microsoft declined and wasn't willing to bid on the marketing rights, how did Sony "restricted" Xbox's ability to do the same?

Mommy Corley really is thick.

PLUS..............isn't this the same judge that said openly in court that it's not about protecting companies like Sony, but it's about protecting customers? If so..........then why did she bring this market deal up in her conclusion? The marketing deal Sony did with MS only gave them rights to MARKET Call of Duty with a Playstation logo and at their showcases. It didn't stop any Xbox customer from playing the game at all!!!!

She two-faced and I hope the FTC wins the appeal. Though I doubt they will, because America.....

 

[mayham2199]

"Before the merger Sony paid Activision for exclusive marketing rights that allowed Sony to market Call of Duty on PlayStation, but restricted Xbox's ability to do the same."

It was in her court that Activision confirmed that they asked Microsoft to bid on Call of Duty's marketing, and Microsoft declined.

If Microsoft declined and wasn't willing to bid on the marketing rights, how did Sony "restricted" Xbox's ability to do the same?

Mommy Corley really is thick.

Nah she's not thick. She just rushed this thing out because she's trying to work on the MS timeline instead of worrying about doing her job correctly.

 

[FrankWza]

- Nintendo doesn't need a 10 year deal. ABK can do it without MS' help.
- Xbox gamers already have ABK games
- PC gamers already have ABK games
- This deal isn't required to stream games.

You're pointing out the positives of this question which doesn't require MS' help. they can do this without them. There are more positives than negative when you're talking about a major install base on PS which will

Just need to go back a week or so to the section where hoarding day one games included in a subscription was the biggest reason a lot of people want this to go through. It's not much deeper than that.

 

[DeepEnigma]

"Before the merger Sony paid Activision for exclusive marketing rights that allowed Sony to market Call of Duty on PlayStation, but restricted Xbox's ability to do the same."

It was in her court that Activision confirmed that they asked Microsoft to bid on Call of Duty's marketing, and Microsoft declined.

If Microsoft declined and wasn't willing to bid on the marketing rights, how did Sony "restricted" Xbox's ability to do the same?

Mommy Corley really is thick.

She did say she would "potentially have some errors" with it coming in so hot. Funny how all the errors went one direction, so far.

Fucking court decisions needing bug fixes now. What a time to be alive, ironic as well considering gaming software.

 

[Kenneth Haight]

Still cannot believe some of you think this is good for our industry. Their argument was that we're so bad at this we need to buy the "best" thing out there to compete.

Technologically and financially rich, creatively bankrupt.

 

[adamsapple]

PS gamers will lose out on many ABK games outside of COD. In 10 years, there's a chance these games will be taken away from other platforms.

If CoD is for 10 years on Nintendo and the 10 years is up, then there's no more COD. If ABK remains third party then those games will stay on Nintendo platforms.

Which CoD games have released on the Switch before the acquisition?

 

[NickFire]

MS is already delaying it themselves with the CMA agreement to pause CAT litigation and potentially work out a new deal.

Will MS respond directly to this, or dance is the next question I have.

Dance = risk the court says oh yeah, there isn't much risk of imminent harm for MS if we extend this.

Address = potentially spoil the well at the CMA. Either by disrespecting their authority (saying they are closing anyway), or by saying too much.

 

[Heisenberg007]

She did say she would "have some errors" with it coming in so hot. Funny how all the errors went one direction, so far.

Fucking court decisions needing bug fixes now. What a time to be alive, ironic as well considering gaming software.

Live-Service Court Decisions.

 

[Sanepar]

That's another thing is I'm just not so sure how dominant gamepass can be. I'm not saying it wont work I just know how gamers are. Gamers damn near destroyed Xbox when they attempted to get rid of used games. Can you imagine that happening in any other entertainment industry?.

I'm just not confident a sub service will dominate in gaming. It's not like TV and music where everybody does it so much they are willing to pay monthly for it. Even Phil Spencer has made comments that the growth on console has pretty much peaked. PC is still growing but that makes more sense since PC has a much larger user base. We wont really know for a long time either way but it is going to be interesting to see where the industry is headed.

The only way for gamepass work is consolidating. Cod is not enough. That's why they will need more. I would say they will try at least 2 more pubs. With time others will join because will be the only way. But to work they need more.

 

[Ogbert]

I thought there was evidence that MS already calculated they only need a million or two new subs to offset losses from going exclusive. That removes all doubt for me (and leads me to believe it is inevitable).

But why offset losses in the first place? Keep the PS revenues *and* grow Gamepass at the same time. There's no need for these things to be mutually exclusive.

But I concede that it's unwise to ignore just how shitty MS might be.

 

[FrankWza]

Their argument was that we're so bad at this we need to buy the "best" thing out there to compete.

Something that they were already getting.

 

[SSfox]

Boring! I mean, why do i even bother?

 

[NickFire]

But why offset losses in the first place? Keep the PS revenues *and* grow Gamepass at the same time. There's no need for these things to be mutually exclusive.

But I concede that it's unwise to ignore just how shitty MS might be.

I used to say the exact same thing about Starfield when the acquisition was first announced. Not making that mistake again is how I look at it.

 

[feynoob]

MS is already delaying it themselves with the CMA agreement to pause CAT litigation and potentially work out a new deal.

The FTC wants to shine a spotlight on how neutered lobbying and politicians on the take have done for big corpo to them the past 40+ years. And they're still going to get a 25% budget cut soon as well. It's a money black hole, nothing more now. Toothless tiger.

Welcome to land of freedom.

 

[ckaneo]

Nah she's not thick. She just rushed this thing out because she's trying to work on the MS timeline instead of worrying about doing her job correctly.

That works both ways. The FTC could have filed a long time ago as well

 

[Heisenberg007]

Which CoD games have released on the Switch before the acquisition?

The reason why COD isn't on Switch is important in this context.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Welcome to land of freedom.

You don't need to edumacate me.

 

[mckmas8808]

But why offset losses in the first place? Keep the PS revenues *and* grow Gamepass at the same time. There's no need for these things to be mutually exclusive.

But I concede that it's unwise to ignore just how shitty MS might be.

You are asking a great question. Here's your answer.......

https://www.neogaf.com/threads/matt-booty-we-are-in-a-unique-position-to-spend-sony-out-of-business.1658219/

 

[adamsapple]

The reason why COD isn't on Switch is important in this context.

Switch has been a success for many years now, Kotick and Activision have not just come across this revelation a few weeks ago lol.

The point is, before this acquisition news, not a single one of us was talking about CoD games on Switch and if the acquisition doesn't go through, there is no reason to believe that will change.

 

[FrankWza]

But why offset losses in the first place? Keep the PS revenues *and* grow Gamepass at the same time. There's no need for these things to be mutually exclusive.

But I concede that it's unwise to ignore just how shitty MS might be.

Because, despite what is being spun, the end game is takeaway.

Ctrl+Alt+Deceive: All The Dirt, Info, Lies, and LOLs We Found During FTC vs. Microsoft

Here are all the dirt, information, lies, and LOLs we found during the FTC hearing case. Notes: That was a lot of work; I'd appreciate your support. Please keep it civil. This thread is very important because I wanted to compile all the information in one place for posterity and preservation...

www.neogaf.com

 

[Ogbert]

I used to say the exact same thing about Starfield when the acquisition was first announced. Not making that mistake again is how I look at it.

I suppose the difference with Starfield is that it's a new IP and fulfills the absolutely gaping hole at the core of Xbox, namely one good exclusive that doesn't involve driving.

But CoD is about as established as a game can be. It's permeated into the bedrock of the gaming industry. It makes zero financial sense to make it exclusive.

 

[feynoob]

The reason why COD isn't on Switch is important in this context.

Kottick makes dumb decisions, even though he is smart.
Leaving steam and switch lost him alot of money. Without mobile, I wonder how much money would he have made.

 

[Heisenberg007]

Switch has been a success for many years now, Kotick and Activision have not just come across this revelation a few weeks ago lol.

The point is, before this acquisition news, not a single one of us was talking about CoD games on Switch and if the acquisition doesn't go through, there is no reason to believe that will change.

Kottick literally said in Court that he plans to bring COD games on next-gen Switch.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Switch has been a success for many years now, Kotick and Activision have not just come across this revelation a few weeks ago lol.

The point is, before this acquisition news, not a single one of us was talking about CoD games on Switch and if the acquisition doesn't go through, there is no reason to believe that will change.

Not even Nintendo fans. MS fans are, more so. Bet.

 

[adamsapple]

Kottick literally said in Court that he plans to bring COD games on next-gen Switch.

And Phil and Satya literally said CoD will keep releasing on current and future Playstation consoles. So no worries about them making the games exclusive next-gen then.

 

[mckmas8808]

And Phil and Satya literally said CoD will keep releasing on current and future Playstation consoles. So no worries about them making the games exclusive next-gen then.

And you think that's legally binding?

 

[Jigsaah]

PS gamers will lose out on many ABK games outside of COD. In 10 years, there's a chance these games will be taken away from other platforms.

If CoD is for 10 years on Nintendo and the 10 years is up, then there's no more COD. If ABK remains third party then those games will stay on Nintendo platforms.

I mean you could be right. I dunno. I still think they go the Minecraft route with COD, indefinitely. New deals can be struck and Jim Ryan should come back to negotiation with Microsoft if the acquisition goes through.

They can get the 10 year thing going again. Jim will likely have to drop the "we want all Bethesda games too" thing though. That was playing hardball in a world where the deal was in jeopardy. Jim would lose that bargaining stance.

But Jim has other things he could offer to keep COD and other franchises. Sony has their own 3rd party exclusive IPs to bargain with, though I think he could only say that Sony won't go after the exclusivity of those games. Ultimately the decision is up to those devs and publishers.

 

[Chiggs]

Here's the full Lina Khan grilling:



I haven't even watched it, but I plan on doing so later.

 

[DForce]

Which CoD games have released on the Switch before the acquisition?

No. And I don't know why you're asking this question because I said they don't need MS to bring the games to Switch.

There's a next-gen Switch that will likely have COD. If Phil is promising something, then he's doing what ABK already has plans to do.

I don't know why you guys simply can't admit that ABK doesn't need MS' help.

 

[reinking]

And Phil and Satya literally said CoD will keep releasing on current and future Playstation consoles. So no worries about them making the games exclusive next-gen then.

I would like to do business with some of you that are willing to accept everything I say publicly as truth.

 

[adamsapple]

And you think that's legally binding?

As much as Kotik's plans to bring CoD to the next-gen Switch, I suppose.

No. And I don't know why you're asking this question because I said they don't need MS to bring the games to Switch.

There's a next-gen Switch that will likely have COD. If Phil is promising something, then he's doing what ABK already has plans to do.

I don't know why you guys simply can't admit that ABK doesn't need MS' help.

Who said anything about need? Releasing CoD on Nintendo hardware is just something they weren't doing, nor did we have any indication other than Kotick's "we'll consider it" that it was going to happen.

With the acquisition, we *know* that it will happen.

I would like to do business with some of you that are willing to accept everything I say publicly as truth.

I will be in line chatting with Heisenberg007 when our number is up.

 

[Jigsaah]

Do we really want Sony to start buying up Publishers though?

Want? I mean probably not. Consolidation is not the way we would want things to go, no matter who's doing it.

But what's Sony gonna do, just sit there and let this happen to them? They will need to respond in some way. I think they would be justified in doing so. Otherwise, it becomes an arms race between Microsoft, Tencent, Amazon and Google. Where does that leave Sony?

 

[Gravemind]

Looks like the FTC's arguments for their appeal have been release along with their motion today, as found in section II.

There are a number of arguments, among which is the argument that the court applied the wrong legal standard (as we all expected).

Don't have time to read it all now because I'm at work, but it's there for everyone to see.

23-07-13 FTC motion for emergency stay (N.D. Cal.)

www.documentcloud.org

 

[Three]

I'm expecting the same now. This is how I envision CMA resolving if FTC is denied their stay on appeal:

1) MS / AB close.
2) MS submits a new proposal consistent with some minor last minute, and virtually meaningless change in the MS / AB deal, made shortly before closing.
3) CMA fines MS for closing over objection. Some amount that sounds like a lot, maybe 5 or 10 million, but is pennies' to MS.
4) CMA approves the new deal after the closing.
5) MS pays the fines.
6) CMA takes victory lap for standing tough with fines. MS owns AB.

Timing of everything the last few months is too suspect. I think there is a handshake deal and its down to optics for CMA people. Hope I'm too cynical, but can't deny money talks.

I expect a fine in the 100s of millions but still lower than the $3B fee which might be why MS are OK with doing it and fighting it later. Fine amounts are a joke to these companies.

 

[mckmas8808]

so the future are the services and the cloud according to the judge? I missed something because I didn't read the whole thing, but this decision doesn't stand imo

This reads like a Judge that agrees with Microsoft that consoles need to go away and the cloud is the Future of Gaming.....

 

[GHG]

Multiple of your points can be answered by the info that the Switch (or Nintendo) version will not be cloud, they have committed native versions relative to the hardware.

How about this, if the deal goes through you sell your Xbox and play any games from Activision Blizzard's catalogue on the switch. Deal?