draliko
Member
For sure, but they didn't buy failing Devs, they bought healthy studios that were happy to cash out, so blame the studios not the platform holders, both of them
Microsoft / Activision Deal Approval Watch |OT| (MS/ABK close)
- Status
CRAIG667
Member
The difference is, Sony had a head start in the console market, Sony are miles ahead in consoles sales and Sony have the mindshare of general consumers and yet they're still trying to strangle the competition at every turn.
Xbox really doesn't have a choice but to make big moves if they're to stay in the market.
It's do or die
James Sawyer Ford
Banned
MS locked up Gears, Titanfall, Alan Wake, LO, BD, Sunset Overdrive, Tomb Raider, Ori 1/2, Ryse, Scorn, Medium etc exclusively from third parties
But only Sony does that, apparently
Talk about revisionist history
Last edited:
graywolf323
Gold Member
I'm not for it but I also can't blame Sony if they do that given Microsoft just bought two large publishers
Roxkis_ii
Banned
This might be an old school streagy lost to the ages, but they could try to making good games. Seemed to worked for Sony and Nintendo.
The Pleasure
Gold Member
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
This is something we have all been saying would happen. A domino effect. It also may have potential ramifications from other players that are not normally in the traditional video game arena. (Amazon/Apple)
You leave out one important factor while still trying to paint the victim narrative. MS/Xbox did all of this to themselves the past 20+ years. As to why they are in the position that they're in. They only have themselves to blame for all their decision making with the Xbox brand.
Last edited:
The Pleasure
Gold Member
Hopefully the CAT judge demands satisfaction.
Varteras
Gold Member
The end result, either way, is consolidation, and one company gaining a lot while the actual benefit to consumers is frequently dubious. This isn't a concern on smaller companies like Sucker Punch or Obsidian. On huge ones like ABK, that becomes a concern. The question of where the line is comes up. Should companies be allowed to simply erase their failures by buying out huge chunks of the industry? How much should they be allowed? Is it acceptable for a company to buy its way to market dominance instead of earn it through good moves and a lack of bad ones? Keeping in mind that dominance is not the same as absolute control. To which that answer should be obvious. How likely are such moves to spur other companies to do the same? What does the market look like in a world where the major players were all bought and it is largely owned by a handful of entities? Instead of the relatively vibrant market shares we see now. Is the market truly resilient enough to avoid a type of dystopian future? Outside of the fanboy arguments, these are the legitimate concerns people have.
TheThreadsThatBindUs
Member
They've been making increasingly bigger and more aggressive moves since they entered the market.
Since the mid-point of the 360 era, when they shifted focus to Kinect, they've done everything but just focus on making great games. That's their problem. And these big publisher and studio acquisitions won't somehow fix the avalanche of systemic issues that exist within Xbox Game Studios as a 1st party publishing function. So they're continuing to do everything but fix the core problems.
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Thank you! This isn't even debatable, yet some of them just want to push the narrative that it's Sony only and that it's anti-consumer. It's like they think articles and youtube videos from 10 years ago don't exist anymore.
graywolf323
Gold Member
I remember being concerned about that when MS acquired Zenimax, thankfully all that really came to pass was Sony picked up Bungie
but yeah now that MS has taken it a step further by buying ABK (and saying they have no plans to stop here) the dam is definitely going to break, Sony can't afford to stay idle and watch as they get priced out of one of their most lucrative markets after all when Microsoft has stated that's their goal
or emails from 3-4 years ago… (or somehow those emails are just a "thought experiment" despite their actions since then backing up what was said)
Last edited:
PaintTinJr
Member
So what is the general feeling about this news?
Do we think the 6 smell test by the judge have exposed Microsoft's leveraging of Sony via the CMA, and now they don't want the adjournment with the conditions and are instead working their appeal case against the CMA, while the CMA sits on their hands waiting the proposal?
If that is their new strategy, from stinking in the tests, I can see the CAT judge giving the CMA at least 6 months to prepare the appeal defence from rescheduling, or just throw it all away and do a full phase one do-over to protect consumers with no question about lack of scrutiny from his CMA letting this shitty deal get approved with that foreclosing-Sony booty email as public information.
feynoob
Banned
MS used their money to make a name for themselves and gain advantage over others (Activision blizzard).
Sony used their entertainment business to gain a foothold in gaming, against the likes of Sega and Nintendo.
Both companies don't shy away, when they spend money.
MS>Sony>Nintendo, Sega and others in term of financial power.
There is always a bigger
.
Sony used their entertainment business to gain a foothold in gaming, against the likes of Sega and Nintendo.
Both companies don't shy away, when they spend money.
MS>Sony>Nintendo, Sega and others in term of financial power.
There is always a bigger
.
havoc00
Member
All the CMA needs to do is exactly what the EU did which is to give every cloud provider a blank license to COD or even if they want to go a step better other ABK titles. Having to divest that part of the business just seems like more wasted effort then something as simple and easy as the EU solution. I guess because the EU came to that decision and they got all pissy about it, I am thinking pride and ego will not allow them to just do the same deal
graywolf323
Gold Member
MS should have done it 20+ years ago when they entered the industry then…MS used their money to make a name for themselves and gain advantage over others (Activision blizzard).
Sony used their entertainment business to gain a foothold in gaming, against the likes of Sega and Nintendo.
Both companies don't shy away, when they spend money.
MS>Sony>Nintendo, Sega and others in term of financial power.
There is always a bigger
Varteras
Gold Member
Frankly, I thought it was bizarre listening to the Sony deal being leaned on as hard as it was, when Sony's concerns were largely dismissed. How does the 10-year CoD deal for PlayStation consoles alleviate the CMA's cloud concerns? Because that was their stated reasoning for blocking the deal.
Ar¢tos
Member
Square games sales are so much better on Playstation that they don't even bother making Xbox versions (after the timed exclusivity ends) , so even continuing to buy timed exclusivity already makes little sense, buying Square would be a foolish unnecessary waste of money, and it's an option that should only be considered if somebody else makes an offer on them.
I'm already saving meme templates for Sony's inevitable Square Enix acquisition.
Ideally let them stay independent, if the market change they can go back to being truly multiplatform (instead of platform lottery for small titles and Playstation for bigger ones).
Last edited:
feynoob
Banned
I don't own MS, so my advice is pointless.
Vox Machina
Banned
They've heard it/been discussing it. MSFT just needs to formally notify it.
FrankWza
Member
Less of a head start than Nintendo had on PlayStation. How did they manage to both sell 100 million consoles generation after generation and xbox hasn't come close once?
Obligatory training montage
Topher
Identifies as young
None of which jives with what Sarah Caldwell is saying...
I'm not saying you are wrong, but something is not right here.
Last edited:
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
If they were really in it "for the good fortune of the consumer and gamers everywhere," for "when we play together, we all win," then both Bethesda and ABK would be allowed to remain and operate independent and third party for everything.
It all bullshit.
havoc00
Member
Whole thing is a shit show, dunno who to believe anymore lol
Topher
Identifies as young
That's when you know a process has been completely politicized.
Ar¢tos
Member
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
PaintTinJr
Member
Which they aren't doing because they are struggling to make it what they claimed it was - a new merger proposal that addresses the SLC of the report -because the judge has set 6 pitfalls, and they are only easily cleared for someone acting in good faith, which for Microsoft would be a company first IMO.
havoc00
Member
Its getting to the point where its not fun or interesting anymore just annoying and frustrating
Vox Machina
Banned
Literally says at 0:28 "re-notify the deal". We know from the CMC with the CAT that they've been in discussions regarding the changes for over a month.
PaintTinJr
Member
But we also know they've done a pre-acquisition deal with Sony for CoD for 10years, which means they can't be losing structural control of CoD from the remedy, because they wouldn't have the legal authority to offer that, and the judge won't see a new merger if Microsoft still wear the CoD crown at the end of the merger.
It is a paradox Microsoft can't get out of to offer the CMA a proposal, and I suspect now their best option is to fight the appeal.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Yep. It now has that aura of, "of course it will end this way, it's our current world in current year, because of course it is."
Topher
Identifies as young
"We understand from Microsoft that they would like to put forward proposals to us, to restructure the deal, potentially re-notifying that deal to address our competition concerns. IF THEY DO THAT, we will consider those restructured proposals carefully."
Not sure what you are trying to say by picking out those three words, but take in everything she says it doesn't jive with what was said in the CMC. That is exactly my point.
Vox Machina
Banned
We've been over this. The Judge didn't say the word CoD once in the entire CMC. Sony was one of the competitors that was hypothetically "harmed" in the April decision, hence the Sony deal (along with the existing remedies set in place by the EU CC) being used as the MCC.
I guess that's one way to read that. Personally I think it reflects exactly what was discussed at the CMC.
Last edited:
skit_data
Member
Is the deal approved?
PaintTinJr
Member
You are in dreamland if you think the judge isn't focused on the end result of CoD ownership and it leverage to monopolise and foreclose competitors in markets, after the media telling him Sony were strongarmed into a deal and all they got was CoD for 10years - highlighting its importance today in the merger.
The judge saw through the collusion and has set six pitfalls. Today was check for BS, and what a surprise the CMA don't even have the written info to base their own evidence for the judge on. What is the judge supposed to make of the CMA skynews interview?
Topher
Identifies as young
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
And what was discussed was, "we don't have it but trust us bro" and a woefully unsatisfied judge that needs some satisfaction.
Topher
Identifies as young
I mean......we were all here listening and pointing out the contradictions as they happened live in court, weren't we?
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Vox Machina
Banned
If I'm not mistaken, no regulator on the planet Earth has put forward evidence that CoD is a required input in the Cloud Gaming "market". So, no, I don't think that at all. Even the CMA's objection was more about MSFT's ownership of Windows and the Xbox Console OS and market-leading position in Cloud Gaming (pretty sure Nvidia is the actual market leader, impossible to tell without unbundling Xcloud from Game Pass Ultimate tho)
Last edited:
Pipoqueiro
Member
Xbox-Activision: piattaforme, generi e valori produttivi valutati nell'indagine dell'UE
Emergono ulteriori dettagli riguardanti la decisione presa dall'Unione Europea sul caso Microsoft-Activision Blizzard.
www.everyeye.it
details have recently emerged on the decision taken by the European Union, which based its assessment on three fundamental criteria: the platforms , the videogame genres and the production values of the games and IPs involved in the operation.
"The Advisory Committee (15 Member States) agrees with the conclusions reached by the Commission in the decision in relation to the definition of the relevant markets for the development and publication of video games segmented by platform ( PC , console , mobile ), by types of video game ( AAA games vs. non-AAA games ) and by genre ( action-adventure , shooter / battle royale , RPG, sports, racing, combat, and strategy)" .
Last edited:
HeisenbergFX4
Member
Vox Machina
Banned
FTC to Pause Microsoft Merger Trial, Opening Door to Settlement Talks
The US Federal Trade Commission paused its in-house trial against Microsoft Corp.’s $69 billion acquisition of Activision Blizzard Inc., opening the door to potential settlement talks.
www.bloomberg.com
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked