• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Axios (Stephen Totilo) Lawyers: Email proves Microsoft’s ABK bid is designed to elimination (Update: MS claims it was a "thought experiment")

Bumblebeetuna

Bumblebeetuna

Member
DeepEnigma said:
Ponder Denzel Washington GIF by Entertainment Tonight
Click to expand...

I like Denzel gifs too.

Denzel Washington GIF by SAG Awards


midnightAI said:
How do we know? it hasnt been released yet, wont release on PS5 so we have nothing to gauge it against and its made by the Skyrim developers, you know, that little game that has sold double the number of copies than any COD game ever released? add microtransactions to that and it could potentially be a money making beast.
Click to expand...

CoD has a new game every year and now has a F2P game and has mobile. Sure Skyrim has sold a ton but that’s sales over the course of three generations. The revenue is not similar at all. This is common sense.

Again, if you want to compare CoD to something, compare it to Minecraft or Destiny. Those games were acquired and neither are going exclusive.
 
adamsapple

adamsapple

Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Bumblebeetuna said:
Those are all concessions MS threw out to try and appease regulators. Aren’t you for regulation? Are you one of those weirdos expecting MS to sign a forever deal for CoD or something?
Click to expand...

They offered concessions for not withholding, CMA/EU agreed there won't be any withholding.

and here's my denzel gif


Happy Got You GIF by Bounce
 
Last edited:
Bernardougf

Bernardougf

Member
quest said:
They would not take away COD. It would kill the IP. Some other shooter would become the go to game for a 100 million playstation users and multiple platform users. There is a reason all the big money making competive shooters are on every single device that can run it. There is a reason Microsoft didn't make minecraft exclusive. They didn't want to give other games a 100 million user base to build a competitor and become the defacto game of the genre.
Click to expand...

Competitive shooters are not easy to make.. we make fun of COD but what activion created is a good addictive money printing and gamer mover machine ... I can totally buy gamers from all ages addicted to COD switching to PC/Xbox for their fix... hell they moved from xbox360 to ps4 in a heartbeat! So they could move back

In a very hypothetical world were MS really plans to rule the game market by canceling sony all can happen
. We cant take "business as usual" approach here ... only one company here can take all the hits they want and just rebound after the competition is terminated
They can even afford to destroy COD if they wanted ... is completely ludicrous but is not impossible.
As DeepEnigma DeepEnigma have said it , using scorched earth tactics is very plausible for the ones who possess the means to bounce back
 
midnightAI

midnightAI

Member
quest said:
You think a game that's built on community mods is going to make over a billion dollars a year on microtransactions? No one will pay for a microtransaction modders could copy and release for free? An expansion pack every few years sure but not a consistent microtransaction revenue stream like COD.
Click to expand...
Well its irrelevant, we wont know, its not releasing on PlayStation
 
Pelta88

Pelta88

Member
Thought Experiment? From this point onwards, I'm dismissing anyone who parrots the nonsensical, inclusive, "We're really buying all the publishers for you," horse manure from XB PR. Behind the scenes and when nobody is looking that email points towards their actual strategy.

But the broader point being made here is an answer to why Microsoft/XBOX, despite have a 2 trillion market cap chooses to associate with certain types on the internet? You've seen them... I wont name names because if you're here, then you know already who those clowns are.

Today I realised the answer is because those clowns reflect XBOX's own buffoonery at the corporate level.
 
Last edited:
Klayzer

Klayzer

Member
Bernardougf said:
The same people are claiming that is perfectly fine and normal for MS to try end Sony because is business as usual and at the same time still support that they will not take away COD from sony as part of this strategy ... so you are bashing your head in the wall with this people.. they are too disingenuous to admit they were wrong and just arguing in bad faith at this point
Click to expand...
OMG! Thank you. They will buckle down on their own bullshit bile.
 
Varteras

Varteras

Member
Dane said:
Exactly like Sony did in 94?
Click to expand...

#SonyToo. This is about what a company is doing now. Not something a company may or may not be guilty of 30 years ago. And if you do want to play that game, nothing Sony did, 30 years ago, is remotely the same situation as what Microsoft is attempting now. A company, wealthy beyond belief, attempting nothing more than completely buying out the industry. Having the means to do it, and, should the e-mail prove true, which has yet to be shown or even stated by Microsoft as false, the intent to do so. Sony has never been in a position to just buy their way to dominance. Even if they were, they clearly didn't do it.

Sony, 30 years ago, entered a market with a lot of established players. Their relative wealth allowed them a solid position from the start. That's fine. Just as it was fine when Microsoft did it. Just as it would be fine if Amazon did it. They also helped provide a means for developers to get out from under the predatory practices of Nintendo at the time. Which is why so many developers threw their lot in with PlayStation. They didn't straight out buy big publishers. They didn't forever starve the opposing playerbases of huge, multiplatform franchises by simply owning the companies making them. They certainly weren't buying multiple of them.

No, buying Psygnosis was not some earth-shattering development that gave them a huge advantage and posed a threat to Sega, Nintendo, Atari, or any companies involved with the 3DO project. Those companies all proved to be threats to themselves. It merely helped to stabilize PlayStation for entry. There was nothing back then that was anything like Activision's current position. No phenomenon like Call of Duty existed. I would say that Psygnosis wasn't even Zenimax levels of important. And even among those that were big deals back then, Sony never bought them. They didn't buy Konami, Capcom, Squaresoft, or even Sega or Nintendo. You know who tried?

Sony's wild success with PS2 was the result of good moves they made the previous generation and by making that console a cheap DVD player. Not because they bought out EA. Let's also be clear that Sony has shown vulnerability to PlayStation screwing the pooch in the past. Sony was in huge financial trouble during the PS3 era. Not just because of PS3, but it was a big contributing factor. Now, after 30 years, Sony is in a position where if PlayStation goes under, it would be catastrophic for them. So they have to be very careful. Microsoft doesn't care. Xbox could instantly cease to exist and the company would largely carry on as usual.

If PlayStation did the same, Sony would be filing for bankruptcy. They're even making themselves even more vulnerable to that situation by spinning off their financial arm to focus more on entertainment. Especially video games. A market that is very wide, with many choices, and virtually impossible for a company like Sony to corner. If Sony did attempt as such, I would be just as adamant that they're being scummy. Because my values don't shift depending on who I'm talking about.
 
Bernardougf

Bernardougf

Member
Varteras said:
#SonyToo. This is about what a company is doing now. Not something a company may or may not be guilty of 30 years ago. And if you do want to play that game, nothing Sony did, 30 years ago, is remotely the same situation as what Microsoft is attempting now. A company, wealthy beyond belief, attempting nothing more than completely buying out the industry. Having the means to do it, and, should the e-mail prove true, which has yet to be shown or even stated by Microsoft as false, the intent to do so. Sony has never been in a position to just buy their way to dominance. Even if they were, they clearly didn't do it.

Sony, 30 years ago, entered a market with a lot of established players. Their relative wealth allowed them a solid position from the start. That's fine. Just as it was fine when Microsoft did it. Just as it would be fine if Amazon did it. They also helped provide a means for developers to get out from under the predatory practices of Nintendo at the time. Which is why so many developers threw their lot in with PlayStation. They didn't straight out buy big publishers. They didn't forever starve the opposing playerbases of huge, multiplatform franchises by simply owning the companies making them. They certainly weren't buying multiple of them.

No, buying Psygnosis was not some earth-shattering development that gave them a huge advantage and posed a threat to Sega, Nintendo, Atari, or any companies involved with the 3DO project. Those companies all proved to be threats to themselves. It merely helped to stabilize PlayStation for entry. There was nothing back then that was anything like Activision's current position. No phenomenon like Call of Duty existed. I would say that Psygnosis wasn't even Zenimax levels of important. And even among those that were big deals back then, Sony never bought them. They didn't buy Konami, Capcom, Squaresoft, or even Sega or Nintendo. You know who tried?

Sony's wild success with PS2 was the result of good moves they made the previous generation and by making that console a cheap DVD player. Not because they bought out EA. Let's also be clear that Sony has shown vulnerability to PlayStation screwing the pooch in the past. Sony was in huge financial trouble during the PS3 era. Not just because of PS3, but it was a big contributing factor. Now, after 30 years, Sony is in a position where if PlayStation goes under, it would be catastrophic for them. So they have to be very careful. Microsoft doesn't care. Xbox could instantly cease to exist and the company would largely carry on as usual.

If PlayStation did the same, Sony would be filing for bankruptcy. They're even making themselves even more vulnerable to that situation by spinning off their financial arm to focus more on entertainment. Especially video games. A market that is very wide, with many choices, and virtually impossible for a company like Sony to corner. If Sony did attempt as such, I would be just as adamant that they're being scummy. Because my values don't shift depending on who I'm talking about.
Click to expand...
Ms already said the email was a "thought experiment " therefore true.
 
Ar¢tos

Ar¢tos

Member
Varteras said:
#SonyToo. This is about what a company is doing now. Not something a company may or may not be guilty of 30 years ago. And if you do want to play that game, nothing Sony did, 30 years ago, is remotely the same situation as what Microsoft is attempting now. A company, wealthy beyond belief, attempting nothing more than completely buying out the industry. Having the means to do it, and, should the e-mail prove true, which has yet to be shown or even stated by Microsoft as false, the intent to do so. Sony has never been in a position to just buy their way to dominance. Even if they were, they clearly didn't do it.

Sony, 30 years ago, entered a market with a lot of established players. Their relative wealth allowed them a solid position from the start. That's fine. Just as it was fine when Microsoft did it. Just as it would be fine if Amazon did it. They also helped provide a means for developers to get out from under the predatory practices of Nintendo at the time. Which is why so many developers threw their lot in with PlayStation. They didn't straight out buy big publishers. They didn't forever starve the opposing playerbases of huge, multiplatform franchises by simply owning the companies making them. They certainly weren't buying multiple of them.

No, buying Psygnosis was not some earth-shattering development that gave them a huge advantage and posed a threat to Sega, Nintendo, Atari, or any companies involved with the 3DO project. Those companies all proved to be threats to themselves. It merely helped to stabilize PlayStation for entry. There was nothing back then that was anything like Activision's current position. No phenomenon like Call of Duty existed. I would say that Psygnosis wasn't even Zenimax levels of important. And even among those that were big deals back then, Sony never bought them. They didn't buy Konami, Capcom, Squaresoft, or even Sega or Nintendo. You know who tried?

Sony's wild success with PS2 was the result of good moves they made the previous generation and by making that console a cheap DVD player. Not because they bought out EA. Let's also be clear that Sony has shown vulnerability to PlayStation screwing the pooch in the past. Sony was in huge financial trouble during the PS3 era. Not just because of PS3, but it was a big contributing factor. Now, after 30 years, Sony is in a position where if PlayStation goes under, it would be catastrophic for them. So they have to be very careful. Microsoft doesn't care. Xbox could instantly cease to exist and the company would largely carry on as usual.

If PlayStation did the same, Sony would be filing for bankruptcy. They're even making themselves even more vulnerable to that situation by spinning off their financial arm to focus more on entertainment. Especially video games. A market that is very wide, with many choices, and virtually impossible for a company like Sony to corner. If Sony did attempt as such, I would be just as adamant that they're being scummy. Because my values don't shift depending on who I'm talking about.
Click to expand...
IIRC, Psygnosis stayed multiplatform for a while after being bought by Sony, unlike MS with Bethesda.
 
Varteras

Varteras

Member
midnightAI said:
Possibly (in my opinion)...
1, it depends on if MS do acquire ABK and what kind of agreement (if any) is in place for COD
2, what agreements are already in place when Sony bought Bungie
Click to expand...

Yeah. I've said before. Don't expect the current arrangement between those two to last. Sony and Psygnosis had a tense moment where Sony almost sold them for way more than they paid for them. Because Psygnosis was still releasing games for other platforms. Just like Bungie now, then, Psygnosis operated as an independent subsidiary. Eventually, Sony folded them directly under Sony Computer Entertainment and assumed full control. Closing them down in 2012. Then, about a decade later, buying the studio that formed after they were closed. Firesprite.

While I'm pretty sure the arrangement is a bit different, I have doubts that Bungie won't end up making PlayStation exclusive games. Whatever Matter is, there are rumors that it is exclusive. Not at all surprised. It's also probably far enough out that by the time it releases, it being exclusive would be handwaved as a "changing relationship". I've said before that I understand why Sony bought them. I still think it sucks. I don't see how they couldn't have come to an arrangement that Bungie helps them with live service games while Sony helps them expand their IP beyond games without buying them. Sony has a similar partnership with Kadokawa. Why couldn't that apply here?

The answer to that is probably uncomfortable for some but I'll say it anyway. Sony isn't as bad as Microsoft, but they're still a company that likes control and money.

Ar¢tos said:
IIRC, Psygnosis stayed multiplatform for a while after being bought by Sony, unlike MS with Bethesda.
Click to expand...

They did, but Sony wasn't all that happy about it. It caused tension and Sony almost sold them off.
 
Last edited:
Ar¢tos

Ar¢tos

Member
DeepEnigma said:
Psygnosis wasn't even Bethesda caliber, hell, not even Bungie caliber, let alone Activision. It's grasping at straws.
Click to expand...
How can you compare? Psygnosis golden period was pre Bethesda.
Psygnosis was amazing in the PS1 days, it was one of the best studios/publishers.



Just googled, they were bought in 93 and kept making Saturn games up to 97, then did PC/Playstation after that.
 
C

chonga

Member
Bumblebeetuna said:
He tried the same gotcha with me. People underestimate how much money MS would make from this deal, especially from the King aspect. They don’t have to remove CoD from PlayStation in order to benefit mightily.
Click to expand...
So I think we read into what you're saying here, what you think is that King makes so much money that there's really no need for Microsoft to remove COD or do any other underhand tactics to harm other competitors. In could effect they can just acquire ABK and run it as-is and they will, as you put it, make money on the deal, regardless.

Is that a fair assessment?
 
DeepEnigma

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
Ar¢tos said:
How can you compare? Psygnosis golden period was pre Bethesda.
Psygnosis was amazing in the PS1 days, it was one of the best studios/publishers.



Just googled, they were bought in 93 and kept making Saturn games up to 97, then did PC/Playstation after that.
Click to expand...
Which Saturn was discontinued officially in 98. Psygnosis was not the source of Saturn's ills. Sega themselves were.
 
Bumblebeetuna

Bumblebeetuna

Member
chonga said:
So I think we read into what you're saying here, what you think is that King makes so much money that there's really no need for Microsoft to remove COD or do any other underhand tactics to harm other competitors. In could effect they can just acquire ABK and run it as-is and they will, as you put it, make money on the deal, regardless.

Is that a fair assessment?
Click to expand...

Define underhand tactics.

The merger would make MS so much revenue over the years and CoD is a big part of that and having CoD on as many devices as possible is a key part of why CoD is what it is. They lose that by making it exclusive. Im not saying anything on ABK as a whole, we were discussing CoD.

They could lock up every other game ABK has in the works for all we know. But they’ve shown in the past that they value revenue over making something exclusive just for exclusives sake. This will continue to change on a case by case basis no doubt.
 
NickFire

NickFire

Member
A thought experiment. Their response to the allegation is that it was just a thought experiment that took place sometime in 2019. Can't tell us date or exact substance. Just that there was a thought experiment in 2019.

Long felt they treated their influencers as useful idiots. Never dreamed they would essentially confirm it like this. Oof.
 
C

chonga

Member
Bumblebeetuna said:
Define underhand tactics.

The merger would make MS so much revenue over the years and CoD is a big part of that and having CoD on as many devices as possible is a key part of why CoD is what it is. They lose that by making it exclusive. Im not saying anything on ABK as a whole, we were discussing CoD.

They could lock up every other game ABK has in the works for all we know. But they’ve shown in the past that they value revenue over making something exclusive just for exclusives sake. This will continue to change on a case by case basis no doubt.
Click to expand...
Well anything, and I'm not trying to tie down specifics because there's a whole host of things they could do so you can ignore that part and the question still gives me the desired answer.

You said that people underestimate how much money MS will make from the deal, and cite how King prints money. You then say that they don't have to remove COD. So the inference there is that there's going to be no burning need for MS to change anything for the deal make financial sense and thus hypothetically Microsoft could acquire ABK and keep it running as-is. They make zero changes, and that's OK because you think King makes so much money that the deal is still good for MS.

Is that in line with your thinking?
 
adamsapple

adamsapple

Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
FYI, the 'gamers' lawsuit lawyers wanted to do a joinder with the FTC case but the judge denied it.


FzKPWIQaMAEHncR
 
thismeinteil

thismeinteil

Member
What I would like to know is what is up with the revisionist history pertaining to Sega's HW demise? Sony had nothing to do with it other than being another good option for gaming HW. Sega is the one who caused themselves to have to bow out of the HW market. And really it all started with Nintendo.

Sega was so focused on winning the 16-bit wars that they weren't really looking to the future. Instead of focusing their efforts on making the Saturn a great console, for both 2D and 3D, they were busy keeping the Genesis going. Of course, instead of doing that with just games, they came up with not one, but TWO HW add-ons for the thing that they needed to support. The Sega CD, which did have some neat games, but was hampered by having to pass all of its video through the limited Genesis. And the 32X, which was really worthless in the end. They also had the bright idea to have some games come out that required you to have BOTH add-ons. This cost R&D time and money that should have gone into the Saturn. It also took dev time and money away, as well.

Then, when the Saturn was about to launch, Sega got spooked by the upcoming PS1 and launched months before they were supposed to in a poor attempt to get out first. This ended up hurting them more than would they have launched when they were supposed to, since it caught devs/pubs, as well as retailers, off guard when they didn't get the extra months they needed to ready for the intended launch. This meant that many 3rd party devs missed out on the important launch, where their games would have flew of shelves to new Saturn owners, and mostly only Sega games were ready at launch. Retailers were pissed off because it cost them extra revenue from those other games and meant they had to find warehouse/shelf space for the Saturn before they were needed to. Some retailers, like KB Toys, even refused to stock it. It also didn't allow Sega to push the console for months before they launched, which didn't help with hype for the system.

The failure of the Dreamcast is really just a continuation of the Saturn's failure. It wasn't a bad system by any means, but like its predecessor, it just wasn't up to snuff compared to the competition. Also, not only were some devs/pubs and retailers still upset about the Saturn launch, but the PS2 was the successor to the most popular home console, by far, up until that time, and itself became the most popular of all time, meaning it was easy to choose which console to focus their efforts on.

I honestly feel like most Xbox fans are just bitter Saturn/Dreamcast fanboys who, instead of being able to blame Sega for their own failings, must make a scapegoat out of Sony. That would explain the blind following of MS, and defense of their obvious shortcomings, as the new company they have grabbed onto in their PS hate.
 
Last edited:
Varteras

Varteras

Member
adamsapple said:
FYI, the 'gamers' lawsuit lawyers wanted to do a joinder with the FTC case but the judge denied it.


FzKPWIQaMAEHncR
Click to expand...

Not surprised. Trying to piggyback onto someone else's case so you can maybe get a win while bogging down an expedited case is not something a judge has interest in. That being said, I'm sure the FTC would welcome any further evidence into their case.
 
DeepEnigma

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
thismeinteil said:
What I would like to know is what is up with the revisionist history pertaining to Sega's HW demise? Sony had nothing to do with it other than being another good option for gaming HW. Sega is the one who caused themselves to have to bow out of the HW market. And really it all started with Nintendo.

Sega was so focused on winning the 16-bit wars that they weren't really looking to the future. Instead of focusing their efforts on making the Saturn a great console, for both 2D and 3D, they were busy keeping the Genesis going. Of course, instead of doing that with just games, they came up with not one, but TWO HW add-ons for the thing that they needed to support. The Sega CD, which did have some neat games, but was hampered by having to pass all of its video through the limited Genesis. And the 32X, which was really worthless in the end. They also had the bright idea to have some games come out that required you to have BOTH add-ons. This cost R&D time and money that should have gone into the Saturn. It also took dev time and money away, as well.

Then, when the Saturn was about to launch, Sega got spooked by the upcoming PS1 and launched months before they were supposed to in a poor attempt to get out first. This ended up hurting them more than would they have launched when they were supposed to, since it caught devs/pubs, as well as retailers, off guard when they didn't get the extra months they needed to ready for the intended launch. This meant that many 3rd party devs missed out on the important launch, where their games would have flew of shelves to new Saturn owners, and mostly only Sega games were ready at launch. Retailers were pissed off because it cost them extra revenue from those other games and meant they had to find warehouse/shelf space for the Saturn before they were needed to. Some retailers, like KB Toys, even refused to stock it. It also didn't allow Sega to push the console for months before they launched, which didn't help with hype for the system.

The failure of the Dreamcast is really just a continuation of the Saturn's failure. It wasn't a bad system by any means, but like its predecessor, it just wasn't up to snuff compared to the competition. Also, not only were some devs/pubs and retailers still upset about he Saturn launch, but the PS2 was the successor to the most popular home console, by far, up until that time, and itself became the most popular of all time, meaning it was easy to choose which console to focus on their efforts on.

I honestly feel like most Xbox fans are just bitter Saturn/Dreamcast fanboys who, instead of being able to blame Sega for their own failings, must make a scapegoat out of Sony. That would explain the blind following of MS, and defense of their obvious shortcomings, as the new company they have grabbed onto in their PS hate.
Click to expand...
Anna Kendrick Movie GIF by Pitch Perfect
 
adamsapple

adamsapple

Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
NickFire said:
So um, now that we know they planned next month's $2.00 monthly increase last year, do you stand by the suggestion that an email from some point in 2019 has no relevance to billions spent in the couple ensuing years?
Click to expand...

Mood What GIF by NBC



why stop there, why not assume this $2.00 price increase was planned in 2017 when the service first launched.
 
Last edited:
T

Three

Member
ResilientBanana said:
I see nothing as well.

I also notice a lot of people here comparing this to Bethesda. $1B is a lot different than $30+B. They could afford to keep Bethesda to themselves. They can’t afford to keep games like COD to themselves, they make too much money to keep them on a single platform. I’m sure the extra income from Sony would be good for them though. Profiting from their success is the ultimate fuck you.
Click to expand...
What exactly is this a comparison of? $30B is the total revenue the COD franchise has made since 2003. 20 years of revenue on phones, PC, Xbox, PlayStation; In warzone, mobile microtransactions, the whole lot. What exactly is the $1B in comparison? Zenimax makes that in 2years. It will probably make that in a quarter with a single big release like starfield. MS makes that in 1 quarter of GP. This comparison of yours is hugely flawed.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

  • x2
Ctrl+Alt+Deceive: All The Dirt, Info, Lies, and LOLs We Found During FTC vs. Microsoft
2 3 4 5 6
295
37K
Heisenberg007 replied
Top Bottom