Blame Google for being rather bad at B2B. They had an opportunity and then fucked it up.
Last edited:
-
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.
[MarketWatch] Microsoft faces battle for Activision deal, especially if ‘Call of Duty’ is destined for Xbox exclusivity
- Thread starter 3liteDragon
- Start date
- Status
a multicultural team of v
Member
I think the only deal that would get blocked is if they bought another actual distribution service, like Sony/Steam/Epic etc. Just content really doesn't feel like something that could be made a monopoly, but the actual access to and ecosystem of games could.
Sony has ex Black Ops devs and ex Destiny devs both making multiplayer games. The thing is neither of them have given even the slightest detail on what they are making, or when they will come out.
And this:So something like this?
Ex-Call of Duty: Black Ops devs are making a brand new IP for PlayStation
Former Call of Duty: Black Ops developers are making a brand new IP for PlayStation.www.eurogamer.net
Firewalk Studios
Firewalk Studios aims to deliver awesome gaming entertainment, rooted in strong gameplay and inspiring art, that captures the joy of playing together.
www.probablymonsters.com
Sony has ex Black Ops devs and ex Destiny devs both making multiplayer games. The thing is neither of them have given even the slightest detail on what they are making, or when they will come out.
Effigenius
Member
The panic this move is causing in some people is just fascinating to watch. Sorry folks, y'all might have to get an XBox or gaming PC. Them's the breaks.
Mozza
Member
Denial at it's finest, so we have gone from threads stating Activision and it's franchises are not worth owning in the first place, and now the deal which is pretty much done will not go through, how many more straws are people clutching at.
Microsoft faces battle for Activision deal, especially if 'Call of Duty' is destined for Xbox exclusivity
Microsoft Corp. has in the last few years gotten a bit of an anti-competitive pass from U.S. regulators, after its long legal battle with the Justice...www.marketwatch.com
EDIT: Thanks to @GHG for this, Financial Times explains in much more detail the amount of scrutiny the Microsoft - Activision | Blizzard deal's about to go through:
Last edited:
Uh huh.
I'm sure you're apart of the group that cries and complains about Sony's times exclusives.
BusierDonkey
Member
With any deal like this the question that needs to be asked is "How many politicians do we need to buy and for how much".
You can make anything law with money, a lot less money than what was spent on the merger in the first place. Even the most crooked politician is only a millionaire.
You can make anything law with money, a lot less money than what was spent on the merger in the first place. Even the most crooked politician is only a millionaire.
Last edited:
Effigenius
Member
Lol. What can I say? Payback's a bitch.
Honestly doesn't affect me either way as I own a PS5 and a Series X. But there's definitely a difference in how news is treated between the 2 companies. MS gets a 1 year exclusive for Rise of the Tomb Raider and the world almost ends. Sony repeatedly gets exclusive windows for games like Final Fantasy, Death Loop, Crash Collection, Star Wars KOTOR, and nobody bats an eye. It's hilarious watching the hypocrisy get exposed.
SLB1904
Banned
Swift_Star
Banned
this is priceless! You corner the market into a monopoly but it’s the competitor’s fault!!!!!!
Majukun
Member
who cares about consoles, i play on pc and this deal gives my more shit for free with my gamepass.
shame i don't really care that much for cod or overwatch, but free is free (as fre as something you pay for with a sub)
this being said, regardless of what do i care for..what there's exactly to regulate here? what laws or rules would this deal break?
StreetsofBeige
Gold Member
Read up on Sony's during the PS1 days where they wheel and dealed to get Tomb Raider sequels exclusive for PS1 until the year 1999. TR 2, 3 and some other game. Thats why no other TR games came out for other systems until Dreamcast got one in 2000. You'll see it in the Wiki.
Back then, nobody knew about these kinds of deals. But now we do. You dont see any Sony fan criticizing them keeping TR off Sega and Nintendo machines for 4 years.
Memorabilia
Member
What a bunch of nonsense clickbait. Does anyone here honestly think any of the out of touch, out to lunch fossils in Congress knows what the hell Call of Duty is much less care whether or not fuckin video game exclusivity would constitute "monopolistic behavior"? Hint: they don't (& it doesn't). As per usual in DC this is all about greasing palms.
Game exclusivity in no way constitutes "monopoly" no matter how many units sold. And more importantly, ActiBlizz was actively shopping itself. An acquisition was going to happen one way or another. MS is the least bad option & a net positive to rehab a company whose culture and rep has been swirling the toilet. The likely alternative - Tencent - would be a far worse steward.
Game exclusivity in no way constitutes "monopoly" no matter how many units sold. And more importantly, ActiBlizz was actively shopping itself. An acquisition was going to happen one way or another. MS is the least bad option & a net positive to rehab a company whose culture and rep has been swirling the toilet. The likely alternative - Tencent - would be a far worse steward.
Last edited:
Memorabilia
Member
It's not going to be blocked. But watching SonyGAF lose their minds over this is entertaining.
LOL, I will wait for the government to prove that they made O365 the largest B2B/B2C Office product via anti-monopolist methods.
SLB1904
Banned
apparently monopoly is a big no-no nowadays
octiny
Banned
TGO
Hype Train conductor. Works harder than it steams.
If you want to look at the kinda of bills that are likely to pass.
The bill has significant implications for Amazon, Apple and Google in particular, though as it’s currently written it would also apply to other large platforms like Facebook-owner Meta and TikTok. The bill prohibits dominant platforms, defined by criteria including how many users they have and their market cap, from discriminating against other businesses that rely on its services, in what’s sometimes referred to as self-preferencing.
That means, for example, Amazon could not simply decide to list its own private label products higher in its search ranking than third-party rivals’ listings. And Apple and Google could not unfairly rank their own apps higher than rivals’ in their own mobile app stores. The same principle would apply to Google’s general search engine as well.
www.cnbc.com
The bill has significant implications for Amazon, Apple and Google in particular, though as it’s currently written it would also apply to other large platforms like Facebook-owner Meta and TikTok. The bill prohibits dominant platforms, defined by criteria including how many users they have and their market cap, from discriminating against other businesses that rely on its services, in what’s sometimes referred to as self-preferencing.
That means, for example, Amazon could not simply decide to list its own private label products higher in its search ranking than third-party rivals’ listings. And Apple and Google could not unfairly rank their own apps higher than rivals’ in their own mobile app stores. The same principle would apply to Google’s general search engine as well.
Senate committee votes to advance major tech antitrust bill
The bill has significant implications for Amazon, Apple and Google in particular.
www.cnbc.com
Last edited:
Neofire
Member
The Att and TMobile merger is a big one that was much less in dollar amount too.
Memorabilia
Member
Exactly this. IP exclusivity does not constitute "monopoly" as it doesn't afford any overarching control over the mechanisms of the market itself. As when Sony and Nintendo themselves secure exclusives for their platforms these are merely ways to make their ecosystems more attractive to a wider swath of gamers. Scoring CoD, Diablo, etc...is no different. There is no "units sold" threshold that could push any game exclusivity into "monopoly" as CoD being only on Xbox wouldn't limit the ability of other developers/publishers to create similar competing products.
It would be far different if MS were to try to gobble up one of the other key platform/distribution pillars like Sony, Nintendo, Steam, etc....as this would fundamentally change how the market itself functions.
how many mobile network providers are there? how many game publishers are ?
surely there is a difference there.
there is a whole conversation around vertical mergers but FTC are still working through that.
Also the $ amount is sadly irrelevant.
NickFire
Member
A sitting member of Congress (who is part of the majority, committee seat(s), etc.) already vowed the deal will be scrutinized. I think that forecloses clickbait allegations for this article.
Last edited:
StreetsofBeige
Gold Member
Maybe you should cut and paste the entire paragraph.
You purposely only pasted the first part.
While the original Tomb Raider was released on both the PlayStation and Sega Saturn game consoles, Tomb Raider II was no longer designed for the Sega Saturn. Following the cancellation announcement, Adrian Smith cited technical limitations of the console to program an adequate conversion.[16] Core Design had been planning for a Saturn version of Tomb Raider II to use the 3D accelerator cartridge designed for the Saturn conversion of Virtua Fighter 3;[17] this cartridge was cancelled before Tomb Raider II was completed.[18] Some in the industry regarded the claim of the Saturn hardware being insufficient with doubt, and suggested that the real reason for the cancellation was that Sony and Core were negotiating a deal that would involve Tomb Raider II being PlayStation exclusive.[19] In September 1997, Sony Computer Entertainment signed a deal with Eidos to make console releases for the Tomb Raider franchise exclusive to the PlayStation, preventing the Sega Saturn or the Nintendo 64 from having any Tomb Raider game released for it until 2000, a deal that would prove very beneficial to Sony both in terms of revenue and also in further cementing the PlayStation's growing reputation as the go-to system for must-have exclusive titles.[20][21]
Last edited:
itsjustJEFF
Member
I think the deal will likely get approved. I think the regulatory bodies would step in if there is anything beyond this, maybe lol
I'm not sure why some are commenting this article is "click bait" or "rubbish" there is nothing inflammatory, controversial, outlandish or out-of-line with anything being stated in the piece. They even bring up a good example with nVidia/ARM deal. It's an opinion piece on a stock market website that cover news that could have an effects on the stock market. They don't care about the content, be it video games or not, it's the deal and what it entails and how it could effects their readers money.
You can disagree with an opinion piece, but just because it's different from your opinion that doesn't mean it's garbage.
EDIT: of course it's going to be looked at by the regulatory bodies... it's A LOT of money! It's really hard to ignore a $70 Billion dollar deal.
I'm not sure why some are commenting this article is "click bait" or "rubbish" there is nothing inflammatory, controversial, outlandish or out-of-line with anything being stated in the piece. They even bring up a good example with nVidia/ARM deal. It's an opinion piece on a stock market website that cover news that could have an effects on the stock market. They don't care about the content, be it video games or not, it's the deal and what it entails and how it could effects their readers money.
You can disagree with an opinion piece, but just because it's different from your opinion that doesn't mean it's garbage.
EDIT: of course it's going to be looked at by the regulatory bodies... it's A LOT of money! It's really hard to ignore a $70 Billion dollar deal.
Last edited:
Memorabilia
Member
Every single substantial merger is "scrutinized". I worked on the Hill long enough to say with confidence that is just the usual pre-palm greasing rhetoric and that this deal will ultimately be finalized. The simple fact is acquiring IPs and potentially making them exclusive isn't monopolistic. MS/Xbox will still need to jump thru the usual hoops because that's how things work in DC.
NickFire
Member
I have no doubt it will be approved, and I suspect there will be no shortage of greasing. But that doesn't make it fair to call an article predicting there will be scrutiny click bait IMO.
Memorabilia
Member
Oh I see, you want to discuss whether or not the article is "click bait." Fair enough. I'd say that my characterization of the article is secondary to the issue of the merger itself but we can just agree to disagree on that point. As someone familiar with said palm greasing, the article smacks of the usual "much ado about nothing", dressing up a process that is largely political theater as something substantive.
rodrigolfp
Haptic Gamepads 4 Life
God bless the pc versions freeing those TR games from the PS1 performance and IQ...
Who in particular have you determined doesn’t play games and is only interested in seeing games kept away from other consoles? Names?
I think your argument would also be stronger if we had you on record condemning the paying of cash to keep final fantasy off Xbox consoles.
TGO
Hype Train conductor. Works harder than it steams.
I think that's more to do with the N64
Lognor
Banned
It's also that those products are inferior. I've used Google office apps and my employer used to have Lotus Notes. All of it is garbage compared to what Microsoft offers. If others were better maybe they wouldn't have the monopoly?
Effigenius
Member
Are you talking about MS buying Activision, or Sony repeatedly money hatting games to keep them off XBox? I'm unclear.
TheThreadsThatBindUs
Member
Buying up all the major content can absolutely create a monopoly when the costs to compete in the AAA content area are increasingly only affordable by the largest videogame publishers.
When the 3-4 biggest publishers (Acti, EA, Ubi and TT) soak up the majority of content revenue on consoles, with their biggest franchises, buying one of those four can amount to buying up a significant chunk of the content market.
The question regulators will need to address is how much of the content market can be bought and made exclusive before it begins stifling competition (becominging a monopoly is not the threshold as the intent of regulators is to take preventative action well before a monopoly can be forged). If this deal is seen to stifle competition, it will face resistance for sure.
I actually think the Bethesda deal and eventual outcome hurts MS’s chances of this deal going through, because immediately as they passed that one they announced everything would be exclusive to their platform going forward. Given that, it’ll be very hard for them to convince regulators that they won’t just do the same thing again here.
Still, I don’t have too much faith the FTC, DOJ and EU will have the will to oppose this deal. Primarily, because I just don’t think they give a shit about gaming as an industry. If PS gamers can no longer play COD or other Activision games, it’s just not important enough to regulators to care.
SenjutsuSage
Banned
Another factor for anyone believing this can be stopped, this is an election year. 2022 mid-terms are coming up. You think the party in control wants to be seen as preventing an American company from better competing against Tencent, a Chinese company flanked by Sony, another foreign company? The furthest this goes is public testimony that includes affected or no longer employed Activision employees, Kotick, Phil Spencer himself, and I'm pretty sure Phil would almost certainly bring Sarah Bond also. Kotick gets roughed up. Phil and Sarah end up looking like great people, the proper people to take over and fix issues, and will also address challenges their own companies have gone through and what they did to fix them.
Politicians get their 15 minutes, they get video and played on TV at night grandstanding, and then they get to say they scrutinized it and didn't just let it pass without a hearing, so they can use that later just in case it all blows up.
Oh, and then there's another matter of this is the same year where there will be the Jan 6th, Committee hearings, because it might be their last chance to do so before potentially losing control to the Republican Party. The focus will not be in this election year on trying to stop Microsoft from owning Activision, because it would only further distract from what they're trying to say is the larger issue of voting rights and democracy itself. And if Republicans do take control, does anybody believe Republicans will stop a major merger? For one, they would have zero power to do so, as do the current Democrats have no power to stop it. They can only trigger public hearings and demand documents, which a Republican leadership would not ask Microsoft to do.
A potential Republican controlled House of Representatives is far less likely to be hostile to a powerful corporation absorbing another company. They'll likely be too busy immediately trying to start an impeachment preceding (illegitimate though it will be) against the current President. If ever there was a time to get Activision, this is the right time. Microsoft couldn't have landed this deal at a more perfect time if they tried. Only one thing could make it any better, if it were a Presidential election year. But this is as good as it gets. Trust me when I say Microsoft and Activision likely considered the election factor.
Current leadership wants the top subject to be about voting rights, infrastructure, the child tax credit and its impact on child poverty etc., and rightfully so. That they were more concerned about where Call of Duty would go than voting rights, insurrection, and kitchen table issues is not the kind of picture they want to paint going into the mid-terms. To reiterate, this deal is unstoppable. It can only be delayed, but it won't be stopped.
Politicians get their 15 minutes, they get video and played on TV at night grandstanding, and then they get to say they scrutinized it and didn't just let it pass without a hearing, so they can use that later just in case it all blows up.
Oh, and then there's another matter of this is the same year where there will be the Jan 6th, Committee hearings, because it might be their last chance to do so before potentially losing control to the Republican Party. The focus will not be in this election year on trying to stop Microsoft from owning Activision, because it would only further distract from what they're trying to say is the larger issue of voting rights and democracy itself. And if Republicans do take control, does anybody believe Republicans will stop a major merger? For one, they would have zero power to do so, as do the current Democrats have no power to stop it. They can only trigger public hearings and demand documents, which a Republican leadership would not ask Microsoft to do.
A potential Republican controlled House of Representatives is far less likely to be hostile to a powerful corporation absorbing another company. They'll likely be too busy immediately trying to start an impeachment preceding (illegitimate though it will be) against the current President. If ever there was a time to get Activision, this is the right time. Microsoft couldn't have landed this deal at a more perfect time if they tried. Only one thing could make it any better, if it were a Presidential election year. But this is as good as it gets. Trust me when I say Microsoft and Activision likely considered the election factor.
Current leadership wants the top subject to be about voting rights, infrastructure, the child tax credit and its impact on child poverty etc., and rightfully so. That they were more concerned about where Call of Duty would go than voting rights, insurrection, and kitchen table issues is not the kind of picture they want to paint going into the mid-terms. To reiterate, this deal is unstoppable. It can only be delayed, but it won't be stopped.
They kept all existing games on the platform they were on. Minecraft 2 would be exclusive, though.
Even now MS puts the occasional game on Switch.
Effigenius
Member
I'm not doubting you, but why does the EU need to approve one american company buying another? Because of King? Well fuck, I'm sure MS will leave King multiplatform then.
Sanepar
Member
I think they did with Bethesda.
Majukun
Member
but...that's not a monopoly?
Ogbert
Member
In fact, purchasing Sony or Nintendo would likely be fine as well. A monopoly, in and of itself, isn’t necessarily a bad thing; you can simply have the best product. It is the barrier to entry that a monopoly can create which regulators ‘attempt’ to combat.
If MS did buy Sony, there would be absolutely nothing to stop Apple or Google etc taking the place of Sony. Access to the video game market is remarkably easy.
What *would* most assuredly be under review is MS pricing. The moment a significant market share is being seen to influence customer spending, alarm bells raise. But there’s no reason to see that being the case.
It’s why no one has dinged Amazon. A total and utter monopoly on how we consume goods. But it’s driven prices down rather than up, so it remains relatively untouched by regulatory oversight.
SLB1904
Banned
that's why it has to go to the anti-trust of whatever trial to get approved. im not saying it is
IntentionalPun
Ask me about my wife's perfect butthole
I don't know why anyone thinks the FTC is going to muddle with "console exclusivity" of a videogame.
They'd sooner say they have to sell off the IP, or sell off some of the devs to others.
I also find the concept of Sony lobbying the government to stop this, while trying to by a publisher themselves a bit strange.
I'd say they could do one or the other.. both would be a bit.. odd.
They'd sooner say they have to sell off the IP, or sell off some of the devs to others.
I also find the concept of Sony lobbying the government to stop this, while trying to by a publisher themselves a bit strange.
I'd say they could do one or the other.. both would be a bit.. odd.
Last edited:
Aguero9320
Member
Sony 'taking legal action to try and block the deal' is a really bad look for them. I can't imagine for one second they will actually go through with that. Must be absolute panic stations there if they do...
They should only get involved in any action if Microsoft breach a signed contract, and stay out of anything else.
I thought the tweet they put out about expecting Microsoft to honor the deal was ill advised and jittery, this would be next level stupid.
A deal this size will absolutely cross a regulator's desk in any industry, but it's clear it should just take a cursory glance and no more to move it on as it's just business. Just let it go through the (ineffectual at the best of times) system.
That article appears to have been written by someone with a disdain for Microsoft and/or Activision, it drips off the page. Doesn't make it realistic or likely though
Ozzy Onya A2Z
Member
It will get reviewed, it may even go to mediation or court etc but it's not a defensible position at all. This deal is going through, no doubt. I'll again quote myself. -
As for the angle of workplace harassment you'd be hard pressed to find a more inclusive and proactive "top 10" company than Microsoft. Given the recent Activision and Sony shite Microsoft look like Mother Teresa here currently anyhow. How about comparison to Tencent? The regulators don't have squat.
As for the angle of workplace harassment you'd be hard pressed to find a more inclusive and proactive "top 10" company than Microsoft. Given the recent Activision and Sony shite Microsoft look like Mother Teresa here currently anyhow. How about comparison to Tencent? The regulators don't have squat.
Bo_Hazem
Banned
This will make them bring their own shooters and more games. Actually they seem to have sensed that and bringing Deviation game and GG's shooter IP.
Syphon Filter
Member
You aren't making sense with this statement because nobody games on mac or linux and they do on playstations.
IntentionalPun
Ask me about my wife's perfect butthole
MS is in support of Steam Deck, which runs on Linux.. so sort of?
I'm sure they'd be fine releasing to Mac if it mattered.
You do make a good point though as regulators would probably ask the same thing. But regulators are also aware of things like digital stores, and MS can use the Steam excuse.
Honestly MS's openness about Steam, while awesome for PC gamers, could simply be leading up to scenarios like this one where they have to argue their growth in court.
Last edited:
- Status