• 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.

Microsoft / Activision Deal Approval Watch |OT| (MS/ABK close)

Do you believe the deal will be approved?

  • Yes, will be approved without changes.

    Votes: 221 24.9%

  • Yes, will be approved but with structural changes to ABK.

    Votes: 102 11.5%

  • Yes, will be approved but only with behavioral concessions.

    Votes: 262 29.6%

  • No, will not be approved.

    Votes: 301 34.0%
  • Total voters
    886
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
adamsapple

adamsapple

Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Last edited:
DeepEnigma

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
adamsapple said:
The moneyhat is implied with the renegotiation. But things like that or the promise of exclusive development don't stop the IP holder, see MLB. They *made* Sony make an Xbox and Switch version despite the franchise being pretty successful as an exclusive.
Click to expand...
Keep going,
Big Brother Popcorn GIF by Pop TV
 
MasterCornholio

MasterCornholio

Member
aries_71 said:
Wow, I know you guys told me the FTC would be in trouble in a court of law, but I did not anticipated it would be this bad. Not like this, not like this.
Click to expand...

Ahhh that makes more sense. I thought you meant they did terrible in court. I haven't watched it myself but it seemed like they were ruthless based on the info that got released.
 
Topher

Topher

Identifies as young
Thick Thighs Save Lives said:
Is it only me who wants to believe that the CEO of PlayStation, Jimbo Ryan really said "We have some good stuff cooking"? lmao

image.png


Maybe Jimbo really wanted to skip the FTC trial just to anonymously shitpost here on GAF. :messenger_tears_of_joy:
Click to expand...

Folks wanting to highlight that email from Jim but it obviously doesn't jive with Jim's attitude after he found out MS was only going to give them a three year deal. No way "years to come" translated to three years for Jim Ryan.

If that's anyone's big take away of the day then you really are searching hard to find a good take away for Microsoft.
 
MasterCornholio

MasterCornholio

Member
feynoob said:
🤷‍♂️
Click to expand...


That doesn't have anything to do with Microsoft rejecting Marvel.

That was just dumb especially with the info we have.

"According to Marvel’s Jay Ong, his company wanted to replicate Marvel properties’ box office success in the video game world. When Ong approached Microsoft, the company told him that it was prioritizing own IPs and passed up a deal. Sony’s Adam Boyes and John Drake, on the other hand, were interested in Ong’s proposal."
 
Last edited:
Banjo64

Banjo64

cumsessed
Topher said:
Folks wanting to highlight that email from Jim but it obviously doesn't jive with Jim's attitude after he found out MS was only going to give them a three year deal. No way "years to come" translated to three years for Jim Ryan.

If that's anyone's big take away of the day then you really are searching hard to find a good take away for Microsoft.
Click to expand...
They just latch on to the one morsel of turd they can and cling to it for dear life. Bottom feeders.
 
D

Darsxx82

Member
Clear said:
No it won't, because to do that they would be defining the value of their IP as being less significant than the licensee's ability to exploit it effectively.

The presumption would always be that this team, working to this budget and this timescale is going to deliver a high-quality product on these platforms. Why would they partner with anyone that would be so careless as to tarnish their very valuable IP?

They are the ones doing the favours here! Doubly so when their erstwhile partner is the one flip-flopping in order to better serve their own interests!
Click to expand...
No, that's not the question. The question is that they offer a greater budget and means than initially planned plus other favorable conditions linked to the strength of a more powerful publisher and exclusivity.

Pete Hines has pointed out several of those other benefits:

-Higher production values. That translates into a better product than initially planned and. therefore favor the prestgie of the IP
- Shorter development time . Important for Disney to achieve benefits faster
 
Varteras

Varteras

Member
Apparently, what Jim Ryan believed Microsoft wouldn't do, prior to the meager deals they offered, is somehow stronger than what Microsoft has been demonstrably doing, despite a prior insistence to a regulator that they had no incentive to foreclose. Am I getting that right?
 
feynoob

feynoob

Banned
MasterCornholio said:
That doesn't have anything to do with Microsoft rejecting Marvel.

That was just dumb especially with the info we have.

"According to Marvel’s Jay Ong, his company wanted to replicate Marvel properties’ box office success in the video game world. When Ong approached Microsoft, the company told him that it was prioritizing own IPs and passed up a deal. Sony’s Adam Boyes and John Drake, on the other hand, were interested in Ong’s proposal."
Click to expand...
Because we aren't talking about MS here.
You just put them there.

My original point was that both companies are doing it for $$$.

As we see from that video, marvel gets to use spiderman(Sony owns the film rights), while Sony gets the gaming part.

Both companies benefit from this deal.

Just like how MS paying Disney money is benefiting them as they are getting money upfront.

It's that simple.

There was no need to drag this long.
 
MasterCornholio

MasterCornholio

Member
Dick Jones said:
Imagine being the idiot to reject Spider-Man.
I wonder what [bing check 😉] Philip Spencer is doing now after getting the boot for that fuck up...
He's WHAT??!!!
Click to expand...

Definitely dumb for feynoob feynoob to say that Sony making the Spiderman Movies was what got them the game as an exclusive. Games and movies are different. If Marvel only cared about that they certainly would have never spoke to Microsoft since they don't make the Spiderman movies.
 
MasterCornholio

MasterCornholio

Member
feynoob said:
Because we aren't talking about MS here.
You just put them there.

My original point was that both companies are doing it for $$$.

As we see from that video, marvel gets to use spiderman(Sony owns the film rights), while Sony gets the gaming part.

Both companies benefit from this deal.

Just like how MS paying Disney money is benefiting them as they are getting money upfront.

It's that simple.

There was no need to drag this long.
Click to expand...

No your the one that dragged the Marvel deal into this. And you try to make it seem like the same thing. I'm simply saying that they are not. Then you post a random clip from a movie to prove a point.
 
laynelane

laynelane

Member
The good guy, consumer friendly image of MS just keeps crumbling. I'm sure the majority of us already knew their PR was bullshit (case by case, when everybody plays, we all win, etc.), but it's good to see actual evidence of it. My hope is it will convince some to stop and think before continuing to mindlessly repeat those lies.
 
Last edited:
thicc_girls_are_teh_best

thicc_girls_are_teh_best

Member
Darsxx82 said:
No, that's not the question. The question is that they offer a greater budget and means than initially planned plus other favorable conditions linked to the strength of a more powerful publisher and exclusivity.

Pete Hines has pointed out several of those other benefits:

-Higher production values. That translates into a better product than initially planned and. therefore favor the prestgie of the IP
- Shorter development time . Important for Disney to achieve benefits faster
Click to expand...

Here's the problem; nothing stops Microsoft from providing those benefits WITHOUT BUYING PUBLISHERS! Why? Because we have seen examples of both Sony AND Nintendo doing precisely that. Sony provides 3P partners with console exclusives access to groups like XDEV, the ICE teams, other engineering support and marketing support, alongside shorter development times. Final Fantasy XVI is a prime example of this and, last I checked, Sony don't own Square-Enix.

So what Pete Hines is saying, is not a great reasoning as examples exist through direct competitors showing ownership isn't a prerequisite for those types of benefits. That mean acquisition is not a priority in enabling those benefits so...what DOES exist to mandate acquisition as a requirement?

Whatever it is, Pete Hines did a very poor job of explaining it on the stand today. I don't even think he knows what the answer to that would be!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Microsoft has Closed the Activision Blizzard King Deal
22 23 24 25 26
1K
93K
MasterCornholio replied
Microsoft now says the CMA was ‘tough and fair’ over Activision Blizzard deal
Opinion Business Game Dev
17
3K
SportsFan581 replied
FTC appeals to block already-completed Microsoft-Activision deal
2
63
7K
Mythoclast replied
  • Locked
UK minister defends CMA's decision to block MS/ABK
News
0
1K
Daniel_Mallorca1985 replied
  • Locked
Microsoft to sell off Activision cloud gaming rights to Ubisoft in bid for UK approval
News Business 2 3 4
154
17K
Spyxos replied
Top Bottom