-
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)
- Status
Barakov
Gold Member
Topher
Identifies as young
It does mean something even if not for winning the case. Microsoft has been building up this good guy persona for years and that is getting chipped away and we are seeing a very different Microsoft when they think no one is looking.
I see that there is a misunderstanding about what this trial is about.
This case is not about blocking the deal by proving that Microsoft can kill competition in the console market.
This case is about proving that this deal raises enough competitive concerns and the parts have a proven history of lies and anticompetitive behaviours that the court cannot allow the deal to be closed in the US before a full trial is made and it will be this trial that will ultimately decide on which basis to definetly block it or clear it.
This is why the console argument was used, it served to the purpose of exposing lies and an anticompetitive use of previous acquisitions.
They need to move on to cloud and strengthen their position by leveraging what other regulators like the CMA have done.
The FTC also needs to trap them into admitting what they plan to do if the injunction is denied and the deal is still blocked in the UK.
If it comes out they're indeed planning to bypass regulators it won't be good for them at all.
We'll find out if they're able to do that in the next days.
Varteras
Member
This is just the opening salvo, if you will. The FTC's primary focus seemed to be to establish, immediately, that Microsoft is untrustworthy and that CoD is quite important. Unilaterally renegotiable agreements, with a wide range of acceptable reasons to leave, that Microsoft gets full revenue on. Foreclosures on games already in the works for competitors, despite a prior insistence that they saw no incentive to do so. A certain amount of discord within the organization over exclusivity, with heads of Xbox making the calls for exclusivity instead of allowing some autonomy to the purchased entity. All of which call into question Microsoft's public comments about wanting people to have more options.
This, in addition to ABK having the ability to essentially strongarm a company like Microsoft to comply to their demands over CoD, showing just how potent that franchise is. Seemingly also showing that PlayStation may have also bent to the same demands, instead of willingly offering. There were other nuggets in there, but I think these were mostly the main points to come out of this. If that was indeed the FTC's goal, I don't know how you could have accomplished it better in a single day than that, unless you had a video of Spencer and Nadella saying something very damning. It's far from over, but I don't think any mistake should be made that a lot of red flags were raised today.
The FTC has several more days to raise its case. I think it goes without saying that the concerns of other regulators, like the EC, CMA, and New Zealand, which mirror those of the FTC, will be brought up. Including cloud. That the CMA had enough concerns to block the deal after Microsoft refused divestment options. That the EC also applied remedies, showing they weren't willing to let MS have ABK without at least something in place. Then they have their experts, such as someone from Harvard, who I would imagine would try to present an even more in-depth argument for why the deal is bad. There is more to come.
Varteras
Member
I would imagine that refusal to fight the injunction would give ABK the opening to leave the deal immediately. Microsoft would also then likely lose a court battle with them over the money.
Varteras
Member
Varteras
Member
An other gem I lost as it happened
They're basically admitting the deal is not needed to bring certain games on certain services/platforms.
It's easy to forget that shit we called out months ago needs to be presented in court. Especially to parties who may not be aware. There were things I was like, "Wait.. didn't we know... OOOOOH yeah"
Last edited:
staticshock
Member
Or rather shows how weak MS position in the market are which then goes to MS case.
A bully doesn't bully everyone, only the weak.
Topher
Identifies as young
Sony has been giving Activision a higher revenue cut as well. That goes to the significance of Call of Duty in the market which doesn't work well for Microsoft's case.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
They're a $2.6T company. They've been in the console business for 20+ years and got themselves into these positions, they are not a victim.
reinking
Gold Member
harry mason 1989
Banned
I remember when the first cod game released back in 2003 I was still in high school
I never thought 20 years later the cod brand will be much stronger then playstation &xbox and Nintendo brands
We really live In a weird time-line
I never thought 20 years later the cod brand will be much stronger then playstation &xbox and Nintendo brands
We really live In a weird time-line
Varteras
Member
I remember when the first cod game released back in 2003 I was still in high school
I never thought 20 years later the cod brand will be much stronger then playstation &xbox and Nintendo brands
We really live In a weird time-line
I'm not sure who it's a more damning indictment of. Gamers for choosing to play CoD all the time or developers for not coming up with something that pulls people from it.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
She's there to push lies to the fanatical retards. To gaslight and embolden. Just like AOC.It went over her head too?
Why am I acting surprised?
Bobby approved.
Last edited:
staticshock
Member
Sony: 30-70
MS: 20-80
and MS will just claim that COD will be on PS forever. If the judge buys that or even stipulates that in her ruling.
Its a done deal.
Unknown Soldier
Member
CoD games are genuinely good games. To pretend otherwise is lunacy and just shows how out of touch GAF is with the gaming market as it is today.
I mean it's not like Battlefield has anyone else to compete with besides CoD and EA has done nothing but run Battlefield straight into the ground. It's a testament to how much effort goes into CoD on the part of Activision that they are able to maintain a consistent level of quality year in and year out for 20+ years. Developers have had plenty of opportunities to make a shooter that can be better than CoD. Battlefield, Halo, Killzone, all dead and buried. CoD keeps on going though. It's not a mystery. It's not witchcraft. It's just that Activision actually tries really hard and dedicates thousands of developers and hundreds of millions of dollars of resources even though GAF pretends otherwise.
Topher
Identifies as young
That is the standard rate. Sony isn't giving ABK the standard rate. This isn't a hearing on remedies to allow the acquisition. This is about the temporary injunction.
01011001
Banned
I mean it goes both ways I think.
on one hand it shows how important CoD is, on the other hand it shows how much power Sony has.
I think Microsoft hopes that they will interpret it like the latter example.
Topher
Identifies as young
It depends on what kind of deal Sony has with Activision. If they also have a 80/20 split then it highlights the power of COD regardless. We don't know the exact split of revenue though.
Varteras
Member
I've not liked Call of Duty since Modern Warfare 2. I personally don't see the appeal of it today. My own anecdotal experience is that those around me who still play it today are actually tired of it but can't find anything else to scratch that itch. It being an annual game with the same gameplay hooks over and over just boggles my mind on how people still play it. Like I've played WoW since it came out almost 20 years ago. One could argue the same against it. But every expansion, every content patch, adds new stories. New classes or races to play as. New abilities and talents. New dungeons and raids with encounters to figure out. New areas to explore. Frequently adding all new systems. Maybe someone in CoD gets a new map and new skins and feels the same rush. To me, it just always looks like the same thing on repeat.
The difference is that Sony has received the entire marketing package, DLC and early betas in return for the same price.
Sarah Bond herself explains it, even saying that "they wouldn't even let MS say on YouTube that COD exists on Xbox".
It clearly reflects the reduced ability to negotiate (of MS vs. Sony) critical and strategic content. Starting a generation without COD was not planned. On the other hand, it collapses Sony's argument according to which "inferior" versions of COD on PS consoles would have an irreparable impact (the Xbox ones are and XSeries is still on the market).
And on the other hand, it makes the proposal of 70:30 and equal versions in quality and content that MS offers look more beneficial for Sony.
Sarah Bond is even appraisal when she responds (not 100% literal) "that the 80:20 split has occurred on other occasions for other games, that COD is not essential to survive, there are no games that are, what there is is content critic in the strategy".
In short, I don't think the FTC can award any point from this because the interpretations can go many ways and that is not what the FTC needs.
Last edited:
Mr Moose
Member
Tomorrow is 4x more interesting even.
I am intrigued by the statements of the Google representative in charge of Stadia.
I am sure that he will try to convince the judge that MS's purchase of Bethesda-Zenimax was the reason for the closure and that MS's lawyers will surely want to emphasize that the end of Stadia is an example of the volatility of cloud gaming and that Stadia's business model and the lack of investment in its own and exclusive content were the real reason for its end
FUBARx89
Member
Mole spotted
He's got a target on his back now for coming into this thread. The mods will be ready to execute his account at the slightest thing. More so than usual.
Bernardougf
Member
Believe in the side who knows what the fuck gender they are.. not matter what it isI don't know who the believe.
Era: "Well that was a disaster for the FTC."
GAF: "Well that was a disaster for Microsoft."
Thirty7ven
Banned
Nah
It has always been the same story in this thread. You are free to argue your point and even to get feisty or clownish, but astroturfing is frowned upon.
Anybody who goes over there because it’s a safe space for pro acquisition posters reveals their hand. That thread is moderated by an Xbox fanboy who goes on Twitter bragging about Xbox branded goodies. Look at who they ban and why they ban.
Last edited:
Wastelander92
Member
I'd argue the posters in the Resetera thread are even more insanely fanboyish than here. Makes me wonder if some of them are MS exec's kids or something based on how the defend MS through this.
The issue is not what the marketing is about, the issue is that MS paid the same as Sony but without getting marketing, betas or exclusive content...
The fact that Sarah Bond specifies the situation has to do with the fact that the judge and others present could understand to its extent. No more.
Topher
Identifies as young
I don't necessarily disagree with anything you've said. I don't think there are any major points to be awarded on this either way. But again, I don't think it matters. I've been saying FTC is going to lose and there are two major reasons why I think this.
1) The console market is kind of a no-brainer. PlayStation dominates Xbox. Call of Duty could change that, but I don't know that there has ever been an acquisition in the US denied because a lesser player in the market was able to become stronger. I just don't see that happening here either.
2) Cloud gaming will also not be a factor. I quoted a law professor weeks ago talking about how the CMA is much more willing to be forward looking when it comes to analyzing an acquisition. That is why CMA is blocking in the UK. The US is much more focused on the here and now. The arguments that the potential for a nascent market to become a major market one day works for the CMA, but it isn't going to go very far in the US. That's what I've read any way.
So I think this all very interesting and entertaining, but the real fight for this deal is in the hands of the CMA and the CAT. Of course, as always, I suck at predictions so...
Last edited:
Thirty7ven
Banned
Marketing rights for Call of Duty don’t work like that, it’s an auction. PlayStation doesn’t get that shit for free.
And MS has no business complaining about not being able to mention Call of Duty on their YouTube showcases, when they do exactly the same shit with other games. We just got an Xbox showcase and some games had a 48 hour window where they couldn’t be mentioned anywhere.
MS is also not paying the same if the revenue generated on PlayStation vs Xbox is almost twice as much. The percentage is the same, that’s it. If Sony can negotiate better deals due to its userbase by the simple virtue of having a larger userbase it’s because they built that userbase, it didn’t come out of the sky.
Last edited:
FalsettoVibe
Member
Mole spotted
Absolute BS. That thread over at era heavily favors MS and most are in favor of the deal. Reasonable takes or anything remotely in opposition are 100% not allowed. Mods act swiftly.
I posted this earlier in this thread:
There are plenty more examples like it. Rational thinking people don't dare post in that thread.
Last edited:
graywolf323
Member
Rubim
Member
On that point, it was not a win to any of the sides.Believe in the side who knows what the fuck gender they are.. not matter what it is
Thirty7ven
Banned
I would agree if US was making a ruling over the global market but they aren’t. Factually speaking they should only be working around their own market where PlayStation does not dominate Xbox.
ChorizoPicozo
Member
Tomorrow is 4x more interesting even.
I am intrigued by the statements of the Google representative in charge of Stadia.
I am sure that he will try to convince the judge that MS's purchase of Bethesda-Zenimax was the reason for the closure and that MS's lawyers will surely want to emphasize that the end of Stadia is an example of the volatility of cloud gaming and that Stadia's business model and the lack of investment in its own and exclusive content were the real reason for its end
is there a way to listen to the hearing? relying on takes is like being schizophrenic.
Bernardougf
Member
Im talking about gaf vs reeeeee ...
Topher
Identifies as young
Fair point. Do we know the market share in the US?
FalsettoVibe
Member
hemo memo You've got like a handful of posts in this thread. Mostly today. Couple of gifs and then posted some tweets hours after the fact. And now you are running to resetera to talk shit.
Good riddance then
And based on his post history, he fits right in at ree, in that thread. lol
hemo memo
Last edited:
Iced Arcade
Member
lol we talk about Ree on almost every page hereMole spotted
Iced Arcade
Member
is it weird that they are going over all this stuff and its a block injunction and not even the trial..... fuck they going to talk about in the trial?
I'm from a galaxy far far away so I don't know how American courts work
I'm from a galaxy far far away so I don't know how American courts work
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked