Topher
Identifies as young
Didn't really mind his posts here except for the fact that he was behind on the news.
-
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
Didn't really mind his posts here except for the fact that he was behind on the news.
Iced Arcade
Member
just pointing out its ironic and we talk about that shit hole too much lol
Last edited:
Thirty7ven
Banned
Statistica
31.5 million X1
So somewhere between 30 and 40 for PS4 before PS5 launched.
It’s a close market. Which shouldn’t be surprising considering how much US media and US based YouTubers favor Xbox despite the disparity in worldwide popularity.
Last edited:
FUBARx89
Member
Nah. Am more on about ree mods banning them for coming to this dumpster fire of freethinkers or whatever they called us over here at GAF before.
I had a quick look at the Ree thread, it's somehow worse in some regaeds than the series x subreddit and that place is an absolute shit show.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Who's we?
drganon
Member
Iced Arcade
Member
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
There's over 50K posts in this thread. I bet it accounts for less than 1% of them. Maybe even .01%. Ironic number to say the least.
Topher
Identifies as young
Interesting. I still think the FTC has a hard fight ahead of it, but I think that is going to be the crux of the decision right there.
Iced Arcade
Member
thanks. I appriciate the math breakdown.
Certainly making predictions in this case has been quite a challenge or leap into the void
I think the same like you in general. And my belief is that all of MS's effort in appeals and trials has more to do with its intentions and possible future acquisitions than with ABK, which I think has a very slim chance unless MS decides the folly of closing the acquisition without the authorization of the CMA. .
Winning in the USA does not mean that ABK is acquired. But it does send a "you're alone" signal to the CMA on possible future events and acquisitions that require regulatory process.
Tomorrow's hearing? I guess in the same place. You have links and even people broadcasting and commenting on the live audios in this thread.... Today's audience will surely be able to listen to it on those same YouTube live streams.
ChorizoPicozo
Member
can you provide a link please?
Thirty7ven
Banned
Heh maybe, it doesn’t look like there’s much appetite in the US to control these behemoths so, big doubt. Both on console and cloud.
Topher
Identifies as young
Honestly, I'm still shocked the FTC is going to all this effort despite it all. Maybe they will surprise me. I'm hopeful, but not optimistic.
Varteras
Member
Varteras
Member
I still can't help but feel like this is a game to Khan. Like she wants to use this case one way or the other and she was in danger of losing her chance. Either win and get your name etched into a trophy for a halt of a huge acquisition, or lose and use it as evidence that the FTC was too weak to even get a temporary halt until they had their administrative hearing. Yet the CMA had the power to do it.
Topher
Identifies as young
Agreed. Khan has been interviewed more times by the media in the last few months than she probably will the rest of her life. I imagine a book deal will be at the end of this. And yeah, typical bureaucratic politics is in play as well. I just wish she had the bite to match her bark. The CMA certainly does.
RedC
Gold Member
Topher
Identifies as young
The link to the YouTube channel that was being passed around is now marked private. We may have to find a new one tomorrow.
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
So how many PR narratives were quashed after just 1 day of the hearing? I'm having difficulty keeping track of it:
PR Narrative #1: Microsoft wants to put games on Nvidia GeForce and Boosteroid
PR Narrative #2: Call of Duty is not "critical content" and Sony can do without it.
PR Narrative #3: xCloud is not a separate market; it is a feature.
PR Narrative #4: Sony's market share prevents Xbox from making a COD marketing deal
PR Narrative #5: Zenimax's deal wasn't done to take games away from PlayStation
If anybody wants to create a separate thread so this information doesn't get lost in this mega thread, please feel free to do so.
PR Narrative #1: Microsoft wants to put games on Nvidia GeForce and Boosteroid
PR Narrative #2: Call of Duty is not "critical content" and Sony can do without it.
PR Narrative #3: xCloud is not a separate market; it is a feature.
PR Narrative #4: Sony's market share prevents Xbox from making a COD marketing deal
PR Narrative #5: Zenimax's deal wasn't done to take games away from PlayStation
If anybody wants to create a separate thread so this information doesn't get lost in this mega thread, please feel free to do so.
Last edited:
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
So how many PR narratives were quashed after just 1 day of the hearing? I'm having difficulty keeping track of it:
PR Narrative #1: Microsoft wants to put games on Nvidia GeForce and Boosteroid
PR Narrative #2: Call of Duty is not "critical content" and Sony can do without it.
PR Narrative #3: xCloud is not a separate market; it is a feature.
PR Narrative #4: Sony's market share prevents Xbox from making a COD marketing deal
PR Narrative #5: Zenimax's deal wasn't done to take games away from PlayStation
If anybody wants to create a separate thread so this information doesn't get lost in this mega thread, please feel free to do so.
ChorizoPicozo
Member
a lot of warrin on this one. Tom that is.So how many PR narratives were quashed after just 1 day of the hearing? I'm having difficulty keeping track of it:
PR Narrative #1: Microsoft wants to put games on Nvidia GeForce and Boosteroid
PR Narrative #2: Call of Duty is not "critical content" and Sony can do without it.
PR Narrative #3: xCloud is not a separate market; it is a feature.
PR Narrative #4: Sony's market share prevents Xbox from making a COD marketing deal
PR Narrative #5: Zenimax's deal wasn't done to take games away from PlayStation
If anybody wants to create a separate thread so this information doesn't get lost in this mega thread, please feel free to do so.
But that was my very superficial perception reading some of the headlines.
I wonder if these examples have any weight at all or they are just "funny anecdotes".
solidus12
Member
CuNi
Member
Sorry for late reply.
The single biggest argument against the merger is literally that MS shouldn't get bigger in certain markets solely through acquisition because that could slow or completely block out any development in those markets by others, which is the issue raised by every major regulator on earth as of now. The only difference between regulatory bodies so far is that the EU allowed it with potential fines later down the road, the CMA blocking it over those concerns and the FTC trying to block because of those arguments.
MasterCornholio
Member
I might need a tag change if/when that happens. Suggestions welcome
How about Bobby Kottick Salad Tosser?
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
At what time does the FTC Summer Showcase start today? 
Dick Jones
Banned
At what time does the FTC Summer Showcase start today?
I wonder will it top the destruction of Xbox staff yesterday.
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
Oh, for sure. Today is the World Premiere and GamepLies Walkthrough of Phil Spencer
Dick Jones
Banned
"Lies of P" 1 hour gameplayOh, for sure. Today is the World Premiere and GamepLies Walkthrough of Phil Spencer
demigod
Member
He does this shit all the time.
ShaiKhulud1989
Gold Member
The most funny thing about this media repoted and shill-infused process, that on the grand scale it changes nothing. FTC can appeal and drag this showcase into the fall at minimum and CAT/CMA problem won't go away for months.
But yeah, at least we're having a field week with big tech's dirty laundry.
But yeah, at least we're having a field week with big tech's dirty laundry.
ToadMan
Member
I’m still catching up with what happened but yeah this my feeling based on what is coming out now.
It’s like the discussion/argument we’ve been having for years being presented in a formal court setting and we’re starting to see some level of accountability and “truth” coming out.
Bear in mind even in a court setting, the various parties will still try to present the most positive version of events for their own benefit. What’s come out today is MS putting a positive defence out and it’s still damning.
But what is most depressing to me is that the hobby is at jeopardy - by MS today, who knows who will be trying to hijack it tomorrow - and there are still people cheering for the acquisition and MS as a benefactor.
I think the final thing is that MS are a ridiculously bad spin machine. Whether it’s “creative choice” or thought experiment or case by case or the “lack of incentives to make content exclusive”.
Their actions vs words are indefensible and for a corporation the size of MS simply shameful - as are those trying to defend them.
zapper
Member
who knows if the ftc will ask for spencer's statements on the future that the cloud represents and that sony and nintendo are not a competitor of ms, unlike google, amazon, etc as they have not invested billions for streaming.
are the first that came to mind, spencer has given a flood of interviews with conflicting statements in the last few years.
ah today also jim ryan, i still don't understand what his video is about lol they sent him the questions and he simply answered?
What time does it start?
are the first that came to mind, spencer has given a flood of interviews with conflicting statements in the last few years.
ah today also jim ryan, i still don't understand what his video is about lol they sent him the questions and he simply answered?
What time does it start?
Last edited:
ToadMan
Member
The decision criteria as I understand it is whether the FTC case can win the August hearing on merit, and if MS closed the acquisition before that August hearing, harm would be done.
At the moment the hearing today has largely been scene setting partly on merit and partly on the weasel words of MS vs their actions previously. It remains to be seen if the FTC can weave together this argument into a final argument that meets the judicial requirements.
I actually don’t see how all this will fit into the time allowed for this hearing though.
Last edited:
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
This, please. Enough with the derailing in every other thread using narratives that now have been proven false in a court of law.
There is a significant lack of context in those quotes. If you followed the answers live, you would know that the answers in those matters to the ears of the judge are not what those quotes presented in this way indicate.
The first statement is from 2019 (MS had not even started talks with Zenimax) and as Botty says it is a hot reaction to seeing that Nvidia was using XGS games in GForce without permission or agreement. It is the same thing that Pete Hines says that Nvidia did with the Zenimax games and that is why they removed it.
That is, it was not the same situation or context. Going to email from 2019 is a symptom of a certain despair in my opinion.
According to what they say (you can believe it or not) negotiations with Nvidia to bring XGS and Zenimax games to GForceNow began in 2021. What remains in view of the judge is that today MS has its games on competing platforms and that ABK's games will also arrive.
P.S. As has been known. That statement of:
"We are not going to put our games on competing platforms. No effin way."
Translated by the "gamer" lawyer is:
"we are going to take Sony out of the market"
It's very funny after seeing the number of pages that generated what was clearly an exaggeration
"It was critical content for launch and that 80:20 split was assumed as it has been done with other games and deals."
And she finishes:
"It was critical content, but (COD) is not an essential game, there are no games that are."
I don't see where it is incompatible to defend that Xcloud is only a different method of distributing games and content with offering a subscription outside of Gamepass.
Sarah replies: "There were plans, yes, but we decided to abandon them because data told us that it was not the right thing to do."
That STADIA announced its end at that time even helps them demonstrate the volatility of the supposedly "other market".
Here this is simply not true. MS has never said such a thing regarding COD. Rather the opposite. I mean, you've just made up that narrative here. LOL
1- SONY market share and the difficulties it produces for MS when negotiating exclusivity agreements do not have the same consequences in the case of COD where XBOX has a very high player base. It is with respect to content from other markets where the difference in sales is abysmal. And even so you have that it cost more for
MS to have COD on its console than Sony.
2- MS has in fact expressly recognized that it was its own decision not to continue with the marketing of COD... among other reasons, because does not consider COD marketing, exclusive content or early betas essential for the survival of its console.
In other words, a defense of the argument and against Sony's argument that losing those conditions and having a "worse" version of COD is an irreparable blow to the PS business.
Definitely in this case there is no discussion. MS was actually doing PR at that time and lying. But it is a narrative that collapsed a long time ago and not from today's statements The current narrative is one of "case by case" which is harder to break down as long as there are Zenimax games and content releasing on PS (even PS+).
So how many PR narratives were quashed after just 1 day of the hearing? I'm having difficulty keeping track of it:
PR Narrative #1: Microsoft wants to put games on Nvidia GeForce and Boosteroid
The first statement is from 2019 (MS had not even started talks with Zenimax) and as Botty says it is a hot reaction to seeing that Nvidia was using XGS games in GForce without permission or agreement. It is the same thing that Pete Hines says that Nvidia did with the Zenimax games and that is why they removed it.
That is, it was not the same situation or context. Going to email from 2019 is a symptom of a certain despair in my opinion.
According to what they say (you can believe it or not) negotiations with Nvidia to bring XGS and Zenimax games to GForceNow began in 2021. What remains in view of the judge is that today MS has its games on competing platforms and that ABK's games will also arrive.
P.S. As has been known. That statement of:
"We are not going to put our games on competing platforms. No effin way."
Translated by the "gamer" lawyer is:
"we are going to take Sony out of the market"
It's very funny after seeing the number of pages that generated what was clearly an exaggeration
Again, that quote thus presented does not reflect the context or S. Bond's response. She's referring to the XSeries launch strategy. Not having a launch COD on your new console and making it exclusive to PS5 was not in the plans. (not 100% literal)
PR Narrative #2: Call of Duty is not "critical content" and Sony can do without it.
"It was critical content for launch and that 80:20 split was assumed as it has been done with other games and deals."
And she finishes:
"It was critical content, but (COD) is not an essential game, there are no games that are."
In this it is already differences of opinion.
PR Narrative #3: xCloud is not a separate market; it is a feature.
I don't see where it is incompatible to defend that Xcloud is only a different method of distributing games and content with offering a subscription outside of Gamepass.
Sarah replies: "There were plans, yes, but we decided to abandon them because data told us that it was not the right thing to do."
That STADIA announced its end at that time even helps them demonstrate the volatility of the supposedly "other market".
PR Narrative #4: Sony's market share prevents Xbox from making a COD marketing deal
Here this is simply not true. MS has never said such a thing regarding COD. Rather the opposite. I mean, you've just made up that narrative here. LOL
1- SONY market share and the difficulties it produces for MS when negotiating exclusivity agreements do not have the same consequences in the case of COD where XBOX has a very high player base. It is with respect to content from other markets where the difference in sales is abysmal. And even so you have that it cost more for
MS to have COD on its console than Sony.
2- MS has in fact expressly recognized that it was its own decision not to continue with the marketing of COD... among other reasons, because does not consider COD marketing, exclusive content or early betas essential for the survival of its console.
In other words, a defense of the argument and against Sony's argument that losing those conditions and having a "worse" version of COD is an irreparable blow to the PS business.
PR Narrative #5: Zenimax's deal wasn't done to take games away from PlayStation
If anybody wants to create a separate thread so this information doesn't get lost in this mega thread, please feel free to do so.
Definitely in this case there is no discussion. MS was actually doing PR at that time and lying. But it is a narrative that collapsed a long time ago and not from today's statements The current narrative is one of "case by case" which is harder to break down as long as there are Zenimax games and content releasing on PS (even PS+).
Bernardougf
Member
The FTC can maybe in this trial do something that the CAT/CMA can not in terms of exposing everything they have, and even if they are working hard against a losing case because of the history of favoring the big american techs mergers in the US Cort, they are trying to help the CMA were the real chance of keeping the deal blocked comes from.
We have already people that were 50/50 on this merger changing stances in here agains it, so appart from the usual fanboys and gamepass fanatics the vision of this merger is becoming more and more damaged, and perhaps this was the intent.
But who knows... time to wait and see
Last edited:
Thirty7ven
Banned
Saying MS has a hard time getting exclusives almost sounds worthless to say.
It’s the PS2 era and Xbox is getting Sega exclusives, Star Wars exclusives, Tecmo exclusives and others.
It’s the 360 and there are plenty of exclusives. Nobody is going to dispute this right?
The whole it’s harder for Xbox to sign exclusivity deals because of install base that they lost due to less compelling product it’s nobody’s problem but Microsoft.
But when they buy a Bethesda, and they buy an ABK, two things happen, they show they don’t have a lack of funds to go out there and sign exclusives and at same time they force the market to accommodate their intentions by extremely anti competitive plays.
It also doesn’t cost MS more to have COD on Xbox, it’s the opposite, it costs Sony more to have COD because at the end of the day if the revenue share is equal then Sony is paying more because more people buy it on PlayStation. You can say they make more money, but that has nothing to do with special deals and everything to do with the install base they built.
It’s just a constant barrage of ill conceived arguments that forego common sense in the name of arbitrary reasoning whose foundation comes from an illogical conclusion that fair market dynamics mean Xbox gets treated exactly the same way as PlayStation even if they are not the same product and don’t have the same install base. This doesn’t make sense.
Nothing stops MS to adhere to standard market practices and foster third party relationships and use their big pockets to grow the install base while not trying to buy the market whole sale just so that they force the market to play by their rules.
MS had a chance with Bethesda to show that their goal was not to bend the market, which is what they said, but it’s exactly what they have decided to do. And we are supposed to believe that it will be different with ABK because… this time it’s different?
It’s bogus.
It’s the PS2 era and Xbox is getting Sega exclusives, Star Wars exclusives, Tecmo exclusives and others.
It’s the 360 and there are plenty of exclusives. Nobody is going to dispute this right?
The whole it’s harder for Xbox to sign exclusivity deals because of install base that they lost due to less compelling product it’s nobody’s problem but Microsoft.
But when they buy a Bethesda, and they buy an ABK, two things happen, they show they don’t have a lack of funds to go out there and sign exclusives and at same time they force the market to accommodate their intentions by extremely anti competitive plays.
It also doesn’t cost MS more to have COD on Xbox, it’s the opposite, it costs Sony more to have COD because at the end of the day if the revenue share is equal then Sony is paying more because more people buy it on PlayStation. You can say they make more money, but that has nothing to do with special deals and everything to do with the install base they built.
It’s just a constant barrage of ill conceived arguments that forego common sense in the name of arbitrary reasoning whose foundation comes from an illogical conclusion that fair market dynamics mean Xbox gets treated exactly the same way as PlayStation even if they are not the same product and don’t have the same install base. This doesn’t make sense.
Nothing stops MS to adhere to standard market practices and foster third party relationships and use their big pockets to grow the install base while not trying to buy the market whole sale just so that they force the market to play by their rules.
MS had a chance with Bethesda to show that their goal was not to bend the market, which is what they said, but it’s exactly what they have decided to do. And we are supposed to believe that it will be different with ABK because… this time it’s different?
It’s bogus.
Ogbert
Member
But that’s the exact point that MS is looking to establish. Sony has a larger install base, is in a more dominant position and can afford to pay more on its deals as the economy of scale means they still make more money.
Pelta88
Member
So how many PR narratives were quashed after just 1 day of the hearing? I'm having difficulty keeping track of it:
PR Narrative #1: Microsoft wants to put games on Nvidia GeForce and Boosteroid
PR Narrative #2: Call of Duty is not "critical content" and Sony can do without it.
PR Narrative #3: xCloud is not a separate market; it is a feature.
PR Narrative #4: Sony's market share prevents Xbox from making a COD marketing deal
PR Narrative #5: Zenimax's deal wasn't done to take games away from PlayStation
If anybody wants to create a separate thread so this information doesn't get lost in this mega thread, please feel free to do so.
Post of the year nomination worthy!
Thirty7ven
Banned
Which is false because MS certainly can afford to pay more than Sony, as seen by being able to take a bigger hit on hardware, buying Bethesda for 7 billion and now ABK for 70 billion. All we are really saying is that by virtue of being a more successful product, by default devs have more incentive to make deals with Sony. And on a per deal basis it will be more costly for Xbox, one that MS can surely afford.
Otherwise if that’s how it goes, then Google is right, MS can’t be allowed to grow Xbox through acquisitions because of Cloud. Everything they are saying about being hard to strike deals for their console business where they had a 50 million userbase last generation, is ten times truer if we consider cloud. How can new comers compete? By buying publishers? Come on.
Ogbert
Member
Exactly. Sony is the more successful console. That’s all MS is trying hammer home. This hearing is a pity party for them.
One of the initial lodestars of anti-competitive behaviour is the ability to leverage your market share to offer more attractive deals to third parties. I’m not for one moment suggesting that Sony are doing this. Instead, their success has simply made them more attractive and they are offering reasonable incentives. But, if the split was perhaps 50/50, that could be argued as entrenchment.
There is a tipping point.
jm89
Member
What's the marketshare in the USA though between sony and MS? Does sony have a significant enough advantage there?
MS used 2021 console sales numbers, which is useless as both xbox and ps console where in short supply and it's just a matter of who can produce more.
Thirty7ven
Banned
But PlayStation’s success can’t be what’s on trial right? Why isn’t MS suing Sony for it then?
And the conclusion can’t be that if you’re last then you have the green light to buy as much market as you can. That’s insane, right?
And how can MS use the rest of the world to convince the court that they should be able to wipe out the competition in the US?
Last edited:
Ar¢tos
Member
Bah, what about MS own anti competitive behaviours that harm themselves?
Do they regulating and court appointed 3rd party external management so they stop harming themselves?
Like when they were against crossplay and that costed them FFXIV skipping Xbox, or now with the insistence on forced XSS versions costing them devs skipping Xbox all together.
MS has proved over and over that they have more than enough money to steal all 3rd party deals from Sony, if they don't do it it's because they don't want to.
Get the Xbox division to find dirt on shareholders and blackmail them into funding Xbox more if they are that desperate.
Ogbert
Member
Sony’s success is certainly not on trial.
But Sony being presented as being as successful as possible is key to undermining the FTC’s claim.
You’re right that you can’t just buy the market. We’ve discussed this before - I think that’s what makes the case so compelling. Traditional reading of this case would suggest MS are simply buying a supplier to the market. But there’s an underlying suspicion that ABK is so significant, it has genuine status alongside MS, Sony and Nintendo, rather than below (a horizontal acquisition of market share rather than a vertical acquisition of supply).
I do know the next few days will be MS painting themselves as useless dorks.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked