Microsoft / Activision Deal Approval Watch |OT| (MS/ABK close)
- Status
nikolino840
Member
Well i remember apple denied the xcloud...so apple is not neutral in the gaming market
Ah yes, Microsoft can now finally compete against Googles and Apples in-house mobile games. Oh wait, those dont exist.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Apple wants a cut on everything sold on their platform. That is the extent of their "neutrality."
DenchDeckard
Moderated wildly
Could be true, I have no way of knowing as I don't claim to have any knowledge in any of this. But I so believe if Sony fans really did care and had valid points if this went through or not they would have wrote an email.
Well, not entirely. I'm in the boat of I'm not bothered if it goes through or not. I'm the xbox fan that Is thinking realisticly about the platform. I've basically given MS some slack due to covid but 2023 needs to be an amazing year and that's completely without Activision releases. Sony deserves praise for their 2022 release line up, it was a message to MS of how it should be done.
MS get 2023 for me and if it's not atleast 3 big bangers then I'll be the first to be giving them shit.
I'm going for a really good game in starfield, an amazing Forza release and something surprising for q4 that really rocks my boat.
Then I expect the typical great awesome game pass releases like I enjoyed through 2022. Some great indies and some nice surprises like red fall etc.
Banjo64
cumsessed
I think that's probably your MO, it's not mine.
I'd like to believe that most people are honest.
gothmog
Gold Member
Probably smart since they flopped so badly with this whole 10 year deal nonsense. It's not even what the FTC was concerned about.
KingT731
Member
So why doesn't this apply to MS/Xbox? Why is the /only/ solution to buy up large publishers instead of improving their output?
Ass of Can Whooping
Member
I take pride in my honesty
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Reasons.
DarkMage619
$MSFT
Are you arguing about performance or game libraries? The primary reason people buy a console is for its library of titles. Games like High on Life match with the hentai games on the Switch. Both systems have a wide variety of games in many genres. No body goes out and buys a Switch because they want a low performance device.
The form factor of the XSS or Switch are just distinctions used to attract customers, like price for instance. The fact the Switch is portable doesn't make it any less a gaming competitor than the PlayStation having VR or the Xbox having day one first party titles on Game pass. These are all used to compete for gamers time and money. There is a reason the NPD tracks Switch sales and not the Steam deck. It is a console just like Xbox and PlayStation.
I agreed with CADE because they made coherent arguments based on current reality not a political move like the FTC has done. We'll see how things shake out when argued in front of a judge but based on review by actual lawyers the FTC's case is flimsy at best.
When did MS state they would not improve their output? Why isn't the purchase of a publisher a way for MS to achieve that goal?
The ID@Xbox program seemed to be dedicated to getting small teams games published and this is true today. Are they arguing MS will end this program and make it harder for smaller companies all of a sudden?
I don't know why MS having more bargaining power is an issue but I assume it's related to the problem of MS having more exclusives and more people buying Xbox generally.
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
What?
These submissions to regulators are all in English. Why do I need a lawyer to explain "The real meaning behind them?" Lookfeynoob I get it. You post hoe laws musings, and a lot of people have called you out for it over the course of this thread for copy pasting era members. These same users who went from:
"The deal is a shoo-in. A Guaranteed Certainty!" To "The FTC can't beat Microsoft's super lawyers"
This acquisition is a legal matter now. Whoever "wins" and "looses" is going to be based on the evidence and the legal framework. Not hoe law or idas who have demonstrated bias asTopher mentioned. Which is why I don't take their posts seriously. There are three potential outcomes here.
1. An outright purchase.
2. Regulators block the acquisition.
3. The deal goes through with concessions.
Don't let these people who are trying to build an audience fool you into thinking they've got the inside track. Least of all Hoe Law... I'm actually shocked to see that hoe law is some dude sitting in his basement, with a dirty hoodie on, ranting against Sony. The way you post his musings with so much frequency I thought he was working for some top law firm. Imagine my surprise to see some guy with doritos dust on his fingers, letting bias spew from his lips.
Idas is the guy who just magically popped up on ResetERA and basically only talks about the acquisition, right?
They're probably another lawyer if I had to take a guess; I'd assume given their need to make that thread they do have a certain bias, though it's understated compared to some of the people in that thread who post a lot and clearly lean a certain way gaming-wise (you can taste it in the way they argue their points in favor of the acquisition and what ways they do it, then cross-reference that with their takes in other threads over time).
If there's one thing I genuinely despise about the whole proceeding, it's how the acquisition took up so much conversation space and has made warriors take up unpaid careers as armchair lawyers. It felt like we were finally starting to break away from this acquisition being a focal part of discourse thanks to GOWR, Pokemon and the TGAs but every single little move from Microsoft or regulators just keeps drowning more interesting things out in favor of this unnecessary acquisition.
It's like a "will they or won't they" shitty romance plot, being stretched out going on two years.
jm89
Member
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
Honestly, since a big part of this (for Sony) is COD, and given COD is a self-sustaining franchise at this point...why not spin it off as its own company?
Microsoft still retains some ownership, but otherwise "The COD Company" (think of it structurally like The Pokemon Company) operates independently from MS. Meaning it doesn't answer to Phil Spencer the way they've proposed ABK would if it got acquired without concessions.
Given MS themselves have said ABK is really for King and mobile, and they've already given plenty reasons why COD would remain multiplat, there's no reason they should be against spinning out COD as its own company and the needed teams to sustain it as such. They would even still get a cut of the revenue for themselves through partial ownership. However, at least this way, Sony have the COD side of things resolved and that would be a major roadblock out of MS's way.
Unless MS are lying and the deal isn't really for King and mobile, but for plans to leverage COD for GamePass's benefit as well. Which would just reaffirm various concerns with regulators (IMO) and be a reason for the deal to be held up longer or even just completely roadblocked.
Guess we'll see what happens.
Pelta88
Member
All factual!
I've savoured my GOW playthrough
I'm probably 3-4 hours from getting the platinum but I'm progressing through it slowly because the game is too good.
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
All factual!
I've savoured my GOW playthrough
You're still way further along than I am
. I really gotta make some time for it this weekend, which should be doable. And get a hefty chunk of stuff done between then and the new year.
bxrz
Member
Well the possibility is that MS is forced to sell Activision but keeps Blizzard/King. That would most likely be forced by the EU Commission as they forced Disney to sell off Fox sports when that acquisition was in its process.
So it would be something like MS sells Activision to Tencent/Valve/Take-Two/EA/Whoever for 40 billion or however much Activision + COD is worth. MS buying/keeps Blizzard/King for whatever the remainder is that equals to 69 billion
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
Eh, if that comes up as a concession (personally think it will), would rather it just be made its own company but open to investments from other corporations. Maybe allow MS to retain a minority stake in the company.
Scenarios of such a company under Tencent, Valve etc. brings up its own concerns and is kind of like putting MS through all the effort that one of those companies would have had to go through if they were in MS's place right now instead, and I don't necessarily see that as being fair. But if those other companies (or those like Sony) would want to buy shares into what's spun off, so be it.
MS would probably still want the Activision rights anyway for branding purposes I assume, so if it's possible they could just spin off the COP franchise, required studios (Treyarch, Infinity Ward etc.) and maybe just enough additional IP that wouldn't fall under what seem to be MS's big reasons for the acquisition, into its own company, I think that could be a reasonable concession.
Well. I'm not bitching that Sony made deals with Marvel or Capcom (SFV). It's capitalism baby!
Sony smartly used their position on the market and tried to push some genres (JRPG) from Xbox consoles entirely and made strategic deals to make Xbox not desirable. Which was cleverIf Microsoft was smart or Xbox division was properly funded in last decade and half they would not need to do this purchases to stay competitive. Because of their stupidity, they now need to blow up 80 billion dollars. It's their "fault."
No, Microsoft does not need to "buy publishers to compete in multi-game subscription service." It's just good if you want to speed up expansion of your multi-game subscription service. So for example, Game Pass now has 30 million subs. With Starfield in GP Day One they could reach 2-3 millions more that they would not have without that game in sub. And same is for Call of Duty (but with few more millions). It is not that they can't compete. It is just, they will reach huge number of subscribers faster. I mean, Sony also cloud cultivate live service game studio instead of buying Bungie. But sometimes, spending cash is better and faster way forward. If you have cash to spare. Which Microsoft has plenty. And especially now, when rapid inflation is eating their bank accounts.
Sony can compete. They choose not to. They prefer selling games for 80€ without option to have their games in sub day one. They prefer old and proven ways to earn money. Customer will decide what is better for him in the long run. And that is not even only case for first-party games. Remind me, how many day one games PS Plus Extra had in 6 months after launch? One? (Stray) This should tell you everything you need to know if it is about "we can't afford it" or "we don't want to do it." Because Sony for sure could afford to make some of the AA games launch on PS PLus Extra. They did not do it.
Also. Do I need to remind you that Sony had first mover advantage in cloud gaming and multigame sub services and managed to to jack shit with it?
Last edited:
If Sony can't compete because of this deal, doesn't that mean it would have a negative effect on the industry
There's a lot riding on that if there. Sony can still compete even without any ABK software (disregarding the fact that ABK software will continue to be released for PlayStation) just like Nintendo do.
Sony aren't going to drop from first place to non existent just because a multi platform game gets a Microsoft Game Studios splash screen, and the idea that they would is absurd.
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
You seem upset the public ratio in favor of the deal is nearly as strong as the videogame industry participant ratio in favor of the deal. Sony is literally the lone market participant heavily opposed to the deal. Seems to me the public is representative of where practically all major market participants are at. You either accept that or don't, it really makes no difference.
The public largely represents the same views as the entirety of the industry, except Sony.
The public is representative of nothing outside of not caring much to give an answer one way or the other. Meaning they don't automatically reject OR support the acquisition; they just don't care enough to state which way they'd lean.
Whether the public supports it or not though doesn't necessarily matter; the main factor to determine whether the deal should go through should absolutely depend on if any laws are being broken, have been broken during the process of parties agreeing to the deal, or if stand a chance to be broken going by previous track records of the party making the acquisition.
Those are the only things that should actually matter.
The majority of gamers in general aren't even aware this deal is being investigated, or that the deal's maybe even a thing. Even supposing a lot of Sony gamers wrote in, if they weren't from the UK then it wouldn't have mattered as those letters would have been disregarded.
I wouldn't say people are apathetic to the deal because they care and have chosen a "this bothers no one, really" stance. They just don't want to follow the news, but that doesn't automatically mean they're for the deal being approved, either. Lack of an answer isn't an implied answer.
See, this is EXACTLY what I'm talking about. So if MS get ABK, it forces Sony to "improve their output", but they're seemingly only able to do this organically, going by the implications. I never see people who are proponents for the ABK deal, when the basic answer of "Sony should improve their output", ever once say that Sony should acquire a publisher or two. You know, because that's apparently what it means to "compete" now.
It's mixed signaling. If Sony's answer to this acquisition should be to home-grow more MP content, why isn't MS's answer to their games problem to build up the teams they already own and invest & nurture them from within to create the content needed for their platform & service? Why is the answer instinctively that MS should buy a publisher, but the answer is never that when it's asked how Sony improves their non-3P MP content?
I think we both know why, and it's got nothing to do with MS just having a lot of money. It's because this isn't really about "competition" in the first place. MS's been competing for 20 years in this industry making consoles, but have generally failed to supersede Sony in market share & mindshare not because of Sony's successes, but due to MS's own failures. Failures they've repeated in one form or another since 2001, and apparently the magic answer to solve that is to buy ABK? No, it's really, really not.
It's not that I oppose the acquisition in principal, but the hypocrisy in how one company is seemingly allowed to "compete" that the other isn't, going by implied responses, is hilarious. But I'm mostly speaking about people in the fanbase who flood the discourse with this stuff, and FWIW, MS have helped enable this type of discourse in making giant moves like these big 3P acquisitions in the first place, so they take some of the blame there.
DarkMage619
$MSFT
It also should be made clear that harm to Sony's market position is not harm to the overall gaming industry. It is silly to conflate the two no matter how big a fan a person is of the PlayStation.
HoofHearted
Member
chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://assets.publishing.service.g...sponses_to_Issues_Statement_MS_Activision.pdf
MICROSOFT/ACTIVISION BLIZZARD PHASE 2 MERGER INQUIRY
Summary of responses from members of the public to the issues statement
Introduction
Summary of views from members of the public
4. Of the 2,100 emails that we reviewed, around three quarters were broadly in favour of the Merger and around a quarter were broadly against the Merger. No clear view was expressed for or against the merger by a small number of respondents.
5. The following views were expressed in favour of the Merger:
- (a) Sony and Nintendo are stronger than Microsoft in console gaming, and the Merger will help Microsoft to compete more closely against them;
- (b) the Merger will not harm rival consoles because Microsoft has made public and private commitments to keep Activision content, including Call of Duty, non-exclusive. The availability of Minecraft on rival consoles shows that Microsoft's commercial strategy is not to make games exclusive;
- (c) it is unlikely that Microsoft would make Call of Duty exclusive due to its multiplayer nature. Making Call of Duty exclusive to Xbox would only create a gap in the market that could be filled by a rival cross-platform shooter game;
- (d) Call of Duty has competition from a number of other games including Battlefield (Electronic Arts), Grand Theft Auto (Take Two) and FIFA (Electronic Arts); (e) the Merger will push Sony to innovate, such as by improving its subscription service or creating more games to compete with Call of Duty;
- (f) the Merger is a reaction to Sony's business model for PlayStation, which has historically involved securing exclusive content or early access to popular cross-platform gaming franchises, such as Final Fantasy and Silent Hill;
- (g) Microsoft's plans to add Call of Duty to Game Pass are pro-competitive and will lower the price of accessing games for consumers; (h) Microsoft would not make Activision's content exclusive to Xbox postMerger because it would lose significant potential revenue from rival platforms;
- (i) consumers could revert to buying games on a buy-to-play basis if Microsoft were to raise the price of Game Pass post-Merger;
- (j) the Merger will lead to more funding and higher-quality games in the industry; (k) the Merger will allow Microsoft to provide Activision with better guidance and leadership, and to encourage it to invest more in games other than Call of Duty;
- (l) the Merger is pro-competitive in the mobile segment because it will create new options for mobile gamers and allow Microsoft to compete against Google and Apple, which are the two dominant mobile platforms; (m)the Merger will not create competition concerns in cloud gaming services because there are other potential competitors, such as Netflix; and
some industry participants have said they are not opposed to the Merger.
6. The following views were expressed against the Merger:
- (a) Microsoft is already dominant in PC operating systems, and this Merger is an attempt to gain a similar position in gaming;
- (b) Microsoft has the resources to create an offering that competes with PlayStation exclusives without acquiring Activision;
- (c) the Merger would lead to consolidation and would set a harmful precedent in the gaming industry of acquiring large publishers rather than encouraging organic growth;
- (d) this would be the largest merger in gaming history, paving the way for a potential string of future acquisitions of publishers such as Take Two, EA, Ubisoft, thereby increasing concentration in the market;
- (e) Microsoft will make Call of Duty exclusive to Xbox, just as it did with Bethesda after it acquired ZeniMax Media;
- (f) Microsoft will have the incentive to make Call of Duty exclusive to Xbox post-Merger. This will adversely affect gamers who cannot afford an additional console and they would therefore switch to Xbox at the launch of the next console generation;
- (g) Microsoft would be able to deteriorate the quality of Call of Duty games on PlayStation post-Merger, which could cause consumers to switch to Xbox;
- (h) Microsoft can capture the multi-game subscription market after the Merger because it can afford to add games to Game Pass at a loss;
- (i) Microsoft is already dominant in cloud gaming, and the Merger could affect the future of new entrants into that space;
- (j) the Merger will raise barriers to entry for smaller studios and independent developers; and (k) the Merger will lead to an increase in Microsoft's bargaining power in relation to game publishers.
Last edited:
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Just ignore the monetized YouTube channel. Nothing to see there.
ChorizoPicozo
Member
You should understand that the green fan base have been under the weather for a long time now.
Some will refuse to blame Xbox (but many do, imagine that).
They see this deal as a panacea for Xbox's situation. Let them dream.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
It's their favorite (only when we do it) exclusives, after all.
gothmog
Gold Member
Because people want "free" games is why the general Xbox fan doesn't want to do that. For Microsoft? It's their big lie. They want COD for the bragging rights and control. They will hide that behind a no, we really want King explanation, but the way they keep mentioning COD is a clear tell they know what the real prize is.
feynoob
Banned
Hoeg already had his own channel, which he was covering these type of stuff.
And Idas is the one who is helping the Era thread, as he doesnt have his own channel.
No need for people to shit on them, if you dont like them.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
You sure it isn't because Sony and their fanbase have been whining about losing CoD ad nauseam since January ?
No, we must absolutely slander him because he is for/against something we are for/against.
Last edited:
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Oh, get over it. Yes, he had his own channel that is growing even more as he found his audience enough to appear on just one brand's podcasts. The goal to having YT is to grow. More eyes, more subs, more money.
And as far as a forum guy, he could be a shill for all you know. Critique will happen, especially when it's starkly one sided.
Must be the kindness of their hearts tho. Totes.
Last edited:
SenjutsuSage
Banned
Exactly, any claim it's about in-house games demonstrates a pure lack of understanding about the subject matter under discussion or the type of power Google and Apple possess on their app stores. The power is reflective of what took place with Fortnite and Epic, and what transpired with Game Pass. How Apple and Google can dictate what companies do and charge for their games outside the google and apple marketplaces, and what they can distribute inside of their apps. It would be equivalent to banning Spotify from operating on Apple and Google's stores. That's what they're doing to cloud gaming services.
Imagine Microsoft banning sale of specific publishers on Xbox consoles because they're charging a cheaper price on Steam? Microsoft allows EA Play on Xbox consoles, and is going to allow Ubisoft+ eventually. Look at how Apple and Google can wholesale ban native cloud gaming apps from its store.
Will they soon ban Netflix also over its cloud gaming ambitions? Maybe Amazon might desire to do some interesting things with its app on the Apple or Google app stores? Google and Apple's control downright extends to the mere advertisement of cloud gaming services due to the limitations imposed. The power apple and google wield basically translates to limits on how companies are able to advertise their products and services. There's a reason Apple is considering allowing side-loading on their next version of IOS. They understand their current position is unsustainable, and they have to at least get to where Google is currently, but the trajectory is clear.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
King games are still controlled by both Apple/Google marketplaces though on mobile.
They are not buying a marketplace.
feynoob
Banned
Who is his audience that you are talking?
That is pretty wild accusation there.
Like how you are here in this thread?
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
feynoob
Banned
Its annoying that we are making this Me vs Them.No, we must absolutely slander him because he is for/against something we are for/against.
This is a universal topic. Everyone's emotion is going to get hurt by the news of this topic.
Everyone around the world is covering them.
We are lucky that we have few that are dedicating their time for us.
gothmog
Gold Member
I think that's a weird perception. Sony hasn't really said much in general. Microsoft has been talking more than enough for all of us.
feynoob
Banned
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Literally the entire social media gaming paradigm on this. Even some posers in this thread pretending not to be when their post histories are on display for all to see.
Hell, even the corporations stoked them flames.
Last edited:
feynoob
Banned
I am talking specifically about those lawyers.Literally the entire social media gaming paradigm on this. Even some posers in this thread pretending not to be when their post histories are on display for all to see.
Hell, even the corporations stoked them flames.
This thread shows your example.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
The entire thesis of a lawyer is to NOT be objective, but to object when necessary.
What we do need, is more with multiple perspectives and not just one.
Topher
Identifies as young
Uh...no, it was not Sony who pushed this into the court of public opinion. That was Microsoft.
No, we must absolutely slander him because he is for/against something we are for/against.
Saying he is monetizing this through his youtube channel is not slander.
Last edited:
feynoob
Banned
Then hire us someone who is willing to tell us about this deal.
SenjutsuSage
Banned
This is highly uninformed. King is a money-making machine. There are significant parts throughout the year where King is making more money than Call of Duty. Microsoft is bringing up Call of Duty because it's the greatest competitive concern of one of the market's biggest players, Sony, and it's also the biggest concern for regulators as a direct result of that fact as well as how much money it makes. King may be a moneymaker, but there ain't gonna be anybody bitching about that.
Activision Blizzards' performance results show that King during specific quarters makes more money than Activision, especially more recently.
We know when COD drops it's huge, but anybody claiming King isn't an important part of this transaction can't really be taken serious. The yellow bar in these quarterly revenue splits showcases that King regularly outperforms Activision on a quarterly basis throughout the year until the big Q4 for Activision with COD. King alone would be a massive ass boost to the overall sustainability of Game Pass due to how consistently strong it is throughout the year. It's arguably a safer bet on the revenue front than even Call of Duty.
Topher
Identifies as young
Hire.....what?
Or the fact that everyone is complaining/investigating the issue about COD?
Obviously they want both but there is only one IP that regulators are generally raising
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Topher
Identifies as young
The first public comment Microsoft made about this was about COD. King wasn't even mentioned.
- Status