Could be just a sign that they knew what the likely issue was going to be and not representative of their desires which obviously could be multiple things.
No regulators seems to have an issue with King being acquired.
Last edited:
Microsoft / Activision Deal Approval Watch |OT| (MS/ABK close)
- Status
No regulators seems to have an issue with King being acquired.
feynoob
Banned
jm89
Member
If the next thing they offer is an option to put it on ps plus to appease the regulators how do they even make that work?
MS could easily charge sony some insane amount that would make it not worth it, whilst ms can put it on their service without an upfront fee giving them a massive competitive advantage.
BTW a ps plus deal was already offered but yeah the pricing is unknown and still will have question marks around it.
The concept of fair and reasonable has been applied to patent licensing but not really something like this.
I also don't think it may enough for just Sony to have that deal.
DarkMage619
$MSFT
Hoeg has broken down the gamer lawsuit.
Last edited by a moderator:
oldergamer
Member
Why do you think one thing can't happen with the other? why not both?
FalsettoVibe
Member
Are you serious? Have you seen the comments on his videos and the chat when he goes live? It's fairly obvious.
Also doesn't help when this same audience is dropping $2, $5, and $10 every other minute in the chat. I watch him
and I think he knows his stuff, but not sure if his opinions aren't slightly slanted.
Last edited:
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
Among the bigger content creators who tend to lean towards the brand it at least seems maybe a couple are becoming more openly critical? Though not without recourse; some of the diehards have been very overdramatic and criticized them for being critical of Xbox of late, even sending death threats.
All of it uncalled for; no company ends up in a certain position without having done most of the work themselves (or most of the mistakes themselves). Can't blame competitors for putting to use things that would have otherwise gone to waste.
That kind of is the feeling one'd pick up in seeing their larger range of argument, considering COD brings in more revenue than Candy Crush and that's the biggest thing King has going for them. So yeah, they want COD on 'as many platforms as possible' but seemingly only as long as they retain full control of it.
Which makes Sony's concerns about MS setting arbitrarily high costs for things like marketing deals etc., then undercutting them by putting new COD games into GamePass (which would cost MS no extra money to do), valid points to bring up. MS offering Sony COD in PS+ read like a slap in the face: it's not even just about what amount of money Sony'd have to pay in order to make that happen, but Sony's gaming revenue is heavily driven by cuts off of direct sales of games (to customers).
If them putting COD into PS+ meant say a 50% collapse in sales of COD on PS consoles, but only a 5% bump in their PS+ revenue (say $125 million, going off the $2.5 billion that was quoted from a 2021 figure), then that's a net loss for them. Because if say MW3 sold even just 8 million copies (digital) on PS normally, at 30% cut that'd be Sony making $144 million from that alone. But now if it's in PS+ Day 1, say they lose half of that because casuals go to PS+ for the game, but they just want to play the campaign. That would only take them a month. That is a lot of money left on the table.
For a company like MS that scenario means nothing to them because games account for barely 10% of their total annual revenue, if even that, and account for even less of their net profits. As long as GP gets new subscribers and its growth allows them to make other gaming moves for Azure, then it doesn't matter. But Sony actually relies on gaming revenue & profit as a core pillar of their business financially, not just philosophically like MS are trying to position Xbox as nowadays. COD in PS+ doesn't do anything to benefit their gaming revenue. In fact it hurts it.
Any deal for COD into PS+ or any similar service ultimately doesn't matter when it means the companies doing such stand to lose out on maximum revenue from reduced direct sales not just for COD, but even other games on their platform. All of which would have to somehow be made up for in subscription revenue which, even GamePass has definitely failed to prove it's managed to do.
And for a company like MS, that strategy is perfectly fine. For a company like Sony or Nintendo, it isn't. They can't have their bottom line in gaming end up cannibalized due to reduced sales of 1P & 3P games at sufficient prices if they start training their customer base to expect games as big as COD in their subscription services Day 1. They don't have the cloud infrastructure to sustain losses for a 10-year subscription growth plan the way MS does. They don't make the vast majority of their money from non-gaming ventures to the point gaming is an afterthought to their financial results the way it is with MS.
So offering a deal for COD into PS+ effectively means nothing.
Last edited:
Banjo64
cumsessed
You had not mention 'King' or 'mobile' one single time in this entire thread until after Phil Spencer's November interview with The Verge when he cited King as the main reason of the purchase.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.
https://www.theverge.com/23459189/p...box-playstation-candy-crush-apple-fortnite-vr
https://www.neogaf.com/search/35460...ad]=1641775&c[users]=SenjutsuSage&o=relevance
https://www.neogaf.com/search/35460...ad]=1641775&c[users]=SenjutsuSage&o=relevance
DryvBy
Member
Because they currently show they can't do both. See: 2022.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
feynoob
Banned
He said this in august. That is the earliest article that mentions it.
https://www.gamespot.com/articles/m...mobile-and-pc-phil-spencer-says/1100-6506889/
Banjo64
cumsessed
DenchDeckard
Moderated wildly
I agree with so many of your points and I hope by the end of 2023 we can comment on gaf that MS did improve their output after an abysmal 2022 and not by purchasing Activision but with the moves and purchases they were making leading up to this.
I hope there is am amazing 2023 and we can put the shite 2022 down to covid and the world recovering from the pandemic.
So, I would say that MS has been making lives to improve their one remaining issue which is games but now it's time for them to prove it without the ABK purchase.
I hope we can all agree that at the end of 2023 MS have turned everything around in the last 5 years.
Everything else is absolutely top tier. Co sole hardware, OS features, game pass. Now it's time to deliver on the games and they can not be excused if 2023 is not a stellar year of output. They've had long enough.
Last edited:
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Ok, I think I've pointed this out elsewhere before as well, but they have specifically cited mobile gaming and King ever since January, just days after announcing the deal.
Saying that they only started talking about it after FTC/CMA started intervening is 100% false.
This was in the news all the way back then.
Microsoft’s Activision Buy Highlights Push Toward Mobile, Metaverse
Shares in companies such as Electronic Arts and Ubisoft rose following the disclosure of the planned deal, as investors placed bets on the rapidly consolidating videogame industry.
www.wsj.com
Microsoft’s Acquisition Of Activision Blizzard Is Seismic, But The Crown In The Deal Might Be King
King could be Microsoft's route to mobile gaming riches.
www.thegamer.com
Last edited:
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
He is saying that nobody in this thread or any other really talked about or focused on it, until daddy initiated a shift in narrative on them podcasts.Ok, I thin I've pointed this out elsewhere before as well, but they have specifically cited mobile gaming and King ever since January, just days after announcing the deal.
Saying that they only started talking about it after FTC/CMA started intervening is 100% false.
Microsoft’s Acquisition Of Activision Blizzard Is Seismic, But The Crown In The Deal Might Be King
King could be Microsoft's route to mobile gaming riches.
Which is true.
Banjo64
cumsessed
I didn't say that.
I said that Senjutsu Sage hasn't mention mobile or King in this thread until after Phil Spencer's November Verge interview.
feynoob
Banned
He is in panick mode since FTC, CMA, and EU are challenging this deal, and not letting it go the easy way.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
It's Phil Spencer's world. We're all just living in it.
Badlucktroll
Member
feynoob
Banned
Regular fighting group.
We are starving for some news here.
Run away friend, before they eat you.
Got me doublechecking when I mentioned King lol
My first was in an old thread or couple of them but there are some interesting things that i said (not revolutionary)
Post in thread 'Microsoft: Call of Duty and other popular AB games will continue to be released on PlayStation and Nintendo platforms beyond current agreements' https://www.neogaf.com/threads/micr...ond-current-agreements.1629982/post-265571918
Post in thread 'Microsoft: Call of Duty and other popular AB games will continue to be released on PlayStation and Nintendo platforms beyond current agreements' https://www.neogaf.com/threads/micr...ond-current-agreements.1629982/post-265571918
But back to the thread.
gothmog
Gold Member
Regulators don't want a deal. They want a divestiture so that this is not an issue in the future. Sony has said nothing on the matter because I believe they don't really care who owns it as long as it is not Microsoft. Microsoft doesn't want to divest because this is a control play. If they didn't care about the IP they would be all for spinning it out.
1) gamepass/multi-game subscription services arent massively reliant on cloud infrastructure, cloud streaming yes but they are slightly different things. One is a payment model and one is a distribution model.
2) there is a lot of conjecture there that regulators in theory would need to defend, aka what percentage of the full game revenue would decline cause MS has 'trained the cod user based to not buy games' etc. It feels difficult to argue personally but maybe there are some good economists that figure it out.
3) I don't think there is going to be any conversation around loss leading especially around GP (no one seems to hinted towards it) , I personally think MS will state the obvious the GP isn't meant to have a great margin because its trying to get users in.
4) consumers are benefiting concretely and in the short term if CoD goes into ps+. Obviously this may not be the case forever especially if you account for other factors that's harder to quantify.
I don't think therefore a deal into ps+ means nothing regarding the concerns in the market of console gaming.
As before, there are more competitors who could complain imo.
Anyways signing off for the night, look forward to seeing everyone on page 310.
Last edited:
feynoob
Banned
How long are we gonna go with route?
Regulators are not demanding this. They would have said to MS.
FTC wants complete block. CMA wants guarentee market access for Activision games. Same with EU.
All divestiture does is make MS abandon this deal.
gothmog
Gold Member
FTC is not going to turn down an obvious win if Microsoft came to the table with a remedy that matched up with their guidance. Microsoft just needs to decide how bad they want full control. None of this is free for them and the meter is already running.
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
So you mean Starfield? A game they got through an acquisition in 2021, and was going to be funded regardless as well as multiplatform at that (as in, multi-console)? It's going to be hard to say how much of Starfield is due to MS's involvement until we actually get the game, but it's been in some form of development since 2016 IIRC. That's a lot of time without MS's direct influence; could end up like a Psychonauts 2 situation.
Forza is just more Forza; they're always at least good, but they're racing games. RedFall, I dunno how much of that was in development before MS's acquisition of Zenimax and such, but maybe that would be the one big game they have coming which can be pointed to as an example of MS improving things over last year, with a game they had some actual involvement in helping scope & develop, rather than just throwing some money out to the dev team. We'll see.
IMO MS's issue hasn't been so much quality, but consistency and relevance to go along with whatever it is they're releasing. They don't have a regular release cadence, and a lot of what they put out just outright lacks mainstream appeal.
What's the world recovering from the pandemic got to do with MS having a mostly busted 2022? They're a massive company with cloud resources that should theoretically make hybrid office/home dev painfully easy, so why have there been so many bottlenecks?
Sony's been dealing with the pandemic as well, still put out quite a few big releases this year (yes they were delayed but at least they came out shortly after the initial release windows given), and had big games come through from 3P publishers. Nintendo's stayed steady in spite of dealing with the pandemic, too. Other publishers still put out some big games this year , so why is the pandemic a persistent excuse for Microsoft?
Unless Starfield is balls-out amazing, and considering the rest of what's set to release in 2023 in terms of 1P games, I doubt it'll be enough for most to say MS's turned "everything" around. But it would be a great start towards remedying some of their weaknesses.
Conversely if Sony can get TLOU Part 2 Factions out and it hits, or some other live-service MP game out and it does very well, then it'll be a strong start towards them remedying one of their biggest oversights (lack of 1P MP games). Though I find it funny Sony is expected to remedy that with self-made games yet MS can seemingly fix their shortcomings by just buying existing developers & publishers, nonetheless it'd be a good start to them needing to rely less on stuff like COD.
Maybe these things are top-tier but there are levels to it and the market has spoken with deciding which platforms they buy and at what volumes.
But I agree in the general sentiment: 2023, MS need to have some great 1P AAA games, much better messaging & marketing, more consistent release schedule and provide some long-needed updates on games revealed in 2019 & 2020 before even thinking about releasing CG trailers for yet more new games.
Nah, I would say they are. You still need the server space to host the content, that's also cloud infrastructure. Those games use centralized network services for online play, and those services have to be stored & accessed somewhere on the server end to actually have players talk to each other. That's cloud infrastructure.
Maybe the degree of cloud infrastructure needed varies from service to service, but the more a service has access to, the more it can provide in supporting the frontend (what the gamers have access to) through the beefed-up backend.
I mean, they can turn to current market results to prove their case, honestly. Sure, they would not be able to definitively prove that a game doing only 20% its sales on Xbox vs. PlayStation is due to Xbox gamers being trained to wait for GamePass, but a lot of that type of circumstantial evidence, I have to think, can add up to proving a point that is very difficult to counterargue.
The conversation can pop up though depending on if it's felt any measures MS have taken in order to get users in, have resulted in any practices that could have allowed them to operate the GamePass service at a deficit far beyond what most any other competitor more reliant on revenue & profits from a gaming division would have been able to sustain, due to MS having such an excess in revenue & profits from non-gaming divisions that they can operate on that type of model for a long period of time simply to generate subscribers.
And keep in mind this is MS doing that while simultaneously still operating Xbox on the traditional model where they have to incur production costs on millions of console unit, distribution costs in shipping them, marketing costs in advertising them (which they generally just now do through GamePass), etc. I would think even some of the pricing deals we saw for Series S over November could make for a good argument, considering MS's original stance on making the X & S (out of data suggesting the normal price reduction path for consoles would not be possible), combined with the general economic trend of electronics supplies increasing in price for sourcing, and MS having a console model focused on 3P support and relatively cutting-edge console hardware (i.e systems not sold at big profit margins due to outdated tech specs like Nintendo), similar to Sony.
Consumer benefits only matter so long as the corporation can sustain them while hitting revenue targets to not piss off shareholders. That is, for companies where the revenue in a given sector is actually a paramount reason why shareholders have purchased stocks in the first place.
That's why I said MS's offer for COD into PS+ hurts Sony's business model, not help it, because that could act as a training tool for people to hold off on buying other, smaller games if something as huge as COD is a PS+ offering from the jump. And that would cause a rather sizable defect in Sony's gaming revenue; since Sony rely on gaming as a core pillar for their overall revenue much more than Microsoft ever has, that can create some issues.
It's like saying Nintendo should put Tears of the Kingdom in NSO Day 1. There's no scenario where they'd make enough in sub revenue to make up for the losses from direct sales, and for Nintendo, where gaming is even more critical to their bottom line than Sony, that's just a no-go.
You sure you don't mean page 316?
Last edited:
oldergamer
Member
Thats bullshit. 2021 showed the could do both. There was a distinct lack of first party games from all console makers this past year. Not having much this year doesnt disprove anything.
feynoob
Banned
MS will abondon the deal, if it comes to that situation, or fight it in the court.
DenchDeckard
Moderated wildly
Reading posts like these makes me think there's nothing MS could ever do to win you over.
Gran turismo 7 is an amazing game, it's not knocked becuase it's just a racing game. You might not want a new Forza motorsport but I sure as hell do.
Also, taste is subjective. You can go on about Sony but to be honest they only released two decent games this year and that's gran turismo and god of war. Wasn't God of war originally slated for last year?
You can talk about main stream success but if that means delivering games like horizon forbidden west and even god of war ragnorok to an extent I hope MS don't attempt to go with that kind of game. I think they can get mainstream success with really engrossing great games with awesome gameplay and nit forced story sections or bloated content that's imo weaksauce.
MS had like 6 studios or something wasnt it before they purchased Bethesda?
You want MS to release the same amount of games with their old studios as Sony who had considerably more? I don't get it? MS took steps to fix the issues and its still not good enough?
They attempted to create a new studio with the initiative and it goes to show how that doesn't work entirely all the time. Let's see how Sony get on with Jade Raymond's and those ex call of duty guys...hasn't one of them already left?
It's like everyone wanted MS just to magic up newnstudios out of their ass but don't understand that you have to hire people and everything else that goes along with it.
I'm not really going to bother going into the weeds about it. But for me, as long as Microsoft have a strong 2023 from their current studios then all is good. But something tells me it won't be good enough for you for many reasons I am sure you will express on this forum for years to come.
"They had to buy output"
"They wouldn't have games if it wasn't for them buying studios"
" these games can't be classed as good becuase they are so and so genre and that isn't mainstream"
"Still not as good as Sony games" lmao
So on and so on...
The purchase ones are completely true and it's why MS bought studios. I don't really know what else to say.
more or less neck and neck sales wise in the US and UK I would say those markets are choosing hardware. It will take years upon years to gain any traction in Europe etc. As long as they sell more than previous generation MS are putting in work. Which it seems the series is, and also seeing crazy success on PC.
Last edited:
KingT731
Member
Why don't you tell that that to the people acting like MS can only invest in their gaming studios by buying pubs? I'm not the one saying they NEED to buy the pubs.
DarkMage619
$MSFT
Who said the ONLY way MS could invest is by buying publishers? You realize that prior to ZeniMax they hadn't bought any right? MS can invest in their studios by buying an individual studio(Obsidian), starting a studio(Initiative)or, buying a group of them(ZeniMax). All are legal reasonable ways for them to expand.
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
Imagine trying to insinuate HFW is a bad game
.I did acknowledge all three were set for 2021 and got delayed into 2022, but at least Sony still had 2021 releases, and big 2020 releases...and big 2019 releases....and big 2018 releases, etc. See what I mean? Sony've earned a sense of leniency that MS have yet to, and it's going to take a while for them to do so. WRT Forza, I'm not saying it's a bad game at all or that it won't be quality. However we know Forza doesn't have big selling power and going by long-term retention of FH5 we know it doesn't have big draw power in getting & keeping people subbed to GamePass, either.
It simply doesn't do a lot above and beyond GT to ever actually take up more mindshare, and MS's marketing has generally been pretty limited so taking up bigger market share of the sim racer market is just a non-starter.
What are the forced story sections of HFW? If I want to explore the open world I can do so freely, for the most part. There are lots of intricate systems to play around with, I can even play a tabletop battle simulator in the game virtually any time I want! I don't see why this narrative of "movie games" or content bloat or whatever has become so popular to use against Sony's marquee games, when you have games like Plague Tale: Requiem that are EXTREMELY linear and have much less involved game mechanics for combat, or games like AssCreed which embody actual open-world bloat to a 'T.
But I know why. They aren't Sony exclusives. That's really the only reason why.
MS had more than 5-6 studios before deciding to buy devs in 2018, they just closed down a ton of them. And number of studios doesn't matter so much as how many teams are there and how big are those teams. Nintendo doesn't have a ton of studios either, but they're pretty good at having a decent slate of regular releases.
I actually thought MS acquiring the 2018 studios was mostly a good thing. The problem is we have not seen anything from them in terms of content for Xbox they would not have been able to make otherwise without being acquired. In fact, in a lot of cases all we've seen are multiplatform releases from them. Outer Worlds, Psychonauts 2, etc. Most of the exceptions were either just outright terrible games (Bleeding Edge), or have been rather non-impactful in moving the needle of perception (Grounded, Pentiment).
So not only have we not seen a lot from those teams, we haven't seen much from the Zenimax studios in that vain, and now MS want to buy yet another group of developers through acquiring the largest 3P publisher in the market? My thing is MS have taken steps to fix the issue but apparently they have to convince themselves they need to keep taking steps and keep taking steps to fix that issue, when the issue now is...where are the actual results from what you first acquired?
Oh yeah, let's jump to Haven as an example and ignore ALL the other teams Sony have built from the ground up to be big successes, or smaller teams they've since cultivated to grow into more ambitious studios. And let's equate a single person leaving from Deviation to a studio that lost almost 50% of its staff, had their project internally rebooted, and had to enter a partnership with a full-on 3P developer to hopefully get things going right again, as if they're comparable?
C'mon, that's just silly
MS did hire people. The problem is they didn't have any sense of organizing those people, guiding them, or keeping them going on a timely schedule. All of which are management issues from higher up.
I mean, if a lot of those things are true, then what's the harm in bringing them up? The first two things you mention are just factually true; if the output ends up being great, that's awesome! But they had to acquire it, they had to acquire studios. And they did it because they lacked confidence in the teams they had remaining (after shutting down countless others prior) in order to deliver that content.
Funny thing is I haven't argued that MS's games aren't good whatsoever. I've mentioned that they have quite a few quality games, in fact. But a game being good quality doesn't mean it's appealing to the mainstream, which can affect its sales, its revenue, its mindshare and what it's able to do for its parent brand. Pentiment is a technical marvel compared to the new Pokemon games yet look at which of those two is actually in the mindshare, setting sales records, and absolutely pleasing their fanbase. It sure as hell isn't Pentiment.
If they sell more Series than XBOs but with most of them being the S and only when the S is heavily subsidized anyway, how is that ultimately a good thing if the GamePass ARPU remains overall low? That would be a cause for concern IMO.
And make no mistake, a lot of Series's sales in US & UK are due to Series S and particularly the big sales deals & promotions they've had over the past 3-4 months. I also think a lot of the 2021 sales were driven by the effect of lockdowns and some people wanting to jump in unable to find a PS5 or Series X. So, they went with their third-choice pick, and picked up a Series S.
Personally I think MS should increase the number of Series X units but that's just me.
feynoob
Banned
The people you are talking were broken due to Xbox one launch fiasco.
Issue lies in MS. They went hands on with Xbox demanding TV, instead of actually investing on games.
This document talks more about the management issue.
Ozzy Onya A2Z
Member
Ah, but none of those "Game Gears" were docking like the Switch or a separate controller (if you want attached or not), just like a traditional console moreso than a "Game Gear". The facts are Switch is reasonably 50/50 in the handheld and console market. Further sustainable facts are Nintendo is historically a classic console manufacturer, they have every opportunity to market entry for any type a new or tradtional or hybrid they choose to make. Competitive opportunity is there.
Ah yes, Microsoft can now finally compete against Googles and Apples in-house mobile games. Oh wait, those dont exist.
This is stupid. None of the mobile players give a shit if games are first party or third party on Google/Apple phones. No one cares. Can they buy and play from their store? That's the end of it right there. A third major player in a segment of the market that has come to dominate. The FTC's claims are far more valid if you look at the Apple vs Google segment. I'd like MS to be there in a big way, 3 competitors would be nice.
I learned that "foreclosure" isn't just about houses. Of course, ifMrFunSocks wasn't banned he could have explained that to me.
I miss
MrFunSocks
Why should they? There are ample competitors across the market and mediums to support COD, even with market segmentation being rewritten poorly. Even if COD was NOT to go to Sony, as MS have legally promised to do anyway, there is still plenty of market gain for the loss of Sony e.g. Switch, mobile, streaming. It's hilarious the public emails for the deal don't have a number of elements in there e.g. Fortnite, King, Tencent, Sony VR, middle east oil money, nor the history of Sony/Sega.
FTC is not going to turn down an obvious win if Microsoft came to the table with a remedy that matched up with their guidance. Microsoft just needs to decide how bad they want full control. None of this is free for them and the meter is already running.
This case is stacking up the other way around mate. It probably won't even go to trial in the end.
Topher
Identifies as young
And no traditional console had a handheld mode out of the box either so there is no need for anyone to revise the history of console gaming when Switch is an entirely new innovation. This is why I think the better argument in classifying these consoles to look at the games that gamers buy on each. That is what defines your console more than anything else.
I miss
Last edited:
gothmog
Gold Member
According to what? The probably highly astroturfed email response to the CMA?
DarkMage619
$MSFT
feynoob
Banned
Switch doesn't have major 3rd party games, because it's not profitable there.
Switch is a weak system, as it can't handle power hungry games.
If you add those 2 together, then the console isn't a competition to Xbox and PS.
just read this goddamn article. Don't be stupid guys.
https://www.vgchartz.com/article/449937/the-switchs-growing-third-party-problem/
Switch is a weak system, as it can't handle power hungry games.
If you add those 2 together, then the console isn't a competition to Xbox and PS.
just read this goddamn article. Don't be stupid guys.
https://www.vgchartz.com/article/449937/the-switchs-growing-third-party-problem/
Last edited:
Henry Panic
Banned
Not sure why Nintendo is being brought up, they aren't competing with Xbox or PS5.
feynoob
Banned
We tried to tell certain people here, but they don't want to accept that.
Menzies
Banned
Because if the regulators are happy to declare them exclusionary from this competitive 'sub-market', they have defacto taken the position that they have no competition.
If we're fair and reasonable about why these regulators exist in the first place, then surely their limited resources are better spent investigating Nintendo's position against daylight, rather than stifling this acquisition which won't amount to anything close to resembling a monopoly.
Ass of Can Whooping
Member
I'm sure if they find Nintendo to be an issue they can investigate them separately
oldergamer
Member
Dont know what you are getting at. They can do both. Only fools still buy that crap about organic growth instead of purchasing until thier fav plastic box buys a bunch of studios
Menzies
Banned
I'd sooner throw down Senju's 40K on that not happening more than this anti-big tech agenda closing this deal lol
DryvBy
Member
I'm sorry, what was that? I was busy playing God of War and Spark of Hope on consoles that have less money and studios.
Ozzy Onya A2Z
Member
I'll happily concede the Switch down to say 40% based in the console world and the other 60% left to handheld/innovation. Anything pushing 100% either way isn't based in reality.
You, and many other replies on this point, also just conveniently avoid the point - Nintendo have the history, industry partnerships, experience, capital, consumer goodwill, talent, franchises/IP, distribution system and manufacturing contracts to deliver a new console or innovation into any market segment any time they choose (and get this one clear as crystal) Nintendo are famous for innovation and market distinction, you so gleefully rebut with. The trouble is again it is an own goal, in fact Nintendo are open to competition in any market at any time of their choosing.
Also, fact: MS is opening more doors for Nintendo or any other player to compete directly with Sony and/or COD in the console space. The days of bullish Sony market dominance are over. Tencent backchannel takeover and MS pushing hard for the next 10+ years. There are other sharks circling.
EDIT: The switch really isn't innovation at all. The Game Boy used to let you do multiplayer near field and had all sorts of portable accessories. It even had adapters and dongles to output to screens etc. The Game & Watch used to do similar.
EDIT2: Are you also actually trying to sit there are say there is no overlap between say a PC vs a Steam Deck Vs Switch vs a mobile/tablet phone streaming Gamepass/xCloud/GeForce Now/PS+? Again, laughable to think or claim the Switch is so innovative and runs solo in its market segment. I call bullshit again and again. Literally Steam Deck and Switch go head to head.
EDIT3: Are you trying to tell me the VITA wasn't in a similar league as the Switch? You/FTC don't get to rule the Switch out of the console market and ignore or the other handheld ways to play games.
We need far more open Xbox fans here on GAF, there's a silent undercurrent for years here that many cannot be arsed to post/reply due to Sony clique/bots TBH. He had knowledge and experience and was willing to go in depth on a number of topics. I cannot say he was always right, no one is, but I generally aligned with much of what he said and how he said it.
Last edited:
akimbo009
Member
Not specific to your post, but had me also consider -- why are we ignoring the switch lite which is SPECIFICALLY a portable gaming device while the the Switch itself is bringing traditional console experiences on the go.
Ozzy Onya A2Z
Member
Very true.
I'm not sure the FTC really know what they're gunning for here. They just see a big tech market move and want to react. Hopefully the FTC become more levelheaded or the ruling is more akin to the EU filings. The EU filings appear far more regulation process based and quite logical in terms of business reasons and supporting evidence. Something the regulators and industry can actually work together with. FTC/Sony fucking with ActiBliz is just barking mad up the wrong tree, especially with the batshit Nintendo criteria and wider market/segments being pivotal to their case.
EDIT: Probably exactly the sort of market realities that are going to be big problems for the FTC to dunk on.
Last edited:
- Status