Microsoft / Activision Deal Approval Watch |OT| (MS/ABK close)
- Status
Pelta88
Member
He can't. But that's the reason why, in my opinion, they told the exec who was touting this to go sit his ass down somewhere. We haven't really heard from Phil Spencer since.
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
Here's another reason the 10-year deal is BS: what incentive does MS have to offer a limited-year publishing deal of a 3P IP on Nintendo platforms if they acting as a 3P publisher on Nintendo's platforms? The licensing deals should be coming from Nintendo, not Microsoft or ABK. As in, Nintendo's the one who determines who gets a license to officially publish games on the eShop and in retail for Nintendo devices, and it's Nintendo who can terminate those license agreements.
Platform holders aren't interested in deals from publishers that basically amount to "we'll give you this game as normal". No, platform holders are interested in publisher deals that usually get them some competitive perk with the game being offered. The offer has to go beyond the norm in order for the publisher to be making the offer, to have any weight with the platform holder.
They don't have 3P publishers (which again, Microsoft would be acting in the capacity of if they are publishing on a device and platform they don't own) dictate how many years they're going to release a game on a console of theirs, and then say "OK". What if that console suddenly dies in the market? What if technical shortcomings make it impossible to bring the game to that system for the duration of the contract? What if for financial reasons the publisher just decides to abandon the IP and start something new? I've seen a comment from someone thinking of similar circumstances and they gave an example where MS could just say "OK, we're not calling it COD anymore. Now it's Duty Calls", and have a way out of a pre-existing contract which is only enforced legally on what's basically a self-imposed behavioral remedy.
And that particular speculation was 100% right. This is why the regulators don't care for behavioral remedies, especially self-imposed ones, because they offer too many loopholes in favor of the company insisting on the behavioral remedy, and they can't really be enforced structurally. Unless Microsoft are willing to show the EXACT contract they have signed with Nintendo to regulators, and have the contract extensively reviewed, then it means nothing. Brad Smith's entire tweet, means nothing to regulators.
Last edited:
Nothing1234
Banned
Idas on reset era
OmegaSupreme
advanced basic bitch
Bullshit. Every word.Yep and at least the FTC & CMA have already said that behavioral remedies (and in FTC's case, additionally behavioral remedies that are tied to push good ESG) are not of their interest. Too hard to enforce, virtually impossible to monitor.
It's made financial sense since 2019. Same year they introduced COD to mobile devices.
The minimum requirements for both Android & iOS seem like it should run on a Switch at 30 FPS just fine with some tuning & optimization.
That's not the only reason they're losing but goodness, Brad really put his foot deep in his own mouth with these statements. And he's doing it again today
I love this clown circus that is Microsoft lawyers, professional and Twitter variety alike
Seems like people on PC barely want to pay anything for their games. Steep discounts shortly after launch, using 3P sites like CDKeys Day 1, a lot of the base are still on years-old low-spec GPUs and integrated graphics. Then there's the piracy problem.
So yeah I guess they don't want a next gen tax when they already don't want to pay much at all for the actual games. Expensive GPUs & CPUs though? Yeah a good 10% will put out big for those!
ToadMan
Member
From my perspective on a gaming forum - yeah it is dead. Maybe in a stock investment forum it’d be a different outlook, but in terms of gaming impact this is totally different now.
COD going MS exclusive was the big news. That went to 3 years, then 10 and now the regulators have stepped in the whole thing is up in the air.
I could accept some mild concessions as the deal continues - but divestment, which is the only concrete regulatory guidance we have, no that’s not same deal at all.
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
Most PC gamers having years-old GPUs and using iGPUs is verified through Steam data. So that part can't be BS.
I'm exaggerating a bit on the "they don't buy games at full price/wait for steep discounts/rampant piracy" parts but all three are more true on PC than on console.
Hope he dresses up as Mario when he does
Last edited:
Pelta88
Member
I was thinking the same thing?
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
Wednesday.
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
Not even a surprise. One thing to have stock in a company; another altogether to have it influence you to push a narrative on what should be open discourse where both sides are allowed to (respectfully) agree or disagree.
Reset really needs to weed out the bad faith actors.
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
I really don't understand why Sony would take a "deal" at this point. It'd be absolutely stupid to do so.
If Sony doesn't take a deal and continues to oppose, they will likely get this deal blocked altogether (their primary objective). As a bonus, MS will have to pay a $2.5/$3 billion penalty (which means less money for Xbox), and that's another win for Sony.
Worst case scenario, Sony loses and MS acquires ABK. Sony still gets at least 10 years of COD and, most likely, beyond that because MS will concede more for the deal to be accepted.
Sony really doesn't lose anything if they continue opposing.
jm89
Member
Yeah doesn't make sense at this stage. I'd imagine it may be sony just showing "hey look we are trying to look for a solution" not to seem to combatative.
Yeah, there isnt any point to make a deal until the regulators decide.
ToadMan
Member
Like this post - really hits home the point.
And yet now - a deal without an exclusive COD is no different to the original? Really?
Ridiculous.
HeisenbergFX4
Gold Member
If Sony continues to say no deal will this 10 year offer still be on the table if the deal goes through?
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
Only reason Sony would suddenly take a deal is if the wildest of wet noodle console warrior fantasies came true and Microsoft got an incriminating "smoking gun" to scare Sony shitless.
In which case Sony agreeing to the deal would be the equivalent of being blackmailed or even extorted by Microsoft, since they'd be holding onto that "smoking gun" and obscuring legal justice. So Microsoft would still get screwed in the end anyway
Well some of Brad Smith's stuff on Twitter and previous statements in the court for this case ironically strengthening the argument against Microsoft, won't be too helpful either.
Guess we'll see what's what.
Last edited:
Banjo64
cumsessed
Considering the CMA want structural remedies and historically have only accepted this, Sony will be getting more than 10 years either way. Either CoD is divested or Microsoft pledge some serious behavioural remedies (10 years is not serious behavioural remedies).
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
Not necessarily by MS, but it will be ensured by regulators. MS has put it on record for regulators as an incentive to pass this acquisition. If they walk back, they will face lots of problems with regulators.
Edit:
Banjo64
said it better than me. Sony will get at least 10 years either way.
Last edited:
"Entered into a 10 year commitment" December 7th, a day before the FTC meeting on the decision.
"signed a 10 year agreement" February 21st the day the EC are going to have a meeting to decide.
Yeah right MS, those dates for your "negotiation" milestones with Nintendo sure are coincidence.
Last edited:
GHG
Gold Member
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
Jimbo's naked videos, threatened to be leaked by Microsoft.Only reason Sony would suddenly take a deal is if the wildest of wet noodle console warrior fantasies came true and Microsoft got an incriminating "smoking gun" to scare Sony shitless.
In which case Sony agreeing to the deal would be the equivalent of being blackmailed or even extorted by Microsoft, since they'd be holding onto that "smoking gun" and obscuring legal justice. So Microsoft would still get screwed in the end anyway
Varteras
Member
FriulHado
Member
Definitely not helpful, I think the big one was the blockbuster comment but just saying imo its not that unusual.
Topher
Identifies as young
I’ll agree to disagree
mansoor1980
Gold Member
Last edited:
FUBARx89
Member
bentanchorbolt
Banned
They probably did but it was..... inadequate on many levels.
Last edited:
ToadMan
Member
What the regulators would want if they see subs as a concern is equal access regardless. of course they would both need to pay a fair price for it but the only way they might see that as happening is with divestiture. If they go behavioural it would be interesting to see what terms there would be to determine a "fair price".
I'm actually in doubt that MS would even offer annual COD day 1 on gamepass anyway. They didn't with Minecraft despite owning it since 2014 because it was a huge seller. When sales came down did it finally come to gamepass on xbox (2019) and PC (2021).
Last edited:
GHG
Gold Member
OmegaSupreme
advanced basic bitch
Banjo64
cumsessed
Egg doesn’t go to places where he might be challenged or told no. He certainly wouldn’t want to have to look at Jim’s sculpted, Adonis like body and full head of hair. He only operates in safe, inclusive and accessible environments.
SneakersSO
Member
Exactly what I was saying - these 'negotiations' they were having were merely for appearances, on both sides I imagine.
bentanchorbolt
Banned
FriulHado
Member
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
Didn't MS have a chance to acquire Bungie but turned them down?
Like someone earlier said, it's grandstanding and nothing more.
If the contract is serious, they should be willing to show the full terms of the contract to the EU and other regulators for a review.
People may think otherwise but I bet you he's got a gigachad physique going on under that suit. And he'll flex it to swoon the regulators.
Yeah I just saw that quote again earlier today reading some posts, had forgotten about it before. Absolutely a bad analogy for him to have made.
bentanchorbolt
Banned
I believe both sides were earnest to get a deal done but not just any deal. It should be clear that Sony isn't looking for the kind of deal that will save face for MS so the deal can go through. They very obviously want the kind of deal that puts them at the smallest possible disadvantage here.
MasterCornholio
Member
Me too!
Let’s see if MS and Sony can do the same today
SneakersSO
Member
Fully agreed. Its quite obvious Sony wants a licensing agreement in perpetuity, and MS ( Of sound business mind I may add) does not want to give them that.
I also wouldn't be surprised if Sony wanted this to apply to all of ATVI's output and not just CoD.
Last edited:
MasterCornholio
Member
thebigmanjosh
Member
Not likely, and probably with worse terms if it is. We still don’t know what the parameters of the 10-year deal are.
Sony must feel confident that losing it is worth the risk of holding their position through this process and likely ending up with a better deal.
HerpDerpstreit
Member
Either he's dense AF or the meeting can't have gone that badly if he's chilling and tweeting about it.
Well said. Bravo.Not sure that deal of this size in any vertical would be smooth sailing for anyone. Sorry mate, but I tend to trust real lawyers vs forum warriors in real life. I guess we will see if he knows what he is doing when the deal closes/collapses.
Completely not related, maybe a bit.
But This reminds of these ongoing statements;
- Xbox doesn’t have games while in fact it have shit tons of games
- at XGS every developer is in development hell - while their are not
- Gampass will destroy gaming - while it is actually enable more people to play
- streaming games (especially when someone mentions xcloud) is shit - while lots of people use it (me included) and it is quite awesome, but vr is future but only by Sony others are sh*t
- any game from XGS will be delayed - literally in almost every thread about XGS you have got warriors with the same message (and magic balls)
- new one - MS trillion dollar lawyers don’t know what they are doing
On this forum Ms is sh*t at everything, OS, Cloud, Streaming, Gaming etc. they lawyers don’t know what they are doing, they laying off people while having big offices and parties (how dare they, they should sell some of their offices to keep those people employed, and disregard the fact that company is pivoting). And of course no one mention about 1.2 billion severance package for these people, remember, nothing positive about MS.
Now conclusion; How the f*ck such a FUBAR company can then be valued at trillions of dollars. And keep reporting profits at levels that would allow then to afford to buy Sony after couple quarters.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked