Support NeoGAF

[Nothing1234]

I mean Sony used to own nearly 20% of Square Enix but I don’t think Square Enix is a target.

 

[HerpDerpstreit]

Ubisoft is worth 3B. It's actually smaller than SE and Capcom. Bandai is worth as much as Take 2 too.

At the time of the zeni deal, ubi was worth more.

 

[Fess]

So like I said above it's "muh cheap games" at any cost.

You're basically saying as long as you get "cheaper" access to games you don't care what other customers (and industry participants) that might screw over in the process?

Two parts selfish, one part naive. The regulators don't exist to fluff subscription services.

Yes it’s a selfish move to save money. I’m not rich. And subscriptions is cheaper than individual purchases and I plan ahead and buy all my hardware through stock investments, it’s like a hobby within the hobby at this point to keep the costs down without lowering any standards. Still haven’t bought a single game on Xbox this gen, I had Hogwarts Legacy for 2 days though but got it refunded, so still zero.

 

[Varteras]

Yeah it does feel like there is some synergy between Sony and SE.

When SE sold off those non Japanese bits it seemed like a structural reorganisation in preparation for something.

Perhaps they’ve been clearing out their multiplat pipeline before announcing anything just to avoid the Starfield theft criticisms aimed at MS.

Even so, a deal for SE would be contingent on the ABK deal - I don’t think Sony do that unless they feel forced into it by a shifting market. It’s not Sony’s “style” to make this kind of acquisition.

It's definitely not their style but they've made it clear they're buying, that who they buy fits their strategy, and that strategy would make great gains with an SE purchase. To be honest, even if the ABK deal doesn't go, Sony will look at the Zenimax deal AND the attempted ABK deal and realize that they can't hope certain partners don't get locked from them. And considering how many boxes SE checks for them at a price point they can definitely afford, if I were them I'd go for it.

Of course this always assumes a company is even willing to sell. But another possible plus to SE is that while regulators will certainly look at it, it's highly unlikely they find much to object, even if Sony is the first-party market leader. So a purchase should go off without much fuss. But if the ABK deal does go through, then I absolutely expect Sony to make all the moves they can. Including moves we don't expect. Like the Bungie deal coming out of nowhere.

 

[CobraAB]

I am really confused by the Donald Trump comment. I am not a fan of Trump at all and I am for criticism for him, but why on earth was he brought up in this? Also, I do no see how what Microsoft did was anything like what Trump has done in the past.

Microsoft had to show they are willing to make deals and not silo off COD, so that is what they did. Whether or not it is successful or not is still up for debate along with the question of "is this how desperate MS is or was this their plan all along?".

Leave politics out of this. We get enough of that shit on the daily elsewhere.

TDS eh? Sorry.

 

[jm89]

If Cma will block, then only Uk gamers will not get any gamepass/xbox games. The English players would go on the rampage. That's why it will never happen. The deal is as good as done. The only question is when.

Whether the deal is approved won't be based on your crackpot reasoning that's for sure.

 

[Spyxos]

Whether the deal is approved won't be based on your crackpot reasoning that's for sure.

I don't see yours. So nothing important was said.

 

[Yoboman]

Ubisoft is worth 2B***. It's actually smaller than SE and Capcom. Bandai is almost worth as much as Take 2 too.

Ubisoft is becoming so worthless atm.

Man Namco Bandai seem overvalued. They have Elden Ring I guess but it's dependent on From Software. Tekken is big but not that big. Otherwise it's a lot of licensed titles that could leave them at any time?

I'm guessing they must run at a really good profitability or something

 

[reksveks]

https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/d09412-notice-of-appearance-filed-by-third-party-counsel-jason-wasserman.pdf

Take-Two will be a part of the case in the ftc system.

CEO has been largely blaise about the impact of the deal and subscription services in general

 

[Baki]

TakeTwo is not on sale, iirc they already stated they are not interested in being acquired by any company. Also TakeTwo could be as expensive as ABK, or even more.

In regards of SE it wouldn’t suprise me if Tencent or any other investor buys a decent percentage of the company.

TakeTwo is valued at $18B and is publicly traded. The CEO and the board would need to evaluate any offer and if the offer has a significant premium, it's hard to see the board rejecting such an offer, as they would need a pretty damn good reason for shareholders. If Sony offered $30B, I can see that being a high enough premium that the board would vote in favor of selling.

I think Square Enix already has a partnership with Tencent.

It's definitely not their style but they've made it clear they're buying, that who they buy fits their strategy, and that strategy would make great gains with an SE purchase. To be honest, even if the ABK deal doesn't go, Sony will look at the Zenimax deal AND the attempted ABK deal and realize that they can't hope certain partners don't get locked from them. And considering how many boxes SE checks for them at a price point they can definitely afford, if I were them I'd go for it.

Of course this always assumes a company is even willing to sell. But another possible plus to SE is that while regulators will certainly look at it, it's highly unlikely they find much to object, even if Sony is the first-party market leader. So a purchase should go off without much fuss. But if the ABK deal does go through, then I absolutely expect Sony to make all the moves they can. Including moves we don't expect. Like the Bungie deal coming out of nowhere.

Square Enix is smaller than Bethesda. If regulators approved that deal, there will be no problem getting a SE deal done. I think Sony is waiting to see what happens with ABK and regulators, before they make their next big moves.

 

[FF:Enhanced_Reality]

If this deals gets blocked then it will only be due to politics.PlayStation is the clear dominant player in gaming and regulators shouldn't protect it.

Well, let's see if you feel the same if Sony start acquiring major publishers.

 

[StealthGoblin]

And the same can be said about Sony. Their gaming division makes $3B profit per year, have tons of partnership deals (including COD as we speak!), have a ton of studios, and used to make tons of shooter games 10 years ago. So it's not like they have zero experience making shooter games. They also just bought Bungie who have Destiny. And even got lots of GAAS games in dev including Factions 2.

Instead of hoarding $3B profits per year fo the past 3-4 years, put $100M into making a good shooter, and bank $2.9B.

So instead of whining about it, put some resources into another Killzone or SOCOM and make it multiplatform like COD, Fortnite, Apex, Minecraft or Skyrim. And it could be a giant success.

They are. Deviation Games are working on Sony’s big shooter.

Outside of that, COD is still important.

 

[RGB'D]

The only mistake I made was not realising how intentionally obtuse people on the internet are and their need to have things drawn in crayon so that they can understand it.

No Cod, No azure, means without the leverage of CoD, using Azure becomes exponentially more difficult.

It is on my head for expecting people who have attention spans of nano-seconds can't think further than the headline to look deeper as to what is going on. I repeat myself from earlier, this deal has nothing to do with CoD or Playstation other than using them as leverage for Azure. MS want and need CoD on Playstation.

Microsoft want and need their games on Gefore Now and Nintendo.

And I'll bet a lifetime ban, 5 million MS points and an avatar change that Zenimax games will launch on Playstation, probably as a way to appease FTC/EU/CMA to help get the ABK deal through.



The CMA said no to behavioural remedies and will only listen to structural remedies.

They said that behavioral remedies weren't factored into their report at that time but that they were open to behavioral remedies as an alternative to structural remedies. This would take place after their ruling because that is literally the process. They didn't say no to behavioral remedies.

 

[Fess]

Somehow those companys will still have to make money to be able to produce game.

So either the subscription fees will rise or the content they offer will stagnate.

Subscription fees will definitely increase as with all services but individual game prices will go up as well and more subscribers will pull in more money. Hard to know how the math adds up without seeing any figures but I don’t think any of these services would exist if they were bleeding money. I don’t think proper day 1 releases will exist though but it’s nice to have a cheaper option even if they would be delayed a month or so.

 

[AtomicStarving]

Microsoft already owns the biggest game of all time (Minecraft) and just wants another one? Incredible!

 

[Nothing1234]

https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/d09412-notice-of-appearance-filed-by-third-party-counsel-jason-wasserman.pdf

Take-Two will be a part of the case in the ftc system.

CEO has been largely blaise about the impact of the deal and subscription services in general

I mean you dont put GTA6 day one in a subscription service.

 

[RevGaming]

Man Namco Bandai seem overvalued. They have Elden Ring I guess but it's dependent on From Software. Tekken is big but not that big. Otherwise it's a lot of licensed titles that could leave them at any time?

I'm guessing they must run at a really good profitability or something

And all the anime stuff

 

[Balducci30]

I’ve now decided I want this to go through. Purely because how many people will freak the fuck out about it

 

[reksveks]

I mean you dont put GTA6 day one in a subscription service.

Nah, it doesn't make sense unless you are a platform holder.

 

[Baki]

There are four reasons why I think Sony is eyeballing SE.

1) Live service. FF14 is a highly successful MMORPG and FF11 was successful before it. Sony would absolutely see the value there.

2) RPGs. Sony is highly lacking in teams that do RPGs. This would shore up that weakness with some of the biggest names in the genre.

3) Mobile. SE has a pretty strong mobile presence and Sony has clearly stated its intention to grow there.

4) Media properties. SE has properties that Sony would almost certainly see an opportunity to expand into other media, like movies and shows, the way they have with their current properties. SE has already done that themselves but Sony could take that to the next level.

Keep in mind that ultimately SE would be answering to Sony if they were bought. So they would have a bit more of an incentive to not fuck around the way they sometimes do.

Square Enix seems like a natural fit for Sony's ambitions. SE & Sony together would become one of the top 10 mobile publishers. Both companies also share a close relationship and that reduces the integration risk. The price would also be pretty good ($7B).

 

[adamsapple]

https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/d09412-notice-of-appearance-filed-by-third-party-counsel-jason-wasserman.pdf

Take-Two will be a part of the case in the ftc system.

CEO has been largely blaise about the impact of the deal and subscription services in general

I guess being the CEO of one of the biggest publishers, his presence would hold some merit, but like you said he's had a "it doesn't really effect us" attitude towards the thing.

 

[Varteras]

TakeTwo is valued at $18B and is publicly traded. The CEO and the board would need to evaluate any offer and if the offer has a significant premium, it's hard to see the board rejecting such an offer, as they would need a pretty damn good reason for shareholders. If Sony offered $30B, I can see that being a high enough premium that the board would vote in favor of selling.

I think Square Enix already has a partnership with Tencent.



Square Enix is smaller than Bethesda. If regulators approved that deal, there will be no problem getting a SE deal done. I think Sony is waiting to see what happens with ABK and regulators, before they make their next big moves.

I don't think that's true. At the time Zenimax was purchased, they had a headcount of around 2,600 if I recall correctly. SE is currently sitting at over 4,000. Down from the 5,000+ they were at prior to selling off their Western studios.

The $7.2 billion Microsoft paid for them was already said by a number of people to have been well more than they were worth. Zenimax was valued at $2.5 billion in 2016 while SE was $3.1 billion. I seem to recall it being said that Zenimax was between $3 billion and $4 billion in 2021. I really want to say that Microsoft paid almost double their market value. Which would put them at $3.6 billion. SE's market cap is currently $5.5 billion and sometimes nearly hits $6 billion.

So between staff count and market value, SE is a bigger company than Zenimax was prior to purchase. That being said, the spirit of your post remains. SE isn't such a large purchase, not that much bigger than Zenimax, where regulators should have a problem with it. Especially considering that SE games don't sell well on Xbox where Zenimax games sold fine on PlayStation.

 

[SneakersSO]

Subscription fees will definitely increase as with all services but individual game prices will go up as well and more subscribers will pull in more money. Hard to know how the math adds up without seeing any figures but I don’t think any of these services would exist if they were bleeding money. I don’t think proper day 1 releases will exist though but it’s nice to have a cheaper option even if they would be delayed a month or so.

I know for a fact GP bleeds insane amounts of money, and to be fair to GP, at this point in its lifecycle, its supposed to. There are almost no entertainment subscription services that I can recall that weren't heavy loss leaders when establishing themselves and trying to build an audience that reaches that fabled 'scale-point'. GP is no different in this regard. That said, GP and its need for content has led MS to acquire far larger software output, which has had a fantastic hand in growing both the marketshare and revenue generated by one of Microsoft's most valuable products right now: Azure. It isn't enough to offset the losses Xbox has sustained, but it at least has continued to incentivize them to stay the course (for now).

What is different with GP, as can no longer be obfuscated by MS, is how heavily it has led to the undermining of full software sales within their own ecosystem for AA or AAA titles, and I should note that this decline is *exclusive* to their ecosystem; we are not seeing software sales declines in Sony, Nintendo, or Valve's ecosystems. In fact, as far as full software sales are concerned, the other platforms are thriving at the moment. What was less clear before the losses got too high to successfully obfuscate anymore, plus MS admitted this to the CMA, was just how much GP has eaten into the ability for AA/AAA SW makers to sell SW at full price in their ecosystem.

Now again - this isn't exactly abnormal to the games industry; the proliferation of Netflix since 2010 directly and perfectly correlates to the decline of the home-media sales for TV/Film, which was at one time one of the main profit drivers of Hollywood; it was common for films with tepid box office returns to catch 2nd winds of revenue that made up their investment costs when they were released in home media (VHS/DVD/BR). Make no mistake - subscription services in games are here to stay. What remains to be seen however is if any other software maker or platform holder will adopt a subscription service that is modeled after GP. Considering the current incarnation of GP has been around for nearly 5 years or more, on top of how many new services have launched in that time frame (Nintendo Online, Ubisoft+), I think its safe to say that the remainder of the industry is content with the current setup.

 

[Stardust_Dragon]

If Cma will block, then only Uk gamers will not get any gamepass/xbox games. The English players would go on the rampage. That's why it will never happen. The deal is as good as done. The only question is when.

There are penalties that the CMA can enforce if Microsoft decides to ignore their ruling and go ahead and complete the merger in defiance of the CMA's ruling, as highlighted here:

Risks to the merger parties of not notifying and/or completing​

mergers​

Second, completing a merger without first obtaining clearance from the
CMA carries the risk that the CMA may order the disposal of the
acquired business (or otherwise the disposal of other businesses or
assets) following an investigation. This has occurred under the Act in a
number of cases.114 The fact that a merger has been completed does
not reduce the likelihood of the CMA referring the merger to phase 2 or
of implementing remedies (which will typically be structural in nature).
When considering remedies in the context of a completed merger, the
CMA will not normally consider the costs of divestment to the merger
parties as it is open to the merger parties to make merger proposals
conditional on competition authorities’ approval.

This means that the CMA can order the disposal of the entire Activision-Blizzard-King organization if Microsoft decides to be arrogant enough to plow through with their merger and flip the bird at the CMA if they publish their final report with the blocking of the merger attempt in late April.

 

[mansoor1980]

an old statement from strauss-zelnick

According to the Take-Two CEO Strauss Zelnick, there’s only one big company that has concerns regarding the Microsoft/Activision merger, but, apart from that, him and most of his other competitors have no issues with the acquisition going through.
Zelnick stated that, generally speaking, he doesn’t believe that people are particularly concerned about Microsoft’s acquisition of Activision because it remains a fragmented business. Additionally, he doesn’t think that the competitive landscape will meaningfully be affected in the event that that merger goes through.

Zelnick further added that there’s one big company that does have issues with the purchase, though he refrained from mentioning its name. It’s no secret at this point that PlayStation CEO Jim Ryan has openly spoken against the acquisition, highlighting that it would negatively impact the PlayStation community.

it is over dudes , pack your bags jimbo

 

[SneakersSO]

If Cma will block, then only Uk gamers will not get any gamepass/xbox games. The English players would go on the rampage. That's why it will never happen. The deal is as good as done. The only question is when.

As has been noted several times, the purchase agreement signed by both MS and ATVI stipulates that the sale can only proceed if 4 specific regulators approve of it - US/UK/EU/Something in Asia.

They can get every other regulator in the world to agree, but if one of those 4 says the purchase cannot go through, then its done.

 

[Topher]

I’ve now decided I want this to go through. Purely because how many people will freak the fuck out about it

Wrong pick if that's what you want. The Xbox fanboy twitter and youtube universe is going to implode if this acquisition is blocked.

 

[Baki]

I don't think that's true. At the time Zenimax was purchased, they had a headcount of around 2,600 if I recall correctly. SE is currently sitting at over 4,000. Down from the 5,000+ they were at prior to selling off their Western studios.

The $7.2 billion Microsoft paid for them was already said by a number of people to have been well more than they were worth. Zenimax was valued at $2.5 billion in 2016 while SE was $3.1 billion. I seem to recall it being said that Zenimax was between $3 billion and $4 billion in 2021. I really want to say that Microsoft paid almost double their market value. Which would put them at $3.6 billion. SE's market cap is currently $5.5 billion and sometimes nearly hits $6 billion.

So between staff count and market value, SE is a bigger company than Zenimax was prior to purchase. That being said, the spirit of your post remains. SE isn't such a large purchase, not that much bigger than Zenimax, where regulators should have a problem with it. Especially considering that SE games don't sell well on Xbox where Zenimax games sold fine on PlayStation.

Smaller in terms of IP power. ES and Fallout are bigger IPs than anything Square has to offer.

 

[DenchDeckard]

Am I tripping or has 15 pages passed already? Since yesterday?

Anything new?

 

[SneakersSO]

Hahaha... you can't make this shit up.

I am curious though, MS keeps saying this shit about making this or that available to xxx millions of people. Who are these millions of people not getting the games now?

They are referring to the millions of Switch users, as well as now however many Nvidia GeForce Now users there are. Nevermind the fact that MS isn't really doing anything to facilitate that expansion and that ATVI is perfectly capable of doing it on their own should this deal not go through.

 

[SneakersSO]

Am I tripping or has 15 pages passed already? Since yesterday?

Anything new?

Absolutely nothing. Just folks popping in and asking questions on what all the hoopla is about. Heck, I am still arguing nothing big happened yesterday either. But it is a fascinating topic to keep engaging with.

 

[PharaoTutAnchAmun]

Isn't cod the whole point of the deal.

not only CoD but also the Cloud and the mobil market is important to MS, its not only CoD and the regulators know that.

 

[Nothing1234]

Nah, it doesn't make sense unless you are a platform holder.

Microsoft**

 

[HeisenbergFX4]

Wrong pick if that's what you want. The Xbox fanboy twitter and youtube universe is going to implode if this acquisition is blocked.

Oh the Tom Warren and Jez types of the world will flood Twitter with their "takes"

 

[DenchDeckard]

Microsoft already owns the biggest game of all time (Minecraft) and just wants another one? Incredible!

I'm here for these from both sides. God damn these are brilliant.

 

[Fess]

I know for a fact GP bleeds insane amounts of money, and to be fair to GP, at this point in its lifecycle, its supposed to. There are almost no entertainment subscription services that I can recall that weren't heavy loss leaders when establishing themselves and trying to build an audience that reaches that fabled 'scale-point'. GP is no different in this regard. That said, GP and its need for content has led MS to acquire far larger software output, which has had a fantastic hand in growing both the marketshare and revenue generated by one of Microsoft's most valuable products right now: Azure. It isn't enough to offset the losses Xbox has sustained, but it at least has continued to incentivize them to stay the course (for now).

What is different with GP, as can no longer be obfuscated by MS, is how heavily it has led to the undermining of full software sales within their own ecosystem for AA or AAA titles, and I should note that this decline is *exclusive* to their ecosystem; we are not seeing software sales declines in Sony, Nintendo, or Valve's ecosystems. In fact, as far as full software sales are concerned, the other platforms are thriving at the moment. What was less clear before the losses got too high to successfully obfuscate anymore, plus MS admitted this to the CMA, was just how much GP has eaten into the ability for AA/AAA SW makers to sell SW at full price in their ecosystem.

Now again - this isn't exactly abnormal to the games industry; the proliferation of Netflix since 2010 directly and perfectly correlates to the decline of the home-media sales for TV/Film, which was at one time one of the main profit drivers of Hollywood; it was common for films with tepid box office returns to catch 2nd winds of revenue that made up their investment costs when they were released in home media (VHS/DVD/BR). Make no mistake - subscription services in games are here to stay. What remains to be seen however is if any other software maker or platform holder will adopt a subscription service that is modeled after GP. Considering the current incarnation of GP has been around for nearly 5 years or more, on top of how many new services have launched in that time frame (Nintendo Online, Ubisoft+), I think its safe to say that the remainder of the industry is content with the current setup.

Yeah I’m fully aware of the sales consequences. I’m living proof of that. Goes for Xbox and Netflix and Spotify etc.
But I like it, saves me money and makes me give new experiences a try.
I’ve easily played 3x as many games on XSX as I’ve played on PS5 and I’ve payed $0 for the games on Xbox and maybe $400 for the games on PS5.

 

[cornonthecrobb]

can this deal just hurry up and die already. we all know it isn't going through

 

[Topher]

can this deal just hurry up and die already. we all know it isn't going through

Oh.....it is going through

 

[Varteras]

can this deal just hurry up and die already. we all know it isn't going through

 

[HeisenbergFX4]

we all know it isn't going through

 

[Helghan]

You're basically saying as long as you get "cheaper" access to games you don't care what other customers (and industry participants) that might screw over in the process?

How does this deal screw over other customers and industry participants?

 

[SneakersSO]

Yeah I’m fully aware of the sales consequences. I’m living proof of that. Goes for Xbox and Netflix and Spotify etc.
But I like it, saves me money and makes me give new experiences a try.
I’ve easily played 3x as many games on XSX as I’ve played on PS5 and I’ve payed $0 for the games on Xbox and maybe $400 for the games on PS5.

Thats great - as a consumer, you should always be looking out for your own best interests. The industry and the costs it takes to produce the games that they do is not your responsibility. If the bulk of consumers opt and say "We only want games delivered via GP (or some service like it)" thats got nothing to do with you.

There are loads of fiscal consequences and reshuffling of budget, development priorities, and even design direction that comes with taking on a subscription model like GP has, but again, that isn't something you should ever concern yourself with. There are others who do concern themselves with this stuff because its a distribution model that impacts the type of experiences we do get to make, and by extension, that consumers will get to enjoy. And thats perfectly okay.

I wanna make it clear - if you're rooting for this deal to go through cause it means all of ATVI's back-catalog and future releases now becomes GP day 1, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. You're a consumer - trying to get an outcome that works best for you is exactly what you should be doing. Could there be long-term consequences? Absolutely, but its not like long-term consequences has ever stopped anyone from doing anything really.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

How does this deal screw over other customers and industry participants?

I have to press the power button on my xbox which is emotionally painful for me

 

[DenchDeckard]

So like I said above it's "muh cheap games" at any cost.

You're basically saying as long as you get "cheaper" access to games you don't care what other customers (and industry participants) that might screw over in the process?

Two parts selfish, one part naive. The regulators don't exist to fluff subscription services.

Just out of interest, who is getting screwed over here?

Nintendo gets cod, nvidia get all xbox games and Sony get cod for ten years or 15 I saw someone say? We will be at the start of ps7 before cod is potentially lost to anyone. Will cod still be around in 15 years and be as important or big as it is now?

So who gets screwed over?

 

[Balducci30]

Wrong pick if that's what you want. The Xbox fanboy twitter and youtube universe is going to implode if this acquisition is blocked.

Lol I guess it’s a win-win then. Aside from it being a generally dumb purchase imo

 

[PharaoTutAnchAmun]

CMA will book.

EC is a clown show if they took that conference seriously lmao

CMA on the other hand won't be fooled that easily.

You mean: CMA will block...

 

[GHG]

How does this deal screw over other customers and industry participants?

Considering there are only 4 million active Xbox console users per month (plus 3 million on PC) in the EU, there would be a lot of customers that get screwed over if this deal were to go through as Microsoft originally envisaged.

Just out of interest, who is getting screwed over here?

Nintendo gets cod, nvidia get all xbox games and Sony get cod for ten years or 15 I saw someone say? We will be at the start of ps7 before cod is potentially lost to anyone. Will cod still be around in 15 years and be as important or big as it is now?

So who gets screwed over?

See above. My statement was from the perspective of if there weren't any regulatory intervention, because some people seem to think they shouldn't (and don't need to) get involved in this case.

 

[ToadMan]

They said that behavioral remedies weren't factored into their report at that time but that they were open to behavioral remedies as an alternative to structural remedies. This would take place after their ruling because that is literally the process. They didn't say no to behavioral remedies.

The CMA process requires them to hear all remedies but their documentation makes it clear they prefer divestment and recent history of their decisions confirms that.

I haven’t seen an example where they approved a behavioral remedy for anything that reached Phase 2.

So CMA patiently wait for MS to deliver their behavior remedies suggestions, say “thank you, but that simply won’t do. We rather like divestment you see … Was there anything else? No? Good day”.

And then MS get angry and go to arbitration with …. Nothing. Because the CMA completed its investigation, listened to the offered remedies and concluded they were insufficient.

The only way MS avoids straight divestment is an IP remedy - basically the same net effect as divestment.

 

[SneakersSO]

Just out of interest, who is getting screwed over here?

Nintendo gets cod, nvidia get all xbox games and Sony get cod for ten years or 15 I saw someone say? We will be at the start of ps7 before cod is potentially lost to anyone. Will cod still be around in 15 years and be as important or big as it is now?

So who gets screwed over?

The things you're saying would be gained from this deal do not actually require this deal to take place.

Microsoft could sign a deal with Nvidia to publish their games on GeForce Now tomorrow, completely independent of this purchase.

ATVI can commit to publishing CoD on Nintendo platforms as well.

The deal doesn't enable either of these things from happening - MS just wants regulators to believe that it does.

 

[Fess]

I wanna make it clear - if you're rooting for this deal to go through cause it means all of ATVI's back-catalog and future releases now becomes GP day 1, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. You're a consumer - trying to get an outcome that works best for you is exactly what you should be doing. Could there be long-term consequences? Absolutely, but its not like long-term consequences has ever stopped anyone from doing anything really.

Yeah that’s it. I’ve been playing games for over 40 years now, seen platforms come and go, favorite platforms, it sucks but life goes on. I don’t think the whole industry will just suddenly die if something turns out being a bad idea, it’ll evolve and adapt as usual. So I’ll just keep on doing my thing as usual, playing games and trying to not waste more money than I already am.