Support NeoGAF

[Elios83]

I don't think the CMA has that power, they have already had decisions challenged and reversed.

There is very little margin to challenge the CMA, the law system in UK is not like in the US.
Also both Activision and Microsoft can't have their strategies and hands tied forever.
This is a limbo that damages both companies the more it goes on as it prevents them from executing timely and efficiently on possible plan Bs.

That is why imo the fate of this circus will be decided on April 26th and if CMA blocks this thing won't even reach the court stage with FTC...which is probably FTC's plan as well. To get credit for an indirect victory.

 

[Ar¢tos]

Sony using its position in a different market to block inputs to a business model it does not want to compete with is anti-competitive.

I don't see how knowing Sony exclusivity deals is going to make any difference, since that sort of deal is not illegal and MS does them too, aren't MS exclusivity deals anti-competitive too?
Are they gonna complain that a 100bn$ made exclusivity deals completely out of reach of a trillion $ company?
They got the deals overall cheaper, in comparison to the price MS would have to pay for the same deal, because they have to compensate the publisher for the sales that didn't happen on the other platform, but that is no secret.

 

[Mr.Phoenix]

Er, sure. I imagine they did. But the market was much more evenly split at that point.

It’s an odd approach from Sony as they are the party that has the significant position of dominance. Much more than MS has ever enjoyed.

BS. MS paid for exclusive GTA4 content before the PS3 even launched.In the end of a market that had the PS2 outselling the OG Xbox by over 5 to 1. What even spit are you talking about?

 

[SportsFan581]

There is very little margin to challenge the CMA, the law system in UK is not like in the US.
Also both Activision and Microsoft can't have their strategies and hands tied forever.
This is a limbo that damages both companies the more it goes on as it prevents them from executing timely and efficiently on possible plan Bs.

That is why imo the fate of this circus will be decided on April 26th and if CMA blocks this thing won't even reach the court stage with FTC...which is probably FTC's plan as well. To get credit for an indirect victory.

You're kidding yourself if you think there is a 1% chance that a block here doesn't get a challenge. This is more guaranteed than it was for Sainsbury’s/Asda.

 

[Nankatsu]

This is the Empire strikes back plot, isn't it?

 

[Ogbert]

BS. MS paid for exclusive GTA4 content before the PS3 even launched.In the end of a market that had the PS2 outselling the OG Xbox by over 5 to 1. What even spit are you talking about?

If the PS2 was outselling the Xbox by 5 to 1 then MS didn’t have a position of dominance.

 

[Elios83]

You're kidding yourself if you think there is a 1% chance that a block here doesn't get a challenge. This is more guaranteed than it was for Sainsbury’s/Asda.

They will move on if it's blocked.
Already too much time was lost to possibly execute on other strategies.
Gaming market is highly dynamic, you can't afford not to execute on a clear and safe strategy because you're stucked years in a legal limbo waiting for an outcome that might or might not favour you.

 

[Topher]

Hopefully those effected land on their feet. That being said, every major tech firm has lay offs, it's not a uniquely Microsoft only thing.

Also "third straight year".

Who said it was a Microsoft only thing?

Isn't this the real concern? That in the cloud gaming future, MS could use COD to dominate the conversation. No one actually thinks they plan to try to make COD platform exclusive, but rather service exclusive. Could also be a something related to subscription services as well, but I get the sense that Sony and the regulators mostly fear MS potential cloud dominance.

Cloud is one of the concerns, but I haven't seen any mention of "parity" in that regard. Sony hasn't expressed any concern over cloud that I am aware of.

That 10k looks bad on its own, but then you look at what % was it of their total workforce and how their workforce grew in recent years.

Microsoft: Number of Employees 2010-2024 | MSFT

Interactive chart of Microsoft (MSFT) annual worldwide employee count from 2010 to 2024. <ul style='margin-top:10px;'> <li>Microsoft total number of employees in 2024 was <strong>228,000</strong>, a <strong>3.17% increase</strong> from 2023.</li> <li>Microsoft total number of...

www.macrotrends.net

Then you look at the fact that big tech sacked 150k in recent months and that 10k doesn’t look that bad (anyone losing their job is bad, but we are discussing overall thing).

The Real Reasons For Big Tech Layoffs At Google, Microsoft, Meta, And Amazon

Between them, some of the world’s biggest tech companies have collectively laid off more than 150,000 workers in recent months.

www.forbes.com

I haven’t seen you criticising Google, Meta, Twitter because of their layoffs? Have you stopped shopping on Amazon as response to them letting people go? It is obviously matter that you care about or it only relevant in case of MS?

Not a criticism of Microsoft at all. Criticism of a strange flex bragging about a company while ignoring the fact that they just laid off 10k.

 

[Punished Miku]

The bigger the install base, the less they have to pay for exclusivity, it's simple math and regulators know that, there is nothing illegal about it.

Personally, I find that to be the definition of anti-competitive. You can afford timed exclusives far easier and far more cheaply because of a dominant position. So you use that to basically prevent anyone else from competing against you on equal footing, because they would have to pay 10x more for an exclusive, and it would still result in lower sales. Repeat this over and over for years and it cheaply prevents competition. It makes perfect sense that one of the only responses to this is acquisitions, as it's one of the only ways to pay for something at the standard price, as opposed to repeatedly paying 10x more than your competitor for less.

 

[Banjo64]

I saw a photo of a PS controller saying "nothing is given everything is earned".

is getting nastier and nastier

How is that nasty? I once read a poster on here imply that Sony foster an environment of pedophilia after one of their execs got caught messaging a minor. Microsoft have to get on that level to turn this truly nasty

 

[Smasher89]

From 2019 to present, shouldnt that mean they have to reveal the deals for projects not announced as well?, am i naive to think this would mean there will be games force revealed through this?

 

[adamsapple]

Who said it was a Microsoft only thing?

No one said that specific phrase, just replying to the just sayin' gif with a statement of fact about the all-too-common state of lay offs.

MS very clearly over-hired, they increased their total workforce by more than half in just the last 3 years, it is an unfortunate thing that 10K people lost their jobs, but it was inevitable.

 

[Banjo64]

Some of this just screams legalised corporate espionage. America is a messed up place.

 

[adamsapple]

From 2019 to present, shouldnt that mean they have to reveal the deals for projects not announced as well?, am i naive to think this would mean there will be games force revealed through this?

The info won't be made public supposedly, so *we* won't know.

This is like the redacted confirmation that at least 3 next Bethesda games are MS exclusive, without naming names.

 

[Ar¢tos]

Personally, I find that to be the definition of anti-competitive. You can afford timed exclusives far easier and far more cheaply because of a dominant position. So you use that to basically prevent anyone else from competing against you on equal footing, because they would have to pay 10x more for an exclusive, and it would still result in lower sales. Repeat this over and over for years and it cheaply prevents competition. It makes perfect sense that one of the only responses to this is acquisitions, as it's one of the only ways to pay for something at the standard price, as opposed to repeatedly paying 10x more than your competitor for less.

The problem is proving it. Exclusivity deals won't be like:
"Evil Sony Deal
I [publisher] take these suitcases filled of cash to keep [game] away from Xbox consoles!
Muahhahahah"

I wouldn't be surprised if every single of the deals was worded as the publisher offering exclusivity (timed or not) to Sony as compensation for marketing help and/or direct tech support, etc.

 

[StueyDuck]

this is great, they must both keep fucking each others shitty deals up then no one can consolidate anymore.

fuck that shit and fuck exclusivity for games that shouldn't be!

 

[Punished Miku]

The problem is proving it. Exclusivity deals won't be like:
"Evil Sony Deal
I [publisher] take these suitcases filled of cash to keep [game] away from Xbox consoles!
Muahhahahah"

I wouldn't be surprised if every single of the deals was worded as the publisher offering exclusivity (timed or not) to Sony as compensation for marketing help and/or direct tech support, etc.

Yeah, I have no idea. I'm definitely not a lawyer or anything. But I think it's 100% relevant information. Supposedly most of these deals also specifically block it from appearing on Gamepass as well. It literally leaves MS with fewer options other than acquisitions.

 

[Ogbert]

Personally, I find that to be the definition of anti-competitive. You can afford timed exclusives far easier and far more cheaply because of a dominant position. So you use that to basically prevent anyone else from competing against you on equal footing, because they would have to pay 10x more for an exclusive, and it would still result in lower sales. Repeat this over and over for years and it cheaply prevents competition. It makes perfect sense that one of the only responses to this is acquisitions, as it's one of the only ways to pay for something at the standard price, as opposed to repeatedly paying 10x more than your competitor for less.

It’s a very difficult balance as, firstly, the job of the regulators is not to interfere with natural competition.
Sony should not be punished for being the more attractive consumer product.

In this instance, anti competitive behaviour could be established if they have aggressively driven down fees to developers, in exchange for market access.

 

[SmokedMeat]

Wish I could just jump to Season 4 to see how this all ends.

 

[T4keD0wN]

How is it backfiring? This is normal discovery back and forth.

I doubt MS would have made this request let alone been granted a part of it by the FTC if Sony werent attemting to persuade the FTC to block the deal and having to back up their arguments somehow. Theyve made the request in response to sony attempting to block it. Had they not done that this never would have happened.

This isn't really the win most think it is. MS wanted everything from 2012 to today. They are only getting 2019 to today.
They also wanted performance reviews. That was thrown out.



Nothing to do with them? lol

Sony isnt attempting to purchase ABK or Microsoft nor are they the ones being purchased by either of those 2. Sony doesnt own Microsoft nor ABK.
They are nothing but a third party in this deal.

You may want to claim that they have some legally binding contracts with ABK, so? Those would still be valid even once they will be acquired and ABK. The fact that ABK will gain a parent company wont change that, they cant suddenly break them (unless the agreement somehow allow it, which i doubt) without paying hefty fines. This makes effectively no difference to any of their deals that are currently in effect, merely their potential future ones. Safe to say there wont be any, but the possibility exists so it doesnt count.

This isnt that much about being a win for MS and more about being a leopards ate my face for Sony. Pretty clear that they were never going to get performance reviews. MS requests were ridiculous to begin with and to see them getting anything is crazy. Always best to make ridiculous requests so that getting 3 years seems like a small deal by comparison, they mightve gotten 5 years had they asked to see 20years instead. Pretty weird to see FTC allow this, they shouldve told Microsoft to eat dirt tbh, but its hilarious that they didnt.

 

[Mr.Phoenix]

If the PS2 was outselling the Xbox by 5 to 1 then MS didn’t have a position of dominance.

Of course, they didnt, but they did it anyway. And that is just to point out that the market wasn't evenly split then. Its actually more evenly split now than it has ever been.

And MS did that at a time when they would be keeping content off the dominant platform.

The point here is that whatever sony is doing, MS hasn't only done, but can also do. Thats competition. What MS is doing, or trying to do, is `compete` in the ONE way only them can. That's not competition. You are looking at sonys market share and calling that dominance, that dominance was established organically and over generations. But even at that, it pales in comparison to the kinda financial dominance MS has. This is just what MS does and has always done. When they cannot compete on an even playing field, they just buy out everyone. That way, they take away the tools you need to compete with them.

To put this in perspective, the amount off money MS is able to spend buying one publisher is more money than Playstation has made as profits in over 5 years.

The funniest shit here is that MS is playing the underdog card.

 

[StealthGoblin]

They could always bow out and give their blessing to the deal.

If that was how things worked then some pretty dark shit would happen in the world.

 

[Astray]

So does the FTC have no complaint without Sony?

Anyway, bring on the leaks.

Sony are briefing the regulators with info, but they aren't a legal party to this case, they aren't the ones suing nor are the ones being sued either.

 

[TLZ]

The only way there are legal consequences is if you are outright threatening to not allow a game be on your platform its on another platform

I think Nintendo did this in the 80s/90s if I'm not mistaken.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

How is that nasty? I once read a poster on here imply that Sony foster an environment of pedophilia after one of their execs got caught messaging a minor. Microsoft have to get on that level to turn this truly nasty

Because is an official PS5 controller (the LeBron collaboration).

This doesn't necessarily mean that the message is throwing explicit shade at MS... or does it?

 

[Bo_Hazem]

 

[StealthGoblin]

Regulators checking to see if Sony is just as anti competitive

Sony aren’t the ones spending 10s of billions for multiple studios and IP.

‘Hey that guy punched that other guy’

‘Okay, we’ll investigate that but we also need to go back through your history to make sure you haven’t punched anyone too’

Odd

 

[Mephisto40]

I don't understand what this information will provide, we know which third party games are exclusive to playstation already

We get GDPR requests like this at work, most of the time the person asking for it is just trying to waste your time / cost your campany money

 

[Unknown?]

Personally, I find that to be the definition of anti-competitive. You can afford timed exclusives far easier and far more cheaply because of a dominant position. So you use that to basically prevent anyone else from competing against you on equal footing, because they would have to pay 10x more for an exclusive, and it would still result in lower sales. Repeat this over and over for years and it cheaply prevents competition. It makes perfect sense that one of the only responses to this is acquisitions, as it's one of the only ways to pay for something at the standard price, as opposed to repeatedly paying 10x more than your competitor for less.

Maybe it is but how is buying 20% of the market not worse?

Microsoft couldn't think of any other way to compete? Really? Hmmmm.... Sega seemed to figure it out against Nintendo when they had 5% or less marketshare. Them not being able to compete is pure incompetence.

 

[Cert.in.Death]

They’ll try to negotiate a seal on certain pending agreements, but the details of the others are going to be juicy.

 

[MasterCornholio]

Where have Spencer used his penis in this deal in context to your previous post?

In that anus you mentioned?

Do you know it?

OK this is getting a bit silly to be honest.

Original point is Microsoft has options with the CMA. Those options don't exclude British consumers. However if Microsoft chooses to leave England that's their fault not the CMAs.

 

[IFireflyl]

Hopefully those effected land on their feet. That being said, every major tech firm has lay offs, it's not a uniquely Microsoft only thing.

Also "third straight year".

Homophobe.

 

[adamsapple]

That's one way to make him instantly more likeable I guess

 

[Lasha]

I don't see how knowing Sony exclusivity deals is going to make any difference, since that sort of deal is not illegal and MS does them too, aren't MS exclusivity deals anti-competitive too?
Are they gonna complain that a 100bn$ made exclusivity deals completely out of reach of a trillion $ company?
They got the deals overall cheaper, in comparison to the price MS would have to pay for the same deal, because they have to compensate the publisher for the sales that didn't happen on the other platform, but that is no secret.

Actually yeah. An industry where the market leader can block out competition unless they spend more money is a bad market. Industries like that lead to monopolies. The documentation will also uncover any other anti-competitive practices like charging for cross play or weird market terms. The real smoking gun would be any language preventing a multi-platform game from being included on Gamepass. Sony doesn't offer a comparable service and the only reason to prevent a game from being on the platform would be to stifle competition.

 

[mrmustard]

I don't see how knowing Sony exclusivity deals is going to make any difference, since that sort of deal is not illegal and MS does them too, aren't MS exclusivity deals anti-competitive too?

Maybe it's because of the anti Game Pass clauses.

 

[Topher]

No one said that specific phrase, just replying to the just sayin' gif with a statement of fact about the all-too-common state of lay offs.

MS very clearly over-hired, they increased their total workforce by more than half in just the last 3 years, it is an unfortunate thing that 10K people lost their jobs, but it was inevitable.

Nah, it was cost cutting in the face of fewer billions in profits than expected. How was it put? Aligning "cost structure with revenue"? I get it. That's how corporations work.

 

[adamsapple]

Homophobe.

 

[SportsFan581]

They will move on if it's blocked.
Already too much time was lost to possibly execute on other strategies.
Gaming market is highly dynamic, you can't afford not to execute on a clear and safe strategy because you're stucked years in a legal limbo waiting for an outcome that might or might not favour you.

We'll see. Activision has alluded to being prepared to fight against all challenges. This case also mirrors most of the CMA's losses as far as the methods of harm being so prognostic and in some cases running in direct opposition of historical trends along with the hard numbers being well below the traditional thresholds of monopoly. I think they are a lot more committed to it than that. Time will tell.

 

[EN250]

I know it’s probably because they’re one of the major opponents regarding this deal but I still don’t see the logic behind Sony having to provide data requested by Microsoft in this context. Seems a bit backwards. I assume FTC already has data on MS third party deals, only it’s not publically available.

Going full conspiracy, but they're probably trying to find something that would imply Sony was forcing its hand on 3P abusing its power as the market leader

Or going by what MS was asking before, searching every bit of detail possible to try and emulate it?

 

[Barlow]

https://www.reuters.com/markets/dea...osoft-activision-deal-sources-say-2023-03-02/

 

[adamsapple]

https://www.reuters.com/markets/dea...osoft-activision-deal-sources-say-2023-03-02/

People please at least post a picture or something from the article and not just the URL

 

[splattered]

People please at least post a picture or something from the article and not just the URL

So no demands of selling off cod eh? Interesting

 

[Sanepar]

https://www.reuters.com/markets/dea...osoft-activision-deal-sources-say-2023-03-02/

Like I always said. The deal will be approved easily by EU regulators.

 

[gothmog]

I doubt MS would have made this request let alone been granted a part of it by the FTC if Sony werent attemting to persuade the FTC to block the deal and having to back up their arguments somehow. Theyve made the request in response to sony attempting to block it. Had they not done that this never would have happened.

It's just normal discovery. Sony first asked for time and then tried to get some of it limited/eliminated. They were partially successful. Earlier when this just started I remember reading that some of these discovery efforts are just expensive, so limiting the scope was probably the right move. Finding documentation from 2012 until now is expensive. Finding it from 2019 on probably is still expensive but not as expensive as going into deeper archives. Most companies don't even have records going back that long.

Still not seeing what backfired. Too many people think this is some kind of Ace Attorney episode or something with gotchas? This is pretty normal legal stuff around discovery.

 

[Kilau]

Sony are briefing the regulators with info, but they aren't a legal party to this case, they aren't the ones suing nor are the ones being sued either.

Yeah I know. A narrative is that the deal would have been approved no problem if Sony hadn't objected. That thought raises a lot of other questions for me.

 

[Lunarorbit]

"Was this Microsofts plan all along?!?"

Incredible close up of youtubers face with question marks all around on the thumbnail.

 

[Thirty7ven]

Doesn’t seem easy at all. Went from the deal going through with a rubber stamp to the deal needing steep in behavioral remedies.

From a silver bullet for Xbox to essentially a revenue raise for MS.

 

[Topher]

Like I always said. The deal will be approved easily by EU regulators.

How did you misread it saying that it will be "approved without concessions"?

 

[Ogbert]

Of course, they didnt, but they did it anyway. And that is just to point out that the market wasn't evenly split then. Its actually more enemy spit now than it has ever been.

And MS did that at a time when they would be keeping content off the dominant platform.

The point here is that whatever sony is doing, MS hasn't only done, but can also do. Thats competition. What MS is doing, or trying to do, is `compete` in the ONE way only them can.That's not competition. You are looking at sonys market share and calling that dominance, that dominance was established organically and over generations. But even at that, it pales in comparison to the kinda financial dominance MS has. This is just what MS does and have always done. When they cannot compete on an even playing field, they just buy out everyone. That way, they take away the tools you need to compete with them.

To put this in perspective, the amount off money MS is able to spend buying one publisher is more money than Playstation has made as profits in over 5 years.

The funniest shit here is that MS is playing the underdog card.

Ok.

So, there has to be a position of dominance for a regulator to take substantive interest. You’re quite right that Sony’s market share was developed organically, but that makes no difference. At the point that a significant advantage is demonstrated, the microscopes come out. As I said above, it’s a balance, as Sony should not be punished for their success. At the same time, they should not be allowed to (overtly and aggressively) underpay for services in order to maintain that position. The protected parties would be the developers rather than MS. As an aside, I’m often surprised at how much Steam gets away with.

I agree that the figure MS has paid is astronomical. I’m actually a regulatory competition lawyer (payments industry) although know little about the niceties of video games. You could certainly make an argument that they are using their cloud monopoly with Azure (if it is actually a monopoly, just thinking out loud) to fund an anti competitive move in another market. That’s usually frowned upon. But again, they’re performing so poorly at the moment, regulators tend to be loath to argue against the weaker party (even though, as an overall entity, MS dwarfs Sony).

One main thing I would say. Regulators haven’t got a fucking clue. That’s not a professional lament; rather, if the US is anything like the EU and UK, they’re stocked with junior lawyers that barely understand the industry.

 

[PropellerEar]

Negative juju

Positive counteract

Unbelievable bad Activision Juju:

This also Ultra positive MSFT juju? Right?

We can go all day and there will always be more negative JuJu around MSFT and XBOX.