-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Microsoft / Activision Deal Approval Watch |OT| (MS/ABK close)
- Status
RickMasters
Member
IT can if they are selling it everywhere else. PLus we all know MS is no stranger to eating short term loss for long term gains. Another thing to consider is that game development is NOT getting any cheaper..infact its getting more expensive....expect more price hikes on digital and physical sales..at some point GP is gonna look a lot more temtping even than it does now, when games are baseline $100 a pop because MTXs are more likely to enduce backlash, depending on the game it will be safer for devs and publishers to put the cost up front...or go tthe sub route and assuming their game is engaging enough people will spend what they would spend on the cost of the game instead on MTX for the game. I know Ive spent more on ESO and destiny than the cost of most single player games with their DLC..... there some kind of burning the candles at both ends type of shit going on in the games biz I reckon as far as the cost of games and making money from them. and in a world where people are not so finnacially strong, gamepass and MTX might be their best chance in the future at making money. Things are changing . a new generation of ganers are grwoing up with radically diferent gaming habits to people who played through the 80, 90s and even 00s. Iremember being 17 and working at computer exchange...we sold waaay more used games than new ones... humans trend to be cheapskates..if we can have the exact thing we want for a fraction of the price we will take it. especially during a recession! I dont know many gamers in real life but I know plenty of price conscious regular folk, with kids and bills !
there is a cost effectivce case for GP in regards to low income families who want to give their kids access to games. Im sure there will at some point be enough of them to offset any costs on the xbox side on COD at some point..assuming this deal goes through...which I think it will and COD will end up on GP, the moment the currenmt sony deal expires if not sooner.
The CMA say they are looking at future trends and who will be dominant in the future....well thats easy to see...it will be the biggest companies who can wither the storm of change, especially with apple taking gaming more seriously (recent benchmarks for M2 chips Vs Pc have been impressive) on their laptops and mobile...google will no doubt try again one day...amazon is steadily building its content portfolio..when they get serious nintendo and sony will have too compete more directly with two other companies who are also the size of MS. I think the next ten years will be a bit of a bloodbath to be honest. and it will be the big companies who survive it.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Last edited:
RevGaming
Member
Ready for RE4make to be the lightning striking twice.
That and SF6 might be in the 90s. MH rise is also high in the 80s.
I wonder if they will have Pragmata and Dragons Dogma 2 to be shown.
RickMasters
Member
They didnt stay because as I stated in my post they are COD fans and not loyal to any platform.... They go where COD goes. you say it was sonys exclusives that won the day for them during the PS4 era... Im sorry but thats only partly true. It was MS very public mistakes with xbox, sonys taunts at early E3 pressers (heres how to share a game). I attribute PS4 success to xbox failures, sony always had lots of good exclusives but non of them were doing COD numbers. a lot of what they have done since then has been right out of the X360 playbook. PS5 has been cruising on that good will gained from the PS4 era backed by sonys consitency and quality...While MS has consitently made poor choices in that same timeframe.... Sony have done an excellent job with their platform. I dont even own a playstation and Ill say that. Ill give them that. but you are crazy if you think the biggest attribute to their success so far does not come from the network effect of being the marketing home of the biggest FPS in the world.... But whatever make you feel better. sony knows what is buttering their bread better than you do....
FoxMcChief
Gold Member
Makes sense. Did you see the picture of him in the red jacket? Man looked miserable.
Yeah I don't really care either. Regardless of what Sony provides them with, if its of any value there is a transaction there. Cash or resources is irrelevant. What matters is they take that money or something money provides and converts it into an exclusive.
The_Mike
I cry about SonyGaf from my chair in Redmond, WA
There were a shit load of people which moved from xbox 360 to ps4 instead of xbox one because of tv focus and drm.Take a good look at this image.
Realistically speaking.
How many playstation gamers you think is going to switch to Xbox if Microsoft acquires Activision and leave behind these?
PlayStation exclusives
Dualsense features
PS VR 2
Their Playstation catalog
It doesn't matter how much revenue or popularity COD generates on consoles.
What matter is where that revenue and popularity lies and 80% of that lies with Playstation.
They didn't move because of sonys exclusives. If that was the case they wouldn't have had a 360 to begin with.
Again, the majority who plays fifa or cod usually play a little less of everything else, including exclusives.
Also, Gaf isn't the outside picture of reality.
People gave up assymetrical controllers for symmetrical, which shows the majority doesn't give a shit about the controllers, especially gimmick ones.
The average timmt who plays cod is probably not the same niche guy who tosses the console price on a niche Gr peripheral.
VR is still niche and will always be it.
Cods revenue is from the platform that has most users.
A lot of these people will follow where cod is.
Xbox getting cod as exclusive will move a lot of xbox consoles.
Not everyone is a dedicated fanboy.
Some can move, some can have both platforms at the same time.
Crazy, I know.
They might not sell their ps, but they would very likely buy a xbox, s or x doesn't matter, to play cod.
Loxus
Member
COD was never an exclusive, so how can you say gamers go where COD goes?
Imo, the XB1 launch was good.
It's just that Playstation had the better exclusives. Xbox fan base like to blame everything but the lack of exclusives.
COD numbers are because it's a mulitplat vs Sony exclusives.
The_Mike
I cry about SonyGaf from my chair in Redmond, WA
This and drm.
But you know that.
No. And you know that.
Edit:
OK, thanks for being clear that you are trolling.
Last edited:
fred420170
Member
Because Don Mattrick f'd everything up for xbox from the push on a tv set top box, cutting 1st party development, stopped doing third party deals (COD), weak hardware.. The list goes on and on. I'm convinced if Peter Moore was there at the time the X1 launched none of this crap would have happened.
Sanepar
Member
If cod became exclusive(it is not the case) i would say in us and uk ps would lose half of it install base.Take a good look at this image.
Realistically speaking.
How many playstation gamers you think is going to switch to Xbox if Microsoft acquires Activision and leave behind these?
PlayStation exclusives
Dualsense features
PS VR 2
Their Playstation catalog
It doesn't matter how much revenue or popularity COD generates on consoles.
What matter is where that revenue and popularity lies and 80% of that lies with Playstation.
Loxus
Member
People moved because they wanted to play Playstation exclusives.
PS3 ended with some good exclusives that people wanted to play on they next gen consoles at the time.
Let's face the fact.
Exclusives are important for a console to be popular. Microsoft knows this, which is why they're trying to stop or win back some of the market share by purchasing Bethesda and now Activision.
The_Mike
I cry about SonyGaf from my chair in Redmond, WA
Exclusives are important.
Just not call of duty which literally outsell any playstation exclusive.
Last edited:
Loxus
Member
I'm not, Playstation did the same thing with PS Move and TV apps but they still end up selling 100M+.
The_Mike
I cry about SonyGaf from my chair in Redmond, WA
PlayStation had Move and TV apps as gimmick.
Xbox One was literally build around TV DRM and Kinect.
How can you say XB1 had a good launch, and don't know shit like this.
Loxus
Member
So how well you think COD is going to sell without Playstation?
Loxus
Member
Take a look at the PS3 launch (which is arguably the worst launch in console history) and tell me it wasn't their exclusives that saved them.PlayStation had Move and TV apps as gimmick.
Xbox One was literally build around TV DRM and Kinect.
How can you say XB1 had a good launch, and don't know shit like this.
Aguero9320
Member
That would put disproportionate power to be unreasonable in Sony’s hands. Never going to happen that way IMO.
RickMasters
Member
I know it was never exclusive but brand association deffo plays its part. Can’t deny that if you really look at the network effects of cod on a given platform when it’s seen as the main platform for that game, and the version used in their official esports stuff.
You really thought the XB1 launche wasn’t bad? As an Xbox owner it was the worst thing ever. I was going my freinds would maybe switch but was all neck deep in digital Xbox libraries at that point and we of course play with each other. Otherwise the headset doesn’t get turned on. I was glad Sony was kicking their ass because I was hoping that it would give MS the wake up call they needed. Years later and they still seem to struggle with some things a bit.
I hear what you saying about coda numbers as far as multiformat but Sony can speak on what the game earns for them and they have stated it to be one of their biggest sources if not the single largest source of income o. Playstation. It’s deffo not a 1st party games making them all that money, as well as those are doing for them. And I hope that is always the case because I want a games industry that appreciates the single player experience, along side the multiplayer one. MS put a lot into multi player and online stuff but I can’t lie I quietly admired Sonys output and was excited when they started porting to PC, because now I have access to and can play 6 PlayStation games I wanted but couldnt before, so I’ll say again…. As somebody that admires what they do ( why we don’t have more Dino-mechs in games is beyond me! Because I love horizon for that! ) …. I also am fully aware that COD is what makes them most of their PS revenue. They have said so themselves.
RickMasters
Member
It will never be an issue because MS won’t be taking it off PS. It will serve better as a cash cow than an exclusive. They have all their other games for that.
No reason they can’t just ‘Minecraft’ the shit out of COD…. Which is what ABK have been doing all along anyway. Just milk as long as people keep drinking the milk regardless of what console they own. And like I said, They have so many other games that serve better as exclusives. Plus they will have other ABK IP which will no doubt be exclusive. So cod can keep doing the numbers…. Current ABK games stay where they are….future crash, spyro, WoW, StarCraft etc all go exclusive. After all the fuss is all about COD right? And MS get to start whatever plan they have for the mobile space with king on hand.
They could just as easily make a polished halo game and that be the exclusive shooter. It’s one of the few games that at a mechanical gameplay level can match cod anyway. Even if it don’t do COD numbers. Having their flagship shoother halo doing the exclusive thing and being great again alongside the biggest multiformat shooter doing its multiformat money thing would be a Win- win for everybody especially game pass subscribers who will not only NOT have to pay for yearly COD but can play it on either PC or Xbox or stream of course. Progression shared across both. That sounds good.
I get the COD is the big part of the acquisition but there are longer term benefits to be had as far exclusivity with the rest of ABK catalogue. We could get FOS games set in the StarCraft universe or action RPG set in the WoW universe, and these can be exclude because they were never on console let alone anything called a Playstation to begin with.
They can keep everywhere and still extract a tonne of value from this acquisition…. Just takes a little vision and passion. They clearly have the money part of the equation figured all out …..
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
ChorizoPicozo
Member
series SX says hello.
ChorizoPicozo
Member
I know a lot of you have a hateboner towards Hoeg (this is why I'm posting this 
).
or just because he is a lawyer in mergers and acquisitions and he explains all these technical stuff.
).or just because he is a lawyer in mergers and acquisitions and he explains all these technical stuff.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Good to see Hoeg back producing videos after his health scare some time ago.
Topher
Identifies as young
I know a lot of you have a hateboner towards Hoeg (this is why I'm posting this
or just because he is a lawyer in mergers and acquisitions and he explains all these technical stuff.
I don't hate the guy. I just find he has a horrible Microsoft bias in his coverage. Glad to see he is making videos again though. That means he has come a long way in recovering from his stroke.
fred420170
Member
Microsoft will drop all the COD games on GP immediately. Another thing i noticed today is that MS has really been kicking up the advertising lately. Must have seen the Diablo commercial 20 times today on TV.
Topher
Identifies as young
That's Activision's advertising.
FoxMcChief
Gold Member
Same thing.
Topher
Identifies as young
POKEYCLYDE
Member
The regulators aren't there to maintain the status quo. They are there to stop a substantial lessening of competition.
They aren't there to make sure Microsoft doesn't gain an advantage from the purchase of ABK, just that it doesn't damage competition.
As long as Call of Duty is available to be put on PS+ at fair market value, then competition isn't damaged.
Being competitive is expensive. If you don't see Call of Duty day and date on PS+, it's because Sony doesn't want to.
There is being competitive and then there is trying to maximize profit. Sony is trying to do the latter.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Does the ad end with any specific console vendor branding?
I remember before RE Village came out, that game was getting a shit ton of Sony branded adverts on prime time TV slots.
Last edited:
James Sawyer Ford
Member
The problem is “fair market value” is not easy to assess when Microsoft is willing to heavily subsidize CoD on GP
So the regulators are unlikely to want to even touch that subject, now or in the future. It’s why they saw behavioral remedies as unlikely, and divestiture a necessary move to ease their concerns
Astray
Member
Basically this. Whatever the outcome might be, the regulators aren't out to just be disruptive for the sake of it, they are there to check whether this deal has anti-competitive effects, how severe they are, and what could be done to mitigate them.
They aren't there just to fuck over Sony or Microsoft. And different local market, political realities and mindsets will probably deliver differing results in each.
POKEYCLYDE
Member
A third party would decide what fair market is. From the latest Mlex report I'm pretty sure Microsoft said they would pay a third party to overlook that the concessions they make are being followed.
The CMA is looking to protect Sony from Microsoft saying "Pay us 200% more for the privilege of having Call of Duty on your service."
As long as they have access at fair market value, there won't be a problem.
Being competitive is costly. Those third party exclusivitiy deals aren't free. Sony is willing to incur that cost to have a competitive edge over Microsoft. If Sony wants to mitigate the competitive advantage that Microsoft would have from putting CoD on Gamepass, they have that ability by putting it on their subscription service. And that's what regulators are trying to guarantee; that Sony has that ability at a fair price.
POKEYCLYDE
Member
I think for the first time that Sony wants to put CoD on PS+, the fair market value would probably favour Sony, giving them a possible discount the first time they do it.
I'm guessing the equation would be something like:
Percentage of users who buy Call of Duty x PS+ extra premium subs x $49 (70% of $70).
Lets say 10% of Playstation users buy CoD every year. And there are 20 million PS+ extra or premium tier subscribers. So 10% of that 20 million is 2 million, times that buy the $49 and Sony would be paying $98million to have CoD on PS+.
The second year or second time they do it would have updated equations, since they would have more accurate data about how many players played CoD through PS+. If that percentage is higher than 10%, it would be more expensive. Like if 50% of PS+ players played through PS+ and PS+ gained 10 million subscribers, the new price would be $735million.
So I could see the first year being relatively cheap for Sony.
POKEYCLYDE
Member
If only they would make Megaman Legends 3.
fred420170
Member
Yes, it says Play it on XBOX Series x/s pre order and get into the beta 3/17- 3/19... something like that.
intheinbetween
Member
They won’t, as they didn’t with Zenimax titles
solidus12
Member
And Phil’s the first man you kissed, you were so nervous that you nearly missed.Look at this photograph
BlitzerRadic
Member
So because 3rd parties dont want to lose money by giving MS a discount on an exclusive deal that makes Sony anti competitive?
Not to mention MS can absolutely afford it but MS' business model doesn't make it worthwhile for publishers.
pasterpl
Member
So now EU is likely to approve with behavioural remedies, FTC is still unknown, but they are likely to loose MS appeal in court outside of FTC, this leaves us with CMA. I still think they will approve with behavioural remedies after deals goes through with FTC and EU.
I am wondering what will happen if this deal gets approved and Sony is the only party that haven’t signed the licensing deal. MS then would have no obligation to put CoD on playstation. Deal was offered, from what we have heard multiple times and was refused by Sony.
I am wondering what will happen if this deal gets approved and Sony is the only party that haven’t signed the licensing deal. MS then would have no obligation to put CoD on playstation. Deal was offered, from what we have heard multiple times and was refused by Sony.
intheinbetween
Member
Last edited:
Clintizzle
Lord of Edge.
The obligation is money. Sony don't have to sign anything. COD will always be on Playstation.
There are only two groups that can't seem to grasp this simple concept.
1, People who secretly want MS to remove COD from playstion because Phil Spencer is Daddy.
2, Dumbass regulators with dumbass ideals.
StealthGoblin
Banned
The developers don’t have to take it. But Sony’s marketing, engineering and pipeline are the best of any publisher in the most markets.
That’s a way of creating value, goodwill and moving the industry forward rather than just buying up anything and everything because you can’t compete due to poor management.
By now Microsoft in their 20+ year investment in the console space should have had a far larger, more successful content portfolio. Given they own the dominant development platform, the drivers and software behind a lot of projects they should have far superior development teams, engineers and a better pipeline.
Just what they’ve been doing for that time is beyond me. They literally have all the tools and money to be a roaring success in most areas. But it feels like they’ve squandered success and have lurched form crisis to poor management repeatedly.
Sony is evidence that you can be hugely successful by valuing talent, trusting them and spending your money wisely.
Sony, as an alalogy have invested in the best doctors, surgical methods and customer relations whereas Microsoft didn’t and have decided to buy whole hospitals. Except the doctors can leave - we’ve seen that with some of their acquired studios already.
They were on the right track with studios like Playground where they helped set them up, invested in the talent and IP and moved to a purchase.
The only reason Microsoft can’t compete, if they can’t compete, is because of their own ineptitude.
EnergyStar
Neo Member
I'm not willing to pay $70 for CoD. And certainly not bilion times more. Don’t be stupid, MS.
In what world would it pass with behavioural remedies and MS would have no obligation to put CoD on PS?
What do you think the behavioural remedies pertain to?
Last edited:
pasterpl
Member
As per Reuters
Nothing here suggests that they will have to offer CoD for Playstation outside the licensing deal. If Sony doesn’t sign it putting CoD of Playstation would be gesture of good faith by MS (realistically I cannot see them removing it from playstation due to revenue it generates), but legally there would not be anything forcing MS to do it.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked