ChorizoPicozo
Member
who wrote this?
Mr. Spencer
Microsoft / Activision Deal Approval Watch |OT| (MS/ABK close)
- Status
laynelane
Member
Do you think there is a reason MS is being looked at for anti-competitive behavior by regulators right now? My sense from all the information we have so far is that letting MS 'compete' in the way they want is anti-competitive and has already resulted in less choice for gamers.
Gobjuduck
Banned
Have to go full retardation, when speaking in retarded hypotheticals like Sony
NickFire
Member
I'm not wondering if Starfield's date affected regulators. I'm wondering if Starfield's date has been held back to give people something better to talk about in the face of imminent less favorable news. Probably not, but I do feel confident that MS will pull out if they don't have 2 of 3 ready to approve before the next breakup fee escalation date.
Last edited:
OmegaSupreme
advanced basic bitch
Looks like y'all are still having some good clean fun in here.
demigod
Member
That’s a TILF................................
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Last edited:
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
It's not. And it's not going to be Microsoft.
Microsoft will release the game on PlayStation. And the CMA, who accepted the behavioral access remedies, will have to ensure parity compliance. That's how that contract would work in the first place.
Do we really expect the CMA to play every Call of Duty after every new patch is released on both PS and Xbox and then compare the two to ensure parity?
That's what Sony is saying, that "ensuring compliance would be challenging."
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
Hendrick's
If only my penis was as big as my GamerScore!
Has nothing to do with Xbox or gaming. This is just a PR move against big bad tech. If Xbox was it's own company and not part of MS, this deal would have already passed.
Last edited:
bender
What time is it?
Cheezewizz
Banned
Kinda like Sony does? It was a frustratingly long wait, but good to see you're capable of seeing the obvious.
Starfield being delayed again is the better/good news to talk about?
Btw about the breakup fee you made me think that we don't know if it applies if regulators block the deal. Shouldn't that apply only if Microsoft changes idea and withdraw?
I don't think it's a point I've ever seen been talked about.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Big bad tech you loathed during a certain political season when we had a politics board and you and I were all like,
Amazing what brands do though, eh?
They would have never had the funds to make this acquisition. Ironic, eh?
Last edited:
laynelane
Member
I would never have come up with that angle. How interesting.
Edit: Saw your edit. If XBox was its own company, they wouldn't have the financial ability to make this purchase. It's fascinating to see you see so vehemently defend MS when their history in gaming and other divisions is fully available publicly. Do you just generally ignore valid information that doesn't suit your preferences or is it just with MS?
Last edited:
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
It does. Microsoft pays even if regulators block it.Starfield being delayed again is the better/good news to talk about?
Btw about the breakup fee you made me think that we don't know if it applies if regulators block the deal. Shouldn't that apply only if Microsoft changes idea and withdraw?
I don't think it's a point I've ever seen been talked about.
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
If Xbox was its own company, do you think it would have been able to purchase a publisher for $69 billion with its own money?
Or the CMA can choose a 3rd party of it's choice to monitor paid by Microsoft it's not that hard. Unless you think these third parties would ruin thier companies to collude with Microsoft to screw sony and the CMA over.
Banjo64
cumsessed
Are Sony being investigated? I must have missed that.
Cheezewizz
Banned
Oh well worst case its peanuts to them anyway although with that peanuts Sony got Bungie in the meantime.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
He isn't saying increases are full of shit, just their ambiguous PR statement that is par for the course with them.
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
They can. But that doesn't make it any less of a challenge, considering COD receives so many patches. And the CMA will still have to oversee and approve the findings and remain a party to it.
Sony is convincing the CMA that this is challenging and a pain in the ass for everyone, so best to stick with divestment or prohibition -- the original decision the CMA made.
MasterCornholio
Member
Helghan
Member
It will be Microsoft since they put it in the contract so before releasing the game they’ll check it themselves. Like I said if that can’t be trusted than anything in the contract can be thrown away. It’s just silly.
Not to mention that if this would actually still be the case enough goons will send a million emails and tweets to the CMA about the exact location the bug can be found
Last edited:
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
But, again, ensuring compliance of this granular level is challenging regardless of any mergers of acquisitions.
That's what I said earlier as well. There's absolutely no way to guarantee compliance and exact parity in terms of bugs/performance in a moment to moment situation in any game.
And all this has done has paved a potential way that if CoD 2026 is published by MS and in the final level the PS5 version has two more frame drops, some folks will jump on twitter and accuse MS of deliberately implanting them just like Sony warned.
This whole thing is a self-defeating argument. Sony are asking for something that wouldn't reasonably be possible to implement/ensure even if it weren't for this merger.
Last edited:
Ar¢tos
Member
What does this even mean?
Sony is a real company, it's not hypothetical.
Astray
Member
What makes you think Microsoft is trustworthy in this situation though? They have a vested interest in pulling the rug from under Sony, and any other company they sign that much-vaunted 10 year deal with.
NickFire
Member
Well, I did think seeing a 2023 date was good news even though it was delayed again. In retrospect, I suppose the date isn't necessarily good news for everyone. So good point.Starfield being delayed again is the better/good news to talk about?
Btw about the breakup fee you made me think that we don't know if it applies if regulators block the deal. Shouldn't that apply only if Microsoft changes idea and withdraw?
I don't think it's a point I've ever seen been talked about.
Regarding the breakup fee, it will still be owed. The payment is for Activision being in limbo while MS tries to get it approved.
Hendrick's
If only my penis was as big as my GamerScore!
Haven't had any issues with Microsoft in decades. Google and Meta is a whole different story for obvious reasons.Big bad tech you loathed during a certain political season when we had a politics board and you and I were all like,
Amazing what brands do though, eh?
They would have never had the funds to make this acquisition. Ironic, eh?
Helghan
Member
Because that would be illegal? They could get a huge fine for actions like that…
Banjo64
cumsessed
We believe you.
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
They are in the $2.5 billion range now, which will soon jump up to $3 billion.
No matter how big of a company you're, this amount will sting. Remember it's the same company that recently fired 11,000 people. Even at $100K per person, those employees would have been costing Microsoft $1 billion a year. And those 11,000 employees were helping Microsoft generate revenue.
They still let them go because they wanted to save money.
These $2.5 - $3 billion will just be flushed with no benefit or revenue-generation whatsoever. It will sting.
jm89
Member
It will be peanuts. But losing 2.5 billion is gonna sting like hell.
Cause what do they get out of it? Alot of public information on Xbox performance now out in the public that they would never have given out, microsoft execs making asses of themselves in public and tying up resources for an entire year.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Hendrick's
If only my penis was as big as my GamerScore!
Sure, why not? Since it's all hypothetical does it really matter? Has nothing to do with my point about regulators.
MasterCornholio
Member
...............................
GHG
Gold Member
Of course there are other plausible reasons to cite, but that's not what we're talking about.
Banjo64
cumsessed
And in the past they’ve happily done this and paid the fines
bender
What time is it?
What if the CEO of this hypnotical standalone company had the first name of Rory, middle name of John, and his last name started with G?
Hendrick's
If only my penis was as big as my GamerScore!
You know I'm right. MS doesn't control information like the others. They may want to, but we all know they don't. Notice I also left out Apple, who I also dislike, but are not problematic in the same fashion.
Last edited:
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
It remove's all the context and nuance that are every bit of relevance to this.
They sure do. Win OS. The vehicle for all that is information most receive. 90% of the computing tech world even.
Last edited:
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
But this is different. Behavioral remedies are not attached to any of those other games.
If behavioral remedies are applied to COD, this will become special and have to be treated as such -- unlike those other games.
Correction: Sony is not asking for this or to implement this. Microsoft is asking for it and are promising enforceable behavioral remedies.
Sony is asking the opposite -- to NOT go down this rabbit hole or implement parity compliance at all, and instead divest the company or prohibit the merger.
Last edited:
Hendrick's
If only my penis was as big as my GamerScore!
So you are claiming windows censors and cherry picks information???
Expected weak arguments because deep down you all know I'm right. This is all a which hunt and nothing about it is honest.
Last edited:
PaintTinJr
Member
But what if this is to tee up the FTC's subpoena for T2 and we are going to hear a old tale about RDR grass gate on PS3? The last time Xbox was able to enforce better than or equal clauses on games was in the 360 era, and there are some shockingly bad bugs in AAA games from quality 3rd parties that never got fixed despite the visual/performance demanding gulf between these multiplat games and the first party PS3 exclusives.
Sony will have at least 10 high profile AAA games that have PS3 exclusive bugs that were all part of a 360 better or equal contract that was admitted to with the first AC game on PS4 and trapped the PS4 version at a 900p parity because Xbox had marketing rights.
If Sony have to show what happened with Skyrim on PS3 with certification, I suspect the argument will look plenty strong enough when there was likely a PS3 version that was sent for early certification feedback testing that didn't drop to 3fps and looked better and ran at higher resolution, this could result in some interesting NDA info releasing in the wild about games getting degrade regardless of hardware for business deals.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
It absolutely cherry picks and pushes what they want you to see out of the box. Like any operating device that needs heavy tuning by the end user.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
I agree that CoD is being turned into a much more 'special' case than needed. At the end of the day, the company looking to buy the studio/franchise is offering 10 years of availability with feature/content parity, an unheard of thing.
Sure, semantics, Sony are not asking but are citing it as one of, if not the, big reasons they don't want the deal to go through. It's still just as unreasonable.
ToadMan
Member
They didn’t - which is exactly what changed after they were acquired.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked