Hendrick's
If only my penis was as big as my GamerScore!
What are you even talking about? Office software is now the same as actual news?
Microsoft / Activision Deal Approval Watch |OT| (MS/ABK close)
- Status
Melchiah
Member
There would be no deal in that case, since they couldn't afford to buy ABK.
sainraja
Member
PS5 version of Psychonauts 2 is where?
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Win OS cherry pics their news sources and curation to their west coast slant right out of the box (just like Apple and their aggregate, and Android as well). Their products popping up ad nauseum until you disable them, right out of the box.
You have to manually scrub that shit out of there and spend time setting it up to your tastes. It's not a blank slate like it should be (on all 3), sadly.
DarkMage619
$MSFT
Show the contract where that was promised. Also does the PS4 version run on a PS5 or no?
DryvBy
Member
Mr. Spencer
How anyone defends this.... Phil Spencer is the worst person in gaming.
SneakersSO
Member
Yeah, seems like what the CMA is going to want is divestment.
To be fair, the CMA shouldn't have to be on the hook to enforce a behavioral remedy anyway, and thats precisely what they'd have to do given the current circumstances.
Hendrick's
If only my penis was as big as my GamerScore!
Not the point, but you already know that. You guys clearly have no real argument against my assessment because you also believe it.
There was only a contract for the ps4 version.
Contract obligations and we see the outer worlds on ps5 updated.
The Outer Worlds: Spacer's Choice Edition
You’ve tried the rest, now come back for the best
store.playstation.com
You’re still craftily dodging the question. Neither Sony or EU regulators consider Bethesda games essential input. The market certainly doesn’t reflect this either.
Activision makes only one console IP that’s considered essential input. And that IP is being bound by a 10 year agreement for multiplatform release on console, PC and cloud.
Explain again how making these purchases is part of a plan to extinguish the competition that’s outselling them 2:1
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
The PS4 version, which was what was announced/funded, got a enhanced BC patch for PS5.
-
If a native PS5 version was separately announced, please share a link cause I can't find any.
Last edited:
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Oh please. My short and concise sentence explains it all.You’re still craftily dodging the question. Neither Sony or EU regulators consider Bethesda games essential input. The market certainly doesn’t reflect this either.
Activision makes only one console IP that’s considered essential input. And that IP is being bound by a 10 year agreement for multiplatform release on console, PC and cloud.
Explain again how making these purchases is part of a plan to extinguish the competition that’s outselling them 2:1
Astray
Member
One of SIE's arguments is that said fines are always small and come way too late.
ChorizoPicozo
Member
oh is very easy. but I don't know if you could handle the truth.You’re still craftily dodging the question. Neither Sony or EU regulators consider Bethesda games essential input. The market certainly doesn’t reflect this either.
Activision makes only one console IP that’s considered essential input. And that IP is being bound by a 10 year agreement for multiplatform release on console, PC and cloud.
Explain again how making these purchases is part of a plan to extinguish the competition that’s outselling them 2:1
sainraja
Member
A portion of your post was discussing continued support... doesn't apply to Psychonauts 2 I suppose.
Hendrick's
If only my penis was as big as my GamerScore!
Last edited:
That’s ridiculous. If a patch introduces an egregious bug, Activision will have to fix it. Similar to how they’ve handled every COD release for over a decade.
Try me.
sainraja
Member
Read DarkMage's post again. He was talking about continued support and included Psychonauts 2 in his example.
EDIT
Nevermind, I guess he didn't say that about Psycho 2.
Last edited:
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
A portion of your post was discussing continued support... doesn't apply to Psychonauts 2 I suppose.
They literally put out a PS5 enhancement patch for the game. Not sure what further support you were expecting?
It's not like the game has received any further DLC or content that is only available on one platform and not on the other.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
I meant all these big tech companies practice in the same silicon valley practices. It just depends on who does what first. They all harvest and sell your information, they all have the same ideological slants, they would all do it if they were first at it. We know this. But I do enjoy Win 11. Nice and snappy fast.
sainraja
Member
OK, but it doesn't matter. He didn't say "continued support" when referring to Psycho 2. I mis-read. Having said that, they did upgrade the XSX version and not the PlayStation version to current gen, which is the result of their acquisition.
EDIT
I am not sure what the enhanced
Last edited:
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
Activision was independent during that time period. Things may change after they are acquired by a platform holder. And a developer doesn't "have to" fix a bug. They can just let it be if they want to. It is up to them.
And the CMA, being the one to apply behavioral remedies to COD, will have to ensure parity compliance between the two plaforms.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
"First, Better, Best."
And that’s rubbish. Fines can be up to 10% of annual turnover, especially when a party deliberately flouts an agreement designed to protect competition. And that’s not ‘small’ and certainly will significantly outstrip any gains from making COD exclusive.
https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/exc...ine-of-10-of-turnover-over-grail-deal-sources
Most of these arguments are laughable.
ToadMan
Member
A call from Kotick that came in the week it became obvious the deal was dead because the CMA blocked it. Just about 12 months after it was announced.
The other 11 months and 3 weeks what was he up to? <insert your own joke>
Yoboman
Member
If it gets blocked they certainly won't look good, they have exposed their performance data, they admitted they lied about different things (including Gamepass helping full price software sales
) but the biggest damage is strategical, they could have executed on an other strategy targeting smaller publishers without getting caught in this antitrust mess.Instead they lost over one year with their hands tied and their strategies stucked in a limbo and that is going to have an impact for the next few years.
In any case I'd wait until the end of April, as I think I've already stated in the past regardless of the near term PR effect of the outcome, all the companies involved will be able to move on. If the deal is blocked eventually Microsoft will find other targets or will seriously take into consideration the idea to properly manage their over 20 studios. If the deal is approved with remedies Sony will still get COD for an other decade possibly with the option to put in on PS+ as well and they'll have enough time to partner with other developers and nurture an alternative where to bridge their audience eventually. No one is going to go out of business because of this.
bitbydeath
Gold Member
By through, do you mean cancelled?
If so, it’s sounding pretty close.
CMA prepared to diverge from counterparts on Microsoft/Activision Blizzard merger decision
The UK’s Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) would not refrain from diverging from the position of other regulators such as the European Commission (EC) in its final report on the proposed merger between Microsoft and […]
www.equityreport.co.uk
GHG
Gold Member
They can be, but rarely are. And like
Astray
said, by that point the damage is done anyway so the fine doesn't help the industry participant(s) who might have been screwed over in the process.Prevention is better than cure. The regulators exist at this stage to prevent, not cure.
Last edited:
Helghan
Member
In that case I wouldn’t be scared about parity but Microsoft just not releasing it on PlayStation, which is also equally ridiculous
COD’s value is in being the market leader in multiplayer FPS games. Why would Microsoft deliberately sabotage that? Why would a developer leave in game breaking bugs in a GaaS game that makes much of its revenue from MTX from active players? Especially after seeing Halo’s decline to relative obscurity.
How do you lot envisage this scenario happening without Sony screaming blue murder?
Also worth noting that it probably isn’t really the CMA that will ensure parity compliance, since this is also a remedy proposed to the EU. Most likely, MS offer to pay an independent watchdog will be the solution they’ll go with.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
The patch increases the games resolution when running on PS5, it was running at 1440p/60 on launch. There hasn't been a comparison since this patch came some time after the game so I can't say first hand what it's running at right now but can reasonably guess its also been upgraded to 2160p/60.
As to why there wasn't a native PS5 version, cause that was never announced. Double Fine crowd funded, and helped finish the project with MS's publishing, for the promised PS4 version.
Has CMA played through the final chapter to ensure that ?
Last edited:
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Last edited:
They can be, but rarely are. And like
Prevention is better than cure. The regulators exist at this stage to prevent, not cure.
They were fined $732 million in 2012, and that was considered a lenient deterrence since Microsoft argued it was a technical error and fully cooperated.
Aside from the fact that fines will be much higher In - say - 2027, how exactly do you think Microsoft can argue technical errors or constraints behind a breach of contract…especially when the PS5 is much more powerful than the Series S?
NickFire
Member
I think Sony's reaching and gaslighting a little on the intentional bugs possibility. But truthfully, it's no where near as egregious as the people who acted smarter than actual COD players by suggesting you can just stream it on Switch via cloud. I do think that was the lowest point in PR over this deal.
Varteras
Member
They can be, but rarely are. And like
Prevention is better than cure. The regulators exist at this stage to prevent, not cure.
I just wanted to tell you that you're beautiful.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
It's just one of many scenarios they gave for how complex oversight would be for the CMA. Of course, clickbait sites gonna clickbait with out of context hottakes.
There is history there as well, Skyrim, and a few others to show that devs/pubs can and will do this.
Last edited:
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
The PS3 was notoriously hard to develop for, especially for multi-platform games, for a big majority of its lifespan. I don't think it's fair to say Bethesda purposefully gimped the PS3 version of Skyrim.
Moridianae
Member
Lots of noise in here, but I'm a layman. If the CMA wants divestment, is that a deal breaker to Microsoft?
I see through their PR fluff about CoD after what transpired with Starfield and Elder Scrolls--they'll flip that script so fast and I think the powers that be are hip to it.
I see through their PR fluff about CoD after what transpired with Starfield and Elder Scrolls--they'll flip that script so fast and I think the powers that be are hip to it.
3liteDragon
Member
Does anyone have access to Equity Report?
Also from Idas regarding the Equity Report news today:
Also from Idas regarding the Equity Report news today:
Last edited:
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Oh please. The game breaking bug was inexcusable and did not hinder most 3rd party games. The argument isn't "purposely gimped," the argument is "can't be fucked with to fix, fuck you we got our monies."
There are many pubs/devs guilty of this on select platforms.
Bethesda is a prime example of said pubs/devs being notorious for never fixing day 1 bugs. The very day 1 bugs still were there in "anniversary editions/GOTY" and even new platforms like the Swtich version over a decade later. But hey, I guess you can call that "parity" but that won't fly with the "first, better, best" mantra.
Last edited:
There’s really no basis for comparison at all.
One - no legal obligation. The other, a binding commitment proposed to the EU.
MasterCornholio
Member
Does anyone have access to Equity Report?
Also from Idas regarding the Equity Report news today:
CMA
They are definitely standing their ground with this one.
Yoboman
Member
No they are giving scenarios on what could happen when Microsoft own the biggest game in gaming.
I mean anybody believing Microsoft is spending 70 billion for things to be BAU at Activision and for them not to gain some competitive edge is kidding themselves. Microsoft will hinder the products on other systems in any way that they can get away with
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Everyone is fucked equally in this case, I don't think its applicable to the concern Sony is raising.
Anyway, even in the best of circumstances Sony's hypothetical example is incredibly difficult / nearly impossible to uphold anyway.
It is a moot point and from their point of view they're just saying it as an addendum "oh and your breath stinks too" kind of comment when listing the negatives.
Yoboman
Member
To be fair he probably didn't have reception from his yacht
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
It is applicable, and not the main "concern" but rather an example used for the difficulties of oversight, but one for console war contention. Why is it applicable? "First, better, best" PR, that's why.
We are going in circles here.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked