Microsoft / Activision Deal Approval Watch |OT| (MS/ABK close)

Do you believe the deal will be approved?

  • Yes, will be approved without changes.

    Votes: 221 24.9%

  • Yes, will be approved but with structural changes to ABK.

    Votes: 102 11.5%

  • Yes, will be approved but only with behavioral concessions.

    Votes: 262 29.6%

  • No, will not be approved.

    Votes: 301 34.0%
  • Total voters
    886
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
Warablo said:
I don't get that vibe at all from Spencer.
Click to expand...
Youre Good Robert Deniro GIF
 
gothmog said:
Is Hoeg?
Click to expand...

He is, but his legal analysis is interwoven with personal opinions. Nothing wrong with disagreeing with those opinions as not all of them are based on legal fact. And frankly, some of the stuff he says is cringe-worthy at best.

Credentials alone don't mean a thing. Michael Pachter has credentials as well.

It Is What It Is Reaction GIF by Bounce
 
Last edited:
ToadMan said:
From what Shane Kim said, with the success of the 360, MS thought they'd done enough. That their ecosystem was "sticky" enough that those 360 users would just migrate to xbone and they didn't have to do anything.

Xbone is what MS thought they could get away with when they were dominant - zero innovations, high price and lacklustre first party output.
Click to expand...
So basically exactly like Sony when they released PS3.
 
Last edited:
Edmund said:
Random tweet by a user NIB appeared on my timeline. Clicked on the replies and lo and behold. Our beloved @SenjutsuSage is having a debate with randoms on the Internet. LOL!!


Click to expand...

not sure I'd call Nib95 a random, he used to be a great poster here back in the day

sadly it seems he just moved to Twitter after eventually banned from Era instead of coming back here
 
ToadMan said:
From what Shane Kim said, with the success of the 360, MS thought they'd done enough. That their ecosystem was "sticky" enough that those 360 users would just migrate to xbone and they didn't have to do anything.

Xbone is what MS thought they could get away with when they were dominant - zero innovations, high price and lacklustre first party output.
Click to expand...
is their big innovation with xbox series consoles just having their own version of ps now?
 
Neofire said:
Contemplated replying to his ridiculous tweet but decided against it lol. "Who defined the market so narrow"

The gamers decided that definition has been this way for decades. MS has decided they want to turn the market on its head since they can't manage their studios adequately to compete and we are supposed to support the nonsense.
Click to expand...

This is exactly correct.

Nintendo essentially exited the traditional console gaming market with their release of the Wii and have not returned since. Do they still compete with Sony and to a lesser extent Microsoft? Absolutely, but it would be difficult to call Nintendo a direct competitor in most cases.

Microsoft similarly is getting their lunch eaten competing head to head with Sony, so they are similarly looking at a different business model. What they've found and what is similar to MoviePass' failure is that transitioning to that new business model has been met with reluctance compared to when Netflix spun the home video market on its head. Microsoft suggested Sony was analogous to Blockbuster, but what's more likely is that Microsoft is analogous to MoviePass.

MoviePass was losing money hand over fist in attempts to hold the theater chains hostage. If they were able to gain enough users, they'd have enough leverage to bend theater chains to their will, but the studios held out with the knowledge that MoviePass was going to run out of money before they reached critical mass. Now Microsoft has significantly more money than MoviePass did, but they still have shareholders. They've convinced their board that Activision is an asset that will continue to rise in value, so overpaying for it now isn't a risk AND it will put GamePass in a position where it can dictate the market, gain significantly more users, and thus more favorable terms from publishers.

That's what Sony is trying to prevent in this acquisition. They're fairly confident that they can beat Microsoft head-to-head, they've been doing so for 20 years and their advantage with the PS5 is the biggest they've had since the OG Xbox/PS2. What they can't do is compete with Microsoft's deep pockets and what they fear is getting into an entrenched battle with Microsoft where they have to adopt Microsoft's business model of MGS which would significantly reduce Sony's profit margins.

Consider there is nothing GamePass is doing inherently that Sony can not emulate and most would argue that Sony 1st party content is significantly further along than Microsoft's. So what's the difference? Microsoft can take slim margins or even operating losses on GamePass, whereas Sony does not want to lose royalties from B2P gaming which is significantly higher for them.

One can also argue that Sony and Microsoft switching to a MGS business model primarily would be VERY bad for the industry, but that's another conversation.
 
ChorizoPicozo said:


hard truths
Click to expand...

Microsoft and the world are on a collision course.

Robert Bork's 1978 book "The Antitrust Paradox", offered a radical reinterpretation of antitrust law.

Since then, the consumer welfare standard has been the backbone of antitrust policy.

The new FTC wants to discard Bork's reinterpretation of antitrust law, though.

Meanwhile, third parties are looking to stop Activision merger to prevent consolidation (concentration accelerates the death of small companies)

Sony is just a convenient bogeyman for Microsoft's "nice guy" charade.

Microsoft has abuse its immense power to create a soap opera, play the victim, demonize Sony, the FTC and CMA.

Summary of third party calls published (CMA)

"One third party contended that Microsoft's recent acquisition behavior, including its acquisition of Bethesda and subsequent platform-publishing policy, demonstrates a strategy aimed at foreclosing rival gaming platforms, which would harm consumers."

"One third party noted that none of the independent AAA franchises has sought exclusivity with a particular platform, as this would have the effect of reducing their overall number of users."

"One third party contended that Microsoft is already dominant in the multi-game subscription space and that the Merger would entrench that position, harming consumers and its competitors in console gaming and multi-game subscription services."

"All bar one the third parties (and all of those active in cloud gaming services) identified content, as an important element in a successful cloud gaming offering, and noted that Activision controls a significant catalogue of AAA content."

"Some third parties specifically highlighted the importance of Activision content, with two describing Activision content as a "must have" and one contending that a new cloud gaming service would struggle without it "

"Two third parties commented on Microsoft's combined portfolio of Windows OS, Azure cloud platform, its console strength, and its multi-game subscription business and expressed concerns about the impact on competition of adding Activision's content and studio development capacity to this portfolio."

"Two of the third parties did not express concerns about the Merger, while three contended that the Merger would have a negative impact on competition, including by affording Microsoft the ability and incentive to foreclose potential and existing rivals in the console buy-to-play, console multi-game subscription and cloud gaming spaces "
 
Last edited:
zedinen said:
Microsoft and the world are on a collision course.

Robert Bork's 1978 book "The Antitrust Paradox", offered a radical reinterpretation of antitrust law.

Since then, the consumer welfare standard has been the backbone of antitrust policy.

The new FTC wants to discard Bork's reinterpretation of antitrust law, though.

Meanwhile, third parties are looking to stop Activision merger to prevent consolidation (concentration accelerate the death of small companies)

Sony is just a convenient bogeyman for Microsoft's "nice guy" charade.

Microsoft has abuse its immense power to create a soap opera, play the victim, demonize Sony, the FTC and CMA.

Summary of third party calls published (CMA)

"One third party contended that Microsoft's recent acquisition behavior, including its acquisition of Bethesda and subsequent platform-publishing policy, demonstrates a strategy aimed at foreclosing rival gaming platforms, which would harm consumers."

"One third party noted that none of the independent AAA franchises has sought exclusivity with a particular platform, as this would have the effect of reducing their overall number of users."

"One third party contended that Microsoft is already dominant in the multi-game subscription space and that the Merger would entrench that position, harming consumers and its competitors in console gaming and multi-game subscription services."

"All bar one the third parties (and all of those active in cloud gaming services) identified content, as an important element in a successful cloud gaming offering, and noted that Activision controls a significant catalogue of AAA content."

"Some third parties specifically highlighted the importance of Activision content, with two describing Activision content as a "must have" and one contending that a new cloud gaming service would struggle without it "

"Two third parties commented on Microsoft's combined portfolio of Windows OS, Azure cloud platform, its console strength, and its multi-game subscription business and expressed concerns about the impact on competition of adding Activision's content and studio development capacity to this portfolio."

"Two of the third parties did not express concerns about the Merger, while three contended that the Merger would have a negative impact on competition, including by affording Microsoft the ability and incentive to foreclose potential and existing rivals in the console buy-to-play, console multi-game subscription and cloud gaming spaces "
Click to expand...
not a legal analysis.
 
zedinen said:
Microsoft and the world are on a collision course.

Robert Bork's 1978 book "The Antitrust Paradox", offered a radical reinterpretation of antitrust law.

Since then, the consumer welfare standard has been the backbone of antitrust policy.

The new FTC wants to discard Bork's reinterpretation of antitrust law, though.

Meanwhile, third parties are looking to stop Activision merger to prevent consolidation (concentration accelerates the death of small companies)

Sony is just a convenient bogeyman for Microsoft's "nice guy" charade.

Microsoft has abuse its immense power to create a soap opera, play the victim, demonize Sony, the FTC and CMA.

Summary of third party calls published (CMA)

"One third party contended that Microsoft's recent acquisition behavior, including its acquisition of Bethesda and subsequent platform-publishing policy, demonstrates a strategy aimed at foreclosing rival gaming platforms, which would harm consumers."

"One third party noted that none of the independent AAA franchises has sought exclusivity with a particular platform, as this would have the effect of reducing their overall number of users."

"One third party contended that Microsoft is already dominant in the multi-game subscription space and that the Merger would entrench that position, harming consumers and its competitors in console gaming and multi-game subscription services."

"All bar one the third parties (and all of those active in cloud gaming services) identified content, as an important element in a successful cloud gaming offering, and noted that Activision controls a significant catalogue of AAA content."

"Some third parties specifically highlighted the importance of Activision content, with two describing Activision content as a "must have" and one contending that a new cloud gaming service would struggle without it "

"Two third parties commented on Microsoft's combined portfolio of Windows OS, Azure cloud platform, its console strength, and its multi-game subscription business and expressed concerns about the impact on competition of adding Activision's content and studio development capacity to this portfolio."

"Two of the third parties did not express concerns about the Merger, while three contended that the Merger would have a negative impact on competition, including by affording Microsoft the ability and incentive to foreclose potential and existing rivals in the console buy-to-play, console multi-game subscription and cloud gaming spaces "
Click to expand...
Lol doing some heavy lifting to carry water for Sony.
 
As food for thought, I was putting the finishing touches on a gamer PC build for a nephew, today - cheap as chips under £600 10400F/RX6500XT - and it was only when I was updating the the bios to enable features did it occur to me, that he'd be running Windows 11, so he'd need secure boot and TPM enabled to play Valorant (as a specific Win11 requirement) with my other nephews, and then it dawned on me, that Microsoft's primary angle with this deal was to get CoD and make it Windows 11 only, with secure boot and TPM requirements - like the original Phil sound bite about fixing online game cheating with TPM and cross gaming player bans.

The hundreds of billions of revenue for Microsoft and OEMS from forcibly migrating all win8-10 gamers rapidly to windows 11 by control of Minecraft, Bethesda, iDsoftware and CoD/WoW being made Windows 11 exclusive and needing secure boot and TPM enabled too would likely be enough to create the necessary tipping point to kill windows 10 and all the hardware below the Windows 11 requirements.

As a theory the maths certainly makes sense to spend $70b as an rapid means to sell new PCs and a new Windows OS too.
 
Last edited:
zedinen said:
Microsoft and the world are on a collision course.

Robert Bork's 1978 book "The Antitrust Paradox", offered a radical reinterpretation of antitrust law.

Since then, the consumer welfare standard has been the backbone of antitrust policy.

The new FTC wants to discard Bork's reinterpretation of antitrust law, though.

Meanwhile, third parties are looking to stop Activision merger to prevent consolidation (concentration accelerates the death of small companies)

Sony is just a convenient bogeyman for Microsoft's "nice guy" charade.

Microsoft has abuse its immense power to create a soap opera, play the victim, demonize Sony, the FTC and CMA.

Summary of third party calls published (CMA)

"One third party contended that Microsoft's recent acquisition behavior, including its acquisition of Bethesda and subsequent platform-publishing policy, demonstrates a strategy aimed at foreclosing rival gaming platforms, which would harm consumers."

"One third party noted that none of the independent AAA franchises has sought exclusivity with a particular platform, as this would have the effect of reducing their overall number of users."

"One third party contended that Microsoft is already dominant in the multi-game subscription space and that the Merger would entrench that position, harming consumers and its competitors in console gaming and multi-game subscription services."

"All bar one the third parties (and all of those active in cloud gaming services) identified content, as an important element in a successful cloud gaming offering, and noted that Activision controls a significant catalogue of AAA content."

"Some third parties specifically highlighted the importance of Activision content, with two describing Activision content as a "must have" and one contending that a new cloud gaming service would struggle without it "

"Two third parties commented on Microsoft's combined portfolio of Windows OS, Azure cloud platform, its console strength, and its multi-game subscription business and expressed concerns about the impact on competition of adding Activision's content and studio development capacity to this portfolio."

"Two of the third parties did not express concerns about the Merger, while three contended that the Merger would have a negative impact on competition, including by affording Microsoft the ability and incentive to foreclose potential and existing rivals in the console buy-to-play, console multi-game subscription and cloud gaming spaces "
Click to expand...
Can you link me the pdf for this? So there were five third party calls and only two of five were for this merger and three against it right?
 
PaintTinJr said:
As food for thought, I was putting the finishing touches on a gamer PC build for a nephew, today - cheap as chips under £600 10400F/RX6500XT - and it was only when I was updating the the bios to enable features did it occur to me, that he'd be running Windows 11, so he'd need secure boot and TPM enabled to play Valorant (as a specific Win11 requirement) with my other nephews, and then it dawned on me, that Microsoft's primary angle with this deal was to get CoD and make it Windows 11 only, with secure boot and TPM requirements - like the original Phil sound bite about fixing online game cheating with TPM and cross gaming player bans.

The hundreds of billions of revenue for Microsoft and OEMS from forcibly migrating all win8-10 gamers rapidly to windows 11 by control of Minecraft, Bethesda, iDsoftware and CoD/WoW being made Windows 11 exclusive and needing secure boot and TPM enabled too would likely be enough to create the necessary tipping point to kill windows 10 and all the hardware below the Windows 11 requirements.

As a theory the maths certainly makes sense to spend $70b as an rapid means to sell new PCs and a new Windows OS too.
Click to expand...

Interesting theory but we've yet to see Minecraft become Win11 only. Probably on purpose though, we'll see if we're moving towards that. That will certainly make future acquisitions difficult once you look at Xbox and Microsoft proper as the same entity, which they've always been.

Surprised that Sony didn't bring this up in legal arguments though.
 
El Pistolero said:
The PS3, for all its faults, is still a much better product than the Xbox One.
Click to expand...
It's still two companies thinking they could coast on past success and getter slapped down.
"Get a second job!"

And the Xbone wasn't terrible proprietary hardware that was notoriously hard to develop for. Absolutely they made terrible decisions for its launch, and it suffered all generation from low power and a bad to no games, but Xbox has always been about spreading their platform, while Sony wants a walled Garden. Long term, MS has the better strategy.

My console time is like 70/30 in PS5's favour, I love PlayStation, but Completely recognize that Xbox us about to ve on fire with a slew of great releases.

I don't give a damn about minecraft, but millions do. Ill absolutely play redfall, I have complete faith in the Developer and their Gameplay, which is always incredible. I be will play the shit out Starfield. Theres no world where I think that game is anything but massive.

Then we Got Hellblade 2, Avowed, Silksong (wtf?), and I'm sure more.

Nobody talks about their other hits this generation either. I loved the Halo Infinite campaign. psychonauts 2 is easily my favourite game of 2021, Forza Horizon 5 is the best racing game that didn't recently get VR. If Motorsport 8 has support for Quest 3 on PC, it could easily take the mantle for best racing game, but honestly VR is where that genre needs to live. Oh, and are we all forgetting Microsoft Flight Simulator?

Like, the lack of respect for what MS has done by some is completely baffling to me.

And then yeah, not only are my games "free" with a subscription, they are free on ANY device that runs Game Pass, from my phone to new Samsung TV's, to console and PC. Streaming isn't perfect, but if you're a casual gamer who doesn't care about fidelity, and they aren't playing online shooters and fighting games, most won't even notice. Soon, almost every TV will come with an xbox controller and 3 month free trial. Microsoft can afford to reel people in, and they absolutely will slowly spread GP. The platform is what's important.
 
Last edited:
Satansblade said:
It's still two companies thinking they could coast on past success and getter slapped down.
"Get a second job!"
Click to expand...

That's not what was meant by Kutaragi's words, but seeing as people believe what they want to believe anyway, It won't do us any good for me to explain what was said. As for the PS3, there was no plan to coast on intial success. If anything, the machine was over-engineered, and Sony too ambitious for its own sake.
 
El Pistolero said:
That's not what was meant by Kutaragi's words, but seeing as people believe what they want to believe anyway, It won't do us any good for me to explain what was said. As for the PS3, there was no plan to coast on intial success. If anything, the machine was over-engineered, and Sony too ambitious for its own sake.
Click to expand...

I agree, I think from a certain point of view the PS4 and PS5 have been less groundbreaking than the PS3. That isn't to say the PS4 or the PS5 were poorly designed, but in terms of generational leaps, they haven't done really anything we didn't expect them to do and they're pretty homogenous. I think that's probably what is needed in today's very expensive environment, but I do think we've lost something due to that.
 
Mibu no ookami said:
Surprised that Sony didn't bring this up in legal arguments though.
Click to expand...
Maybe because using exclusive software to sell a hardware/software platform is what consoles do already so why light that fire when you could burn yourself, and MS isn't stopping steam/epic etc. from working on windows 11 either. I don't see it really as a valid point, MS just ends support for windows when they want to nudge the userbase or if they want to nudge gamers they just lock the newest version of DX to the new OS. Support for win 10 ends in 2025 for example.
 
hlm666 said:
Maybe because using exclusive software to sell a hardware/software platform is what consoles do already so why light that fire when you could burn yourself, and MS isn't stopping steam/epic etc. from working on windows 11 either. I don't see it really as a valid point, MS just ends support for windows when they want to nudge the userbase or if they want to nudge gamers they just lock the newest version of DX to the new OS. Support for win 10 ends in 2025 for example.
Click to expand...

I think it's a big difference when you're talking about entirely different platforms.

CoD forcing people to get Windows 11 fits into the larger Microsoft Anti-trust realm and probably would have even freaked out the EC.

They probably didn't bring it up because there is no evidence of Microsoft doing that yet, but it's certainly coming one way or another.

The parties that needed to be more vocal were Google (ChromeOS) and Apple (MacOS) but they both have their own app store monopolies to deal with.
 
El Pistolero said:
That's not what was meant by Kutaragi's words, but seeing as people believe what they want to believe anyway, It won't do us any good for me to explain what was said. As for the PS3, there was no plan to coast on intial success. If anything, the machine was over-engineered, and Sony too ambitious for its own sake.
Click to expand...
You're really pretending he didn't say what he said, huh?
He was saying "We're the market leader and you'll buy our product, we're Sony. Work harder, plebe."

I'm truly astonished how far some will go to excuse Sony's obvious anti-competitive practices but be lazer focused on MS's.
 
Last edited:
El Pistolero said:
That's not what was meant by Kutaragi's words, but seeing as people believe what they want to believe anyway, It won't do us any good for me to explain what was said. As for the PS3, there was no plan to coast on intial success. If anything, the machine was over-engineered, and Sony too ambitious for its own sake.
Click to expand...
"for consumers to think to themselves 'I will work more hours to buy one'. We want people to feel that they want it, irrespective of anything else."
Click to expand...
https://www.engadget.com/2005-07-06-sony-wants-you-to-earn-that-playstation-3.html
 
MasterCornholio said:
Donald Trump GIF by Election 2016


Why?

Jens Stoltenberg Putin GIF by GIPHY News


The US has bigger things to worry about than COD and Microsoft. They wouldn't do anything to Britain over this especially since Britain is host to several American bases.

Didn't want to drag politics into this so I apologise for that. Just thought it might be a good counter point to your argument.

P.S But you probably weren't serious BTW. Hard to tell after we have some crazy people post here.
Click to expand...
Iam trump supporter.


Also thank you for explaining why US invade British. :)
 
Last edited:
El Pistolero said:
That's not what was meant by Kutaragi's words, but seeing as people believe what they want to believe anyway, It won't do us any good for me to explain what was said. As for the PS3, there was no plan to coast on intial success. If anything, the machine was over-engineered, and Sony too ambitious for its own sake.
Click to expand...
No please do explain "what was actually said." I'd love to hear it.
 
MasterCornholio said:
Donald Trump GIF by Election 2016


Why?

Jens Stoltenberg Putin GIF by GIPHY News


The US has bigger things to worry about than COD and Microsoft. They wouldn't do anything to Britain over this especially since Britain is host to several American bases.

Didn't want to drag politics into this so I apologise for that. Just thought it might be a good counter point to your argument.

P.S But you probably weren't serious BTW. Hard to tell after we have some crazy people post here.
Click to expand...
His point was a poor one to be sure, but your counter isn't any better to be honest.

You'd have been better off with just the PS part.
 
DeepEnigma said:
BuT I ThOugHt iT WaS ABout CaNDY cruSh? 🤷‍♀️🤭
Click to expand...
You mean mobile? How much revenue does COD mobile generate? And Diablo and Heartstone? Basically all mobile games from ABK besides Candy Crush.

Because Microsoft is preparing their own mobile store, so yes it's also about Candy crush and and the other mobile games.
 
Last edited:
Silent Viper said:
Fuck Jimbo. Hopes he chokes on Donkey *****. Mf.


MS needs to play dirty. American companies so good at playing Dirty, why can't MS do it?
How the fuck British CMA can challenge company belongs to super power America.

If trump was president he would have invaded British for good.
Click to expand...

chris farley what the fuck GIF
 
Warablo said:
Yep, if they can't release on PC, they didn't want to get bought.
Click to expand...
Source? Unless I'm mistaken, Bungie's condition was that they continue to self publish their games, and that they would determine what platforms they released on.
Warablo said:
The fact remains, we have no idea what Bungie means by multiplatform. I highly doubt any new IP from them will release on Xbox consoles. I think it will be Playstation and PC only.
Click to expand...
While you're correct that we can't know for sure. We do have Bungie's stated intent going forward, and that is to release it's future titles across all platforms. There's not a single piece of evidence that suggests they'll be PS/PC only.
 
Cheezewizz said:
His point was a poor one to be sure, but your counter isn't any better to be honest.

You'd have been better off with just the PS part.
Click to expand...

Not really I actually work on one of those bases so I understand the importance of us being here. Then there's the fact that the UK is part of NATO.

Maybe your better off not thinking everything is about the console wars?

Anyways I thought my points about why the US won't invade Britain over a failed merger was pretty solid. Could you tell me why its poor?
 
Last edited:
TheGodfather07 said:
Than explain it? How is it the same? Name the ip that Sony bought. Than we can compare it and see if sony ever did anything similar.
Click to expand...
Im not the one making that argument so Its not for me to explain. either because I dont care enough Its not something I personally belive..take your pick. but from where im standing,buying a publisher is buying a publisher. Buying a dev that was independent before you bought them, is buying dev that was independent before you bought them. And guess what...I also think its all fair game. so now what?


"Name the ip that Sony bought."......:messenger_tears_of_joy::messenger_tears_of_joy:..They would if they could, lets not pretend. usually one buys the dev not the IP...and by way of that ownd all the IP that dev makes. And sony have bought plenty of those over the years.

Either way its irrelivent. Sony are not the ones buying ABK . They can buy whatever they like/can afford as far as im concerned. Just as MS can. or tencent or anybody else for that matter. if you can afford to buy you should be able to buy it...when its yours, you do what you want with it.

I just play the games, and will come on here and talk about this shit...aside from that , I dont feel a need to defend or attack MS or sonys stance on any of this...they are doing what serves their intrests . both of them. But I do find sonys sense of entitlement in all this to be cringe. Because at the end of the day.... They aint the ones buying! aside from that I think they make smart purchases that benefit their business. But all this whining is just getting silly.
 
RickMasters said:
Im not the one making that argument so Its not for me to explain. either because I dont care enough Its not something I personally belive..take your pick.
Click to expand...
How are you not the one making that argument :
RickMasters said:
Yes it is the same tactic but apparently anything that happened in the 90s doesn't count as it's just digging up old dirt and making poor comparisons because this is way bigger. Well that's the general feeling by many anyway.
Click to expand...

You can't now cop out with a silly "they would if they could" and "I just play games".
 
Last edited:
Three said:
How are you not the one making that argument :


Uou can't now cop out with a silly "they would if they could" and "I just play games".
Click to expand...
See my post above. buying a publisher is buying a publisher.. they dont become some untouchable entity just because of one game. And just because sony cant afford them doesnt mean they shouldnt be bought.


BTW.... Not caring that much is not the same as 'copping out'......some of us dont feel the need to 'fight the fight' . These companies hire lawyers for that, you know?
 
RickMasters said:
See my post above. buying a publisher is buying a publisher.. they dont become some untouchable entity just because of one game. And just because sony cant afford them doesnt mean they shouldnt be bought.


BTW.... Not caring that much is not the same as 'copping out'......some of us dont feel the need to 'fight the fight' . These companies hire lawyers for that, you know?
Click to expand...
It's not one game, it's several massive IPs, hence why he is asking for you to explain how it's the same tactic. The cop out is you not explaining how it's the same tactic by saying they can't afford it and you're here to just play games when asked.

It also has nothing to do with Sony not being able to afford something, especially as you are talking about the 90s in your comparison.
 
Last edited:
Satansblade said:
So basically exactly like Sony when they released PS3.
Click to expand...

Yes, up to a point.

PS3 was definitely innovative even though that may not have been the most desirable outcome.

And Sony managed to turn the ship around when they realised they were bleeding customers to 360 - something xbox didn't manage with xbone.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

MS/ABK is advertising games that don't exist for data collection
46
2K
POKEYCLYDE replied
My apologies to Ubisoft, Sony, Activision, EA, MS etc. for making a big deal out of $70 games
2 3 4
156
6K
MDSLKTR replied
Microsoft, Activision Deny Report Regarding Financial Performance
Business Hardware  2 3
131
11K
Jaybe replied
What happened to all the people that were cheering over that MS Activision acquisition?
Drama  5 6 7 8 9
414
18K
GateofD replied
Microsoft has Closed the Activision Blizzard King Deal
22 23 24 25 26
1K
99K
MasterCornholio replied
Top Bottom