Support NeoGAF

[Bernardougf]

Every 10 pages some green fanboy appears to splash a comment/argument that another green friend already tried and was surely and quickly debunked..in fact is quite amusing to see it happening

 

[splattered]

Every 10 pages some green fanboy appears to splash a comment/argument that another green friend already tried and was surely and quickly debunked..in fact is quite amusing to see it happening

My avatar is green but i'm no "green fanboy" ... and nothing has been debunked. Until the deal is 100% dead and buried. People keep stomping around saying the deal is dead and won't go through and CMA said this and FTC said that... we aren't at that point yet fellas. Nothing wrong with keeping hope but don't be shocked when it goes one way or another, realistically we have ZERO idea what is going to be decided when everything is said and done.

 

[Dick Jones]

You have selective hearing.

"We only need candy crush. Fuck all the rest of this shit it's worthless"

That's what you WANT to hear... but that isn't reality.

They paid a huge amount of money, specifically for Candy Crush and then everything else that will come along with buying an ENTIRE COMPANY.

You have selective condemnation. You believe a fucking psychopath on Twitter at the drop of a hat on an alleged misinterpretation/lie (since no evidence) but an article from a pro MS outlet pointing out Spencer needing Candy Crush in the acquisition and not COD, means MS also needs COD.

If you don't need something, you can go without it for the thing you need.

 

[Topher]

In the beginning Sony said they cared about Call of Duty and that Microsoft's deal wasn't good enough. And then they said later that NO deal would be good enough. Which is it? Sony are full of shit and they're just trying to throw their weight around to stop Microsoft from acquiring studios period. Not because it's "bad for gamers" but because it's good for Microsoft. Sony shouldn't even be taken into account in this case if they aren't willing to work with Microsoft in good faith and iron out a deal(s) that benefit all parties. Microsoft has never cried and tried to jump in and shit up Sony's acquisitions, even when it's someone like Bungie. Do you see Microsoft flailing around like little babies if Sony announced they were acquiring Namco or Capcom? I really don't ...

What do you mean "which is it?" Sony has shot down every deal from the beginning. Seems pretty obvious that they see any deal specifying X number of years as Call of Duty becoming exclusive at the end of the term. And you really need to stop with this bullshit hyperbole about Sony trying to stop MS "from acquiring studios period". Microsoft has acquired several studios and a publisher with nary a word from Sony. Did you see Sony protesting Zenimax? Nope. Obsidian? Nope. Ninja Theory? Nope.

And yes, Microsoft would absolutely jump into the fray if they felt an acquisition by a competitor would have a negative impact on their business. If they didn't their shareholders would be asking what the fuck are they doing? Likewise, Sony is protecting their shareholder's interests. The ones I see who are "flailing around like little babies" are the crazed Xbox fans like Jez Corden and Senshitsu.

 

[DeepEnigma]

My avatar is green but i'm no "green fanboy"

 

[Topher]

My avatar is green but i'm no "green fanboy" ... and nothing has been debunked. Until the deal is 100% dead and buried. People keep stomping around saying the deal is dead and won't go through and CMA said this and FTC said that... we aren't at that point yet fellas. Nothing wrong with keeping hope but don't be shocked when it goes one way or another, realistically we have ZERO idea what is going to be decided when everything is said and done.

I agree with you there. I'm still on record predicting it will go through. CMA is the only obstacle and my gut tells me MS will convince them that behavioral remedies will work. I'm obviously against big acquisitions like these, but ultimately we are still just talking about video games and I think folks need to keep that in perspective.

Question for those against this acquisition: Are there any structural remedies that would sway you more in favor of this deal?

Personally, I would probably lean in favor of Microsoft getting Blizzard King and divesting Call of Duty. I was a fan of Blizzard in their early years and the company has gone to shit after merging with Activision. I think Phil Spencer would actually do good things with Blizzard. And I really don't care about King at all so yeah, I could get behind that deal.

 

[Dr. Claus]

Every 10 pages some green fanboy appears to splash a comment/argument that another green friend already tried and was surely and quickly debunked..in fact is quite amusing to see it happening

And every 10 pages a blue fanboy appears to bitch/moan and try to start shit.

Warriors on all sides are pathetic incels, let's be real.

 

[DenchDeckard]

Here's a wild one. If it does go through, do we all say it's obviously a fair shake and it has obviously been scrutinised to death...

...or do the CMA turn into baddies and we get crazy conspiracy theories that MS paid for it to go through etc?

 

[IFireflyl]

Warriors on all sides are pathetic incels, let's be real.

 

[Heisenberg007]

I agree with you there. I'm still on record predicting it will go through. CMA is the only obstacle and my gut tells me MS will convince them that behavioral remedies will work. I'm obviously against big acquisitions like these, but ultimately we are still just talking about video games and I think folks need to keep that in perspective.

Question for those against this acquisition: Are there any structural remedies that would sway you more in favor of this deal?

Personally, I would probably lean in favor of Microsoft getting Blizzard King and divesting Call of Duty. I was a fan of Blizzard in their early years and the company has gone to shit after merging with Activision. I think Phil Spencer would actually do good things with Blizzard. And I really don't care about King at all so yeah, I could get behind that deal.

The divestiture of COD/Activision suggested by the CMA is the bare minimum, in my opinion. Ideally, this acquisition should be blocked completely. Nothing will sway me in favor this deal.

Microsoft has been trying to level the playing field through acquisitions and spreading the false narrative that they can't "compete" with Sony otherwise, despite being a 20x bigger company than Sony, having more money & resources than Sony, and having more studios and developers than Sony.

The whole premise of this acquisition is false and encourages unnecessary consolidation of the industry. Microsoft first acquired 13 studios because they wanted to compete. When that didn't work, they acquired Zenimax because they wanted to compete. Now, according to them, they still can't compete and now want ABK to compete.

6 months later, they might say, we still can't compete, so we need to buy Take 2 or Capcom to compete. When will that stop?

I hope the CMA blocks it completely (it'd be bad even if it passes with just Blizzard & King), and Microsoft is forced to make better decisions and better use their current studios and resources.

 

[gothmog]

I agree with you there. I'm still on record predicting it will go through. CMA is the only obstacle and my gut tells me MS will convince them that behavioral remedies will work. I'm obviously against big acquisitions like these, but ultimately we are still just talking about video games and I think folks need to keep that in perspective.

Question for those against this acquisition: Are there any structural remedies that would sway you more in favor of this deal?

Personally, I would probably lean in favor of Microsoft getting Blizzard King and divesting Call of Duty. I was a fan of Blizzard in their early years and the company has gone to shit after merging with Activision. I think Phil Spencer would actually do good things with Blizzard. And I really don't care about King at all so yeah, I could get behind that deal.

I'm curious about what you think would sway the CMA around behavioral remedies? Especially when it's clear that Sony probably won't sign any deal that specifies a length of time.

 

[Helghan]

Here's a wild one. If it does go through, do we all say it's obviously a fair shake and it has obviously been scrutinised to death...

...or do the CMA turn into baddies and we get crazy conspiracy theories that MS paid for it to go through etc?

The latter combined with COD is death, doesn't matter and only for bro gamers

 

[IFireflyl]

Here's a wild one. If it does go through, do we all say it's obviously a fair shake and it has obviously been scrutinised to death...

...or do the CMA turn into baddies and we get crazy conspiracy theories that MS paid for it to go through etc?

Both will happen. The people that are pro-acquisition who don't hold Microsoft in the highest regards will be disappointed, but they won't go crazy. The people that are pro-acquisition who think every word by Microsoft is part of a Holy script that should be taught and memorized, those are the people who will demonize the CMA and spread hate and vitriol. Obviously I am talking about people like SenjutsuSage .

EDIT: I just realized you said if it DOES go through, not if it DOESN'T go through. If it doesn't go through the above will occur. If it DOES go through then you'll have people like myself who are irritated that a mega-corporation is just able to gobble up whatever they want to get their hands on. I'm not going to spread FUD or vitriol, but I will think it was a bad decision because I feel like it will set a precedent that is bad for every industry when it comes to acquisitions. But there will be people who were anti-acquisition that will take it a step further, and there will likely be talks of the CMA accepting bribes, or being incompetent, et cetera.

 

[Topher]

Here's a wild one. If it does go through, do we all say it's obviously a fair shake and it has obviously been scrutinised to death...

...or do the CMA turn into baddies and we get crazy conspiracy theories that MS paid for it to go through etc?

You'll have some theories either way. If it is blocked, some will say Sony paid them off. If it is allowed, some will say MS did. Same old shit.

I don't think that shit works with the CMA, frankly. Lobbying (legalized bribery) is a real thing in the US so I thought the FTC would let it go based on that, but I was wrong there.

So for myself, nah, I'm not going to fault regulators. The process has clearly been followed correctly so far and I don't see that changing.

 

[Topher]

The divestiture of COD/Activision suggested by the CMA is the bare minimum, in my opinion. Ideally, this acquisition should be blocked completely. Nothing will sway me in favor this deal.

Microsoft has been trying to level the playing field through acquisitions and spreading the false narrative that they can't "compete" with Sony otherwise, despite being a 20x bigger company than Sony, having more money & resources than Sony, and having more studios and developers than Sony.

The whole premise of this acquisition is false and encourages unnecessary consolidation of the industry. Microsoft first acquired 13 studios because they wanted to compete. When that didn't work, they acquired Zenimax because they wanted to compete. Now, according to them, they still can't compete and now want ABK to compete.

6 months later, they might say, we still can't compete, so we need to buy Take 2 or Capcom to compete. When will that stop?

I hope the CMA blocks it completely (it'd be bad even if it passes with just Blizzard & King), and Microsoft is forced to make better decisions and better use their current studios and resources.

I get what you are saying. I think if Blizzard King were a separate entity from Activision and MS was buying BK then this would already be done. I don't think this is a "slippery slope" situation though. Microsoft probably didn't think they would get this much pushback here so I'm not sure they will try anymore big purchases any time soon.

I'm curious about what you think would sway the CMA around behavioral remedies? Especially when it's clear that Sony probably won't sign any deal that specifies a length of time.

Like I said, it is just a gut feeling. If it happens then MS will have made some really good arguments or offered up more concessions. I really don't know though. Just me guessing.

 

[splattered]

I agree with you there. I'm still on record predicting it will go through. CMA is the only obstacle and my gut tells me MS will convince them that behavioral remedies will work. I'm obviously against big acquisitions like these, but ultimately we are still just talking about video games and I think folks need to keep that in perspective.

Question for those against this acquisition: Are there any structural remedies that would sway you more in favor of this deal?

Personally, I would probably lean in favor of Microsoft getting Blizzard King and divesting Call of Duty. I was a fan of Blizzard in their early years and the company has gone to shit after merging with Activision. I think Phil Spencer would actually do good things with Blizzard. And I really don't care about King at all so yeah, I could get behind that deal.

I don't think that the acquisition is worth the asking price without call of duty, they would have to go back and re-write the deal if that's even possible at this point and as long as Microsoft keeps the series on competitive platforms what does it even matter?

I seriously doubt you are going to see too many people on this forum against the deal come back and say "Oh yeah for sure as long as Microsoft doesn't get Call of Duty they can have everything else" because at the end of the day it isn't about Call of Duty at all, it's just about keeping things away from Microsoft because they prefer Playstation.

I'm not against an acquisition of this size because i think over time it may lead to new stuff BESIDES near total focus on the COD series. Activision has unfortunately painted themselves into a COD shaped corner and it's getting worse as time goes on. Passing ownership to MS might actually change that.... Microsoft can actually fund the change and afford to take more risks. If Activison stays Activision it's just going to be Call of Duty WoW and Candy Crush until the end of time.

That doesn't mean i think that all large publishers should be bought up by those that have disgusting amounts of money, but i think the potential benefits gamers will see over time due to this specific aquisition could be very interesting.

 

[Heisenberg007]

I get what you are saying. I think if Blizzard King were a separate entity from Activision and MS was buying BK then this would already be done. I don't think this is a "slippery slope" situation though. Microsoft probably didn't think they would get this much pushback here so I'm not sure they will try anymore big purchases any time soon.

I think the narrative could just as easily shift to,

"Microsoft was allowed to buy ABK for $70 billion, and now they can't buy Capcom for $8 billion (or Take-Two for $30 billion)? This is bullshit and doesn't make any sense. MS should be allowed to buy easily, as [the next company] clearly isn't even in the same ballpark as ABK."

 

[Cheezewizz]

They already have submitted them.

You're not providing a revelation to things we have not already known since day 1 in this thread. We would be less condescending if people who did not jump in this thread within the past month or so, did not speak down to everyone as if we're retarded and have not known the process nor have been following along every time a new report comes out.

Captain Obvious shit and all that malarkey.

Well to be fair, some of you have been saying extremely retarded stuff, don't know the process, have spent the past month circle jerking each other, and pretending this thread is your own personal ego stroking playpen.

With all the crying you lot have been doing lately. Surely you're running low on tears by now.

 

[reinking]

I agree with you there. I'm still on record predicting it will go through. CMA is the only obstacle and my gut tells me MS will convince them that behavioral remedies will work. I'm obviously against big acquisitions like these, but ultimately we are still just talking about video games and I think folks need to keep that in perspective.

Question for those against this acquisition: Are there any structural remedies that would sway you more in favor of this deal?

Personally, I would probably lean in favor of Microsoft getting Blizzard King and divesting Call of Duty. I was a fan of Blizzard in their early years and the company has gone to shit after merging with Activision. I think Phil Spencer would actually do good things with Blizzard. And I really don't care about King at all so yeah, I could get behind that deal.

Like you, I believe the deal goes through. I think the CMA is the only power that stands to really block it and I believe they will be swayed in the end by public pressure and whatever reasonable remedies MS can agree to. I don't expect MS to fully comply to those for more than this console generation because they will exploit loopholes.

I'm not sure structural remedies will matter. I can't see MS agreeing to any of those and as I stated above, I do not believe it will come to that. (Of course, these are only my wild guesses as to what will happen)

 

[splattered]

I think the narrative could just as easily shift to,

"Microsoft was allowed to buy ABK for $70 billion, and now they can't buy Capcom for $8 billion (or Take-Two for $30 billion)? This is bullshit and doesn't make any sense. MS should be allowed to buy easily, as [the next company] clearly isn't even in the same ballpark as ABK."

There is no way that MS would be able to manage that many studios and employees, even the ABK purchase is pushing it... i don't think you need to worry about that.

That being said, if some companies wanted to just sell off some of their assets/IPs then yeah i could see Microsoft more doing that in the future.

 

[IFireflyl]

Well to be fair, some of you have been saying extremely retarded stuff, don't know the process, have spent the past month circle jerking each other, and pretending this thread is your own personal ego stroking playpen.

With all the crying you lot have been doing lately. Surely you're running low on tears by now.

This has been happening on both sides of the fence, and to pretend otherwise is simply willful ignorance.

 

[IFireflyl]

There is no way that MS would be able to manage that many studios and employees, even the ABK purchase is pushing it... i don't think you need to worry about that.

Some people would argue (and have argued) that Microsoft isn't able to manage their existing studios and employees properly, which is why they don't want this acquisition to go through.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Well to be fair, some of you have been saying extremely retarded stuff, don't know the process, have spent the past month circle jerking each other, and pretending this thread is your own personal ego stroking playpen.

With all the crying you lot have been doing lately. Surely you're running low on tears by now.

 

[Topher]

I don't think that the acquisition is worth the asking price without call of duty, they would have to go back and re-write the deal if that's even possible at this point and as long as Microsoft keeps the series on competitive platforms what does it even matter?

I seriously doubt you are going to see too many people on this forum against the deal come back and say "Oh yeah for sure as long as Microsoft doesn't get Call of Duty they can have everything else" because at the end of the day it isn't about Call of Duty at all, it's just about keeping things away from Microsoft because they prefer Playstation.

I'm not against an acquisition of this size because i think over time it may lead to new stuff BESIDES near total focus on the COD series. Activision has unfortunately painted themselves into a COD shaped corner and it's getting worse as time goes on. Passing ownership to MS might actually change that.... Microsoft can actually fund the change and afford to take more risks. If Activison stays Activision it's just going to be Call of Duty WoW and Candy Crush until the end of time.

That doesn't mean i think that all large publishers should be bought up by those that have disgusting amounts of money, but i think the potential benefits gamers will see over time due to this specific aquisition could be very interesting.

Well yeah, you are going to have those who are against it only because they are pro-PlayStation and those who are for it only because they are pro-Xbox. It is what it is. As far as "what does it even matter" as long as COD remains multiplatform, well that's the big question. I'd like to think Phil Spencer is a man of his word and he will keep Call of Duty on PS as long as PS exists. But the thing is Phil Spencer isn't always going to be the guy in charge of Xbox. So what is the next guy going to do? Nah, I think Call of Duty, as massive as it is in the gaming world, should remain a third party franchise. I think that is just the best thing for gaming.

I think the narrative could just as easily shift to,

"Microsoft was allowed to buy ABK for $70 billion, and now they can't buy Capcom for $8 billion (or Take-Two for $30 billion)? This is bullshit and doesn't make any sense. MS should be allowed to buy easily, as [the next company] clearly isn't even in the same ballpark as ABK."

I think there would have to be some major changes in the regulatory world for that to happen. In the current climate, I just don't see it. Hopefully that theory won't be tested.

 

[demigod]

In the beginning Sony said they cared about Call of Duty and that Microsoft's deal wasn't good enough. And then they said later that NO deal would be good enough. Which is it? Sony are full of shit and they're just trying to throw their weight around to stop Microsoft from acquiring studios period. Not because it's "bad for gamers" but because it's good for Microsoft. Sony shouldn't even be taken into account in this case if they aren't willing to work with Microsoft in good faith and iron out a deal(s) that benefit all parties. Microsoft has never cried and tried to jump in and shit up Sony's acquisitions, even when it's someone like Bungie. Do you see Microsoft flailing around like little babies if Sony announced they were acquiring Namco or Capcom? I really don't ...

Do you seriously think it's a good idea that a company that has been on a buying spree and continues to do more would stop the other company from buying smaller companies?

 

[Banjo64]

Well to be fair, some of you have been saying extremely retarded stuff, don't know the process, have spent the past month circle jerking each other, and pretending this thread is your own personal ego stroking playpen.

With all the crying you lot have been doing lately. Surely you're running low on tears by now.

 

[splattered]

Well yeah, you are going to have those who are against it only because they are pro-PlayStation and those who are for it only because they are pro-Xbox. It is what it is. As far as "what does it even matter" as long as COD remains multiplatform, well that's the big question. I'd like to think Phil Spencer is a man of his word and he will keep Call of Duty on PS as long as PS exists. But the thing is Phil Spencer isn't always going to be the guy in charge of Xbox. So what is the next guy going to do? Nah, I think Call of Duty, as massive as it is in the gaming world, should remain a third party franchise. I think that is just the best thing for gaming.



I think there would have to be some major changes in the regulatory world for that to happen. In the current climate, I just don't see it. Hopefully that theory won't be tested.

See Minecraft.

It's still basically a 3rd party game even though it's owned by Microsoft.

Call of Duty will most likely become the same under Microsoft.

People are worrying about that for no reason.

 

[Topher]

See Minecraft.

It's still basically a 3rd party game even though it's owned by Microsoft.

Call of Duty will most likely become the same under Microsoft.

People are worrying about that for no reason.

See Elder Scrolls

 

[splattered]

See Elder Scrolls

Elder Scrolls Online and Fallout 76? Yeah i see them. On Playstation.

Those are multiplayer experiences just like Minecraft. Just like Call of Duty.

 

[IFireflyl]

See Minecraft.

It's still basically a 3rd party game even though it's owned by Microsoft.

Call of Duty will most likely become the same under Microsoft.

People are worrying about that for no reason.

See every announced Zenimax game that is console exclusive? That's the reason people worry. For every example you can provide where a game stayed multi-platform, there are more examples where they did not.

 

[demigod]

See Minecraft.

It's still basically a 3rd party game even though it's owned by Microsoft.

Call of Duty will most likely become the same under Microsoft.

People are worrying about that for no reason.

Smart move by Phil, he doesn't want to fuck with little Timmeh.

 

[Topher]

See every announced Zenimax game that is console exclusive? That's the reason people worry. For every example you can provide where a game stayed multi-platform, there are more examples where they did not.

Exactly

 

[PropellerEar]

Well to be fair, some of you have been saying extremely retarded stuff, don't know the process, have spent the past month circle jerking each other, and pretending this thread is your own personal ego stroking playpen.

With all the crying you lot have been doing lately. Surely you're running low on tears by now.

 

[Kilau]

A car is a car!

When they finish typing up the same tired analogy.

 

[MasterCornholio]

See every announced Zenimax game that is console exclusive? That's the reason people worry. For every example you can provide where a game stayed multi-platform, there are more examples where they did not.

Basically. I know Microsoft can do what they want with Bethesda but that's an example of how they will manage multiplatform publishers.

 

[Banjo64]

See every announced Zenimax game that is console exclusive? That's the reason people worry. For every example you can provide where a game stayed multi-platform, there are more examples where they did not.

See Elder Scrolls

Not to mention that everyone is so lazer focussed on Microsoft's CoD deals that they are forgetting about Crash, Spyro, Tony Hawks, Diablo, Overwatch etc. and it's reasonable to expect they'll all be made exclusive alongside any new IP.

 

[splattered]

See every announced Zenimax game that is console exclusive? That's the reason people worry. For every example you can provide where a game stayed multi-platform, there are more examples where they did not.

And? COD is the big concern here, it isn't going anywhere. Play it on your Playstation.

Want to play Starfield? Buy an Xbox or gaming PC.

If i want to play Destiny 3 i'll most likely have to play it on my PS5/6/PC if i have to and i won't be upset about it.

I mean i guess if Sony or Microsoft went hard and locked you out of your favorite gaming series via biometric authentification system or something i guess we could complain but until that day lands we really don't have much to complain about.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Not to mention that everyone is so lazer focussed on Microsoft's CoD deals that they are forgetting about Crash, Spyro, Tony Hawks, Diablo, Overwatch etc. and it's reasonable to expect they'll all be made exclusive alongside any new IP.

Sure sounds like "how one makes the competition smaller."

 

[GHG]

A car is a car!

I come to check this thread, see there's 3 new pages, scroll through hoping to see new info but nope, just the same old arguments being regurgitated over and over again.

 

[splattered]

Sure sounds like "how one makes the competition smaller."

Toys for Bob and Vicarious Visions have been turned into support studios... you're never going to get new games in those series under Activision anyway. Again, people complaining about nothing. Microsoft can afford to reform and hire for COD teams as necessary and let studios that make stuff like Spyro and Tony Hawk go back to actually making the games they want to.

 

[PropellerEar]

Toys for Bob and Vicarious Visions have been turned into support studios... you're never going to get new games in those series under Activision anyway.

Not entirely true.

Crash Team Rumble - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[TheGodfather07]

It's all just a show from Microsoft to the regulators. They don't give a fuck about bringing games to more people. Notice how they are focused on call of duty only. What about all the other ip? What games? Everything else will be exclusive. The only reason cod will stay on PS is because of the regulators. Microsoft have to do it. Not because they want to.

 

[Demon2blades]

And? COD is the big concern here, it isn't going anywhere. Play it on your Playstation.

Want to play Starfield? Buy an Xbox or gaming PC.

If i want to play Destiny 3 i'll most likely have to play it on my PS5/6/PC if i have to and i won't be upset about it.

I mean i guess if Sony or Microsoft went hard and locked you out of your favorite gaming series via biometric authentification system or something i guess we could complain but until that day lands we really don't have much to complain about.

That's bollox about destiny 3 being exclusive it's an mmo it ain't gonna be big if just on playstation and Sony know this.
This is all about gamepass for Sony and they know if cod hits gamepass it's gonna do some damage to playstation and it will be costly to compete with that .
I wonder if Xbox ran without ms's money being pumped in and the kind of setup/game pipeline Sony have would they still be up for gamepass ? I don't think they could afford to .

 

[Topher]

And? COD is the big concern here, it isn't going anywhere. Play it on your Playstation.

Want to play Starfield? Buy an Xbox or gaming PC.

If i want to play Destiny 3 i'll most likely have to play it on my PS5/6/PC if i have to and i won't be upset about it.

I mean i guess if Sony or Microsoft went hard and locked you out of your favorite gaming series via biometric authentification system or something i guess we could complain but until that day lands we really don't have much to complain about.

COD isn't the only "big concern here"? We are talking about gamer concerns, not corporations. And nothing you are describing to me sounds like it is good for gamers. If Destiny is going to be PS console exclusive then why is that a good thing? Same for Starfield, Elder Scrolls or any of the other games mentioned? Answer: it isn't.

But yeah, COD PS gamers have no guarantee that the game will be on PS after 10 years. All this mess we are talking about is the result of consolidation. I'll never understand advocating acquisitions that result in games becoming exclusive that were previously multiplatform.

 

[fred420170]

In the beginning Sony said they cared about Call of Duty and that Microsoft's deal wasn't good enough. And then they said later that NO deal would be good enough. Which is it? Sony are full of shit and they're just trying to throw their weight around to stop Microsoft from acquiring studios period. Not because it's "bad for gamers" but because it's good for Microsoft. Sony shouldn't even be taken into account in this case if they aren't willing to work with Microsoft in good faith and iron out a deal(s) that benefit all parties. Microsoft has never cried and tried to jump in and shit up Sony's acquisitions, even when it's someone like Bungie. Do you see Microsoft flailing around like little babies if Sony announced they were acquiring Namco or Capcom? I really don't ...

Jim Ryan has lost his damn mind over this. He's been saying pretty dumb shit the past few weeks. From I don't GAF about COD to I don't want your deal block it.. No matter which way you slice it playstation is going to come out with a black eye either way.

 

[FUBARx89]

Like you, I believe the deal goes through. I think the CMA is the only power that stands to really block it and I believe they will be swayed in the end by public pressure and whatever reasonable remedies MS can agree to. I don't expect MS to fully comply to those for more than this console generation because they will exploit loopholes.

I'm not sure structural remedies will matter. I can't see MS agreeing to any of those and as I stated above, I do not believe it will come to that. (Of course, these are only my wild guesses as to what will happen)

There is no public pressure though. Didn't most respondents to CMA asking the public come back against the deal?

I'd say we as a country don't really care for the USA type shenanigans MS are pulling of running full paper ads and appealing to the public as we're inherently distrustful of large corporations etc after the shit show known as Brexit.

 

[Aguero9320]

But yeah, COD PS gamers have no guarantee that the game will be on PS after 10 years. All this mess we are talking about is the result of consolidation. I'll never understand advocating acquisitions that result in games becoming exclusive that were previously multiplatform.

Kind of a 'unique to gaming' problem that though isn't it? I can't think of anything similar, but maybe there is…

Personally I'm not sure why a PS gamer exists, or an Xbox gamer. If everything was available on all platforms that would be the nirvana, and we could all just buy one platform based on various considerations - what controller do we prefer? Do we prioritise power over price etc.

I'm not sure any regulator should be protecting that nonsense.

 

[poppabk]

It's all just a show from Microsoft to the regulators. They don't give a fuck about bringing games to more people. Notice how they are focused on call of duty only. What about all the other ip? What games? Everything else will be exclusive. The only reason cod will stay on PS is because of the regulators. Microsoft have to do it. Not because they want to.

MS make some dumb decisions and some evil decisions but they aren't so stupidly evil to give up 100's of millions of dollars in yearly revenue from playstation owners just out of spite.

 

[splattered]

COD isn't the only "big concern here"? We are talking about gamer concerns, not corporations. And nothing you are describing to me sounds like it is good for gamers. If Destiny is going to be PS console exclusive then why is that a good thing? Same for Starfield, Elder Scrolls or any of the other games mentioned? Answer: it isn't.

But yeah, COD PS gamers have no guarantee that the game will be on PS after 10 years. All this mess we are talking about is the result of consolidation. I'll never understand advocating acquisitions that result in games becoming exclusive that were previously multiplatform.

A lot of big Sony games that playstation fans love exist because studios were acquired. It happens. Are you saying Sony should go back and make a big chunk of its studios third party now because they were originally bought once upon a time? Does it really even matter if a dev "has a history" with Sony or Microsoft? They're all games that could have potentially come to other systems if they weren't bought and funded by Sony or Microsoft. That's such a weak argument that people make. I don't WANT Destiny or Doom to be exclusive to any console, but if it happens it happens. And it happens. So I just gotta put on my big boy pants buy the game wherever I have to and move forward with life.

And things are becoming kind of stagnant in the industry so yeah, I'm interested to see what could result from something of this magnitude.

 

[Topher]

Jim Ryan has lost his damn mind over this. He's been saying pretty dumb shit the past few weeks. From I don't GAF about COD to I don't want your deal block it.. No matter which way you slice it playstation is going to come out with a black eye either way.

When did Jim Ryan say he doesn't GAF about COD?

Kind of a 'unique to gaming' problem that though isn't it? I can't think of anything similar, but maybe there is…

Personally I'm not sure why a PS gamer exists, or an Xbox gamer. If everything was available on all platforms that would be the nirvana, and we could all just buy one platform based on various considerations - what controller do we prefer? Do we prioritise power over price etc.

I'm not sure any regulator should be protecting that nonsense.

I'm not saying regulators should be protecting anything. I'm saying what I'm personally against. If the gaming industry were such that I could buy more games and less equipment then I'd say that would be a good thing. Hopefully the move towards PC ports become an every game thing one day.

A lot of big Sony games that playstation fans love exist because studios were acquired. It happens. Are you saying Sony should go back and make a big chunk of its studios third party now because they were originally bought once upon a time? Does it really even matter if a dev "has a history" with Sony or Microsoft? They're all games that could have potentially come to other systems if they weren't bought and funded by Sony or Microsoft. That's such a weak argument that people make. I don't WANT Destiny or Doom to be exclusive to any console, but if it happens it happens. And it happens. So I just gotta put on my big boy pants but the game wherever I have to and move forward with life.

And things are becoming kind of stagnant in the industry so yeah, I'm interested to see what could result from something of this magnitude.

Be real dude. There is nothing to be done about past studios whether it is Naughty Dog, Insomniac or Zenimax. And no, none of this is life-halting.

I can point to something and say it isn't a good thing for gaming without setting myself on fire.