Support NeoGAF

[Elios83]

Let’s be perfectly clear:

Anyone suggesting Microsoft will exit the UK is a fool. Microsoft will bluster and float the threat, but they won’t do it. The threat exists solely to pressure the powers that be. It’s 100% a bluff.

It's pure nonsense that just exposes the desire to get through things they don't like using money, lobbying and political pressure.
Thus proving why it is important that these huge companies get regulated in first place.

The next big event for this deal will be in July when Microsoft and Activision will have to negotiate an extension or back out.
Only then we'll learn how serious they are without the posturing, which game Kotick will play (and he's now hiding) to try to get even more money from MS and if Microsoft still thinks this deal is worth losing more time and money to pursue.

 

[LordCBH]

It's pure nonsense that just exposes the desire to get through things they don't like using money, lobbying and political pressure.
Thus proving why it is important that these huge companies get regulated in first place.

The next big event for this deal will be in July when Microsoft and Activision will have to negotiate an extension or back out.
Only then we'll learn how serious they are without the posturing, which game Kotick will play (and he's now hiding) to try to get even more money from MS and if Microsoft still thinks this deal is worth losing more time and money to pursue.

Honestly, I think Activision got something far more valuable than money from this deal:

Absolutely no one has talked about their workplace issues at all since it was announced. The $3 billy is a bonus.

 

[L*][*N*K]

I used to think Sony is overreacting with their panic towards this deal, but After seeing those Horizon figures I realized Sony titles will not carry their console far, if Microsoft takes CoD from them they will be in real trouble

 

[MasterCornholio]

I used to think Sony is overreacting with their panic towards this deal, but After seeing those Horizon figures I realized Sony titles will not carry their console far, if Microsoft takes CoD from them they will be in real trouble

8.4 million copies is bad now?

 

[Astray]

Nah. The market has chosen, so MS should not be allowed to reshape and gobble up the industry against consumer's choice with money on the backs of the WinOS/productivity monopoly.

There's a part of this statement that I disagree with.

Microsoft has the right to try and win again, it's a right that both Nintendo and Sony have used in various stages, but I think Microsoft is genuinely afraid of the idea of taking risks on big budget content.

I don't know if it's brain drain, or if the company that made its money on enterprise cannot suddenly acquire the culture of taste, but I genuinely feel like the current Microsoft gaming leadership would simply never be able to launch the likes of Gears or Halo from scratch, they would fuck it up in some way shape or form, and that's the crux of their problem.

They are trying to rectify that by buying up as much IP as possible to force consumer attention to their product, and while that could be a powerful, almost foolproof strategy, it's also unbelievably boring.

They're essentially banking on getting new eyeballs via locking up content we already know to death, I genuinely don't understand what Xbox fan is excited by the notion of Call of Duty #303 being exclusive to Xbox or coming on Gamepass?

Gaming is supposed to be something that awes you, it's supposed to leave you asking for more of experiences that you never knew you wanted prior to that 1st experience..

Whatever it is, it's definitely not whatever half-assed slop Spencer and Nadella want stuff your face with every month.

 

[PropellerEar]

8.4 million copies is bad now?

 

[L*][*N*K]

8.4 million copies is bad now?

Yes, for their flagship series on two most popular consoles of all time I say 8.4 is very bad, if by next year Zelda has sold 8.4 million we will all call it a flop.

 

[LordCBH]

There's a part of this statement that I disagree with.

Microsoft has the right to try and win again, it's a right that both Nintendo and Sony have used in various stages, but I think Microsoft is genuinely afraid of the idea of taking risks on big budget content.

I don't know if it's brain drain, or if the company that made its money on enterprise cannot suddenly acquire the culture of taste, but I genuinely feel like the current Microsoft gaming leadership would simply never be able to launch the likes of Gears or Halo from scratch, they would fuck it up in some way shape or form, and that's the crux of their problem.

They are trying to rectify that by buying up as much IP as possible to force consumer attention to their product, and while that could be a powerful, almost foolproof strategy, it's also unbelievably boring.

They're essentially banking on getting new eyeballs via locking up content we already know to death, I genuinely don't understand what Xbox fan is excited by the notion of Call of Duty #303 being exclusive to Xbox or coming on Gamepass?

Gaming is supposed to be something that awes you, it's supposed to leave you asking for more of experiences that you never knew you wanted prior to that 1st experience..

Whatever it is, it's definitely not whatever half-assed slop Spencer and Nadella want stuff your face with every month.

Just look at microsofts entire business model since the late 90’s. If they aren’t immediately successful, they open the pocket book and buy anything and everything they can. And it usually turns out bad for the things they buy (hello, Nokia)

 

[MasterCornholio]

Also Ragnarok sold over 12 million copies as well.

Look I know losing COD could affect PlayStations bottom line quite a bit but they would still exist. Other 3rd parties sell well plus 1st party titles seem to do fine.

 

[adamsapple]

Not at all. MS had 20+ years to do better. Ask them to do better adamsapple , Not gobble up the industry and make their competition, that consumers have chosen, smaller all because they are failing internally. That mismanagement alone should scare any fans of ABK games and regulators.

This would be valid if MS were the only one using acquisitions to bolster up their line-up, all platform vendors do that, all of them have their set backs as well. ABK's internal mismanagement and the host of workplace ethics and other unrelated lawsuits they're currently undergoing encourages new ownership/leadership more than anything, fans of ABK games and regulators should be happy about it DeepEnigma

I used to think Sony is overreacting with their panic towards this deal, but After seeing those Horizon figures I realized Sony titles will not carry their console far, if Microsoft takes CoD from them they will be in real trouble

They did say they can't exist without CoD. But they wouldn't of lost CoD if this acquisition goes through in any case either, the main thing they would have lost is the year-long exclusivity for various modes PS4/5 get like the last few games.

 

[MasterCornholio]

Yes, for their flagship series on two most popular consoles of all time I say 8.4 is very bad, if by next year Zelda has sold 8.4 million we will all call it a flop.

No its actually pretty good. It's definitely more than a lot of other 1st party titles.

 

[nikolino840]

 

[Ar¢tos]

Not at all. MS had 20+ years to do better. Ask them to do better adamsapple , Not gobble up the industry and make their competition, that consumers have chosen, smaller all because they are failing internally. That mismanagement alone should scare any fans of ABK games and regulators.

That's the problem with the most ardent teet hangers, they never hold their beloved brands/teams/etc accountable.

You are thinking in human time. 20 years is 1/4 of a life, a LOT happens.
But for Xbox, 20 years is like, 4 games, its not enough time for anything, it goes in a blink.

 

[DeepEnigma]

There's a part of this statement that I disagree with.

Microsoft has the right to try and win again, it's a right that both Nintendo and Sony have used in various stages, but I think Microsoft is genuinely afraid of the idea of taking risks on big budget content.

I don't know if it's brain drain, or if the company that made its money on enterprise cannot suddenly acquire the culture of taste, but I genuinely feel like the current Microsoft gaming leadership would simply never be able to launch the likes of Gears or Halo from scratch, they would fuck it up in some way shape or form, and that's the crux of their problem.

They are trying to rectify that by buying up as much IP as possible to force consumer attention to their product, and while that could be a powerful, almost foolproof strategy, it's also unbelievably boring.

They're essentially banking on getting new eyeballs via locking up content we already know to death, I genuinely don't understand what Xbox fan is excited by the notion of Call of Duty #303 being exclusive to Xbox or coming on Gamepass?

Gaming is supposed to be something that awes you, it's supposed to leave you asking for more of experiences that you never knew you wanted prior to that 1st experience..

Whatever it is, it's definitely not whatever half-assed slop Spencer and Nadella want stuff your face with every month.

They do have a right, and the posts below post puts this all in perspective. So, do better MS. Playing takeaway with games you already have is not "doing better" for the consumer. Theirs, and sure as shit not the ones that chose what they felt was doing better.

Gobbling up the largest publishers and most storied IPs is not doing better for the industry or consumers. It is effectively trying to stifle and shrink your competition for your own failures. Especially when the division can't afford such a deal, and relies on the back of the OS monopoly.

They have a plethora of IPs and studios. IPs that have been dormant for well over a decade or more. Dust them off and give them 70b reasons to do better. Hell, you can give them 1/8th of that money to fund fan favorite and fawned after games.

But it's not about providing that, now is it? Why risk when we all seen what their willing to put out now (Redfall)? Why risk when we can destroy competition by gobbling it all up? They need to try when they can (on hold for now) industry changing buy.

100%. And it’s very stupid to use “but the consumers” as a pro to acquisitions when the acquisitions are for studios who already put most of not all their games on Xbox. Microsoft loses nothing by being shot down here, but the consumer stands to lose a lot of the deal gets rammed through.

Microsoft has more studios than Sony.

They should be able to do better.

 

[Sleepwalker]

This would be valid if MS were the only one using acquisitions to bolster up their line-up, all platform vendors do that, all of them have their set backs as well. ABK's internal mismanagement and the host of workplace ethics and other unrelated lawsuits they're currently undergoing encourages new ownership/leadership more than anything, fans of ABK games and regulators should be happy about it DeepEnigma

Yes I'm sure fans of ABK games will be thrilled to be owned by Microsoft considering their stellar track record in the videogame space.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

It is a weird concession regardless of how you try to interpret it.

I could be wrong, but I took it to mean MS has to provide a free license for streaming to both the customer and the store in which the Activision Blizzard game is being purchased. For example, if I chose to purchase COD on the PlayStation store, MS has to give me and Sony a free license to allow me to stream on PlayStation Plus. That still seems like a nightmare.

Also, what are the details? Is this no strings attached? Or, is this like the 10-year deals MS was passing around that MS gets all DLC revenue? What if other stores/services do not want to provide this? I could see some services would not want to allow an account link to Xbox.

It's worded very sloppily and someone else probably already answered your question but, here's basically how it works:

-You as the end customer still have to purchase the game yourself, or...​

​

-If you as the end customer are accessing the game through another subscription service like PS+, Sony (in this example) still has to pay Microsoft a license fee to provide the game in their subscription service, since PS+ as a subscription service is not exclusively limited to cloud streaming for access to the content therein.​

​

-Once you have purchased the game, if you wish to then play it via cloud streaming through, say, PS+ cloud streaming, you as the end customer do not have to pay any additional cost beyond having access to PS+ cloud streaming (meaning you would need to pay for a PS+ subscription. Or, in the case of BYOG cloud providers like Boosteroid, pay their subscription fee).​

​

-If you choose to play the game via cloud streaming through, say, PS+, then Sony does NOT have to pay Microsoft for a cloud streaming license to host streaming of your copy of the purchased game content on their PS+ cloud streaming service. The same applies to Boosteroid, Nintendo, Nvidia, or any other company with a cloud streaming service either independent or as part of a larger subscription service offering.​

Hope this isn't throwing the flow of conversation off too much, it is from several pages back after all. But there might still be confusion over the EC's terms with the behavioral remedies and hopefully this provides some clarity. Although I could be wrong about the part of companies like Sony & Nintendo needing to pay the license fee for ABK games into their subscription services.

I doubt this is incorrect especially in Sony's case since you can then play ABK games natively on their devices via download, BUT if the terms for them getting the games into their services relegates it to just the cloud version, then the license fee would be exempted.

 

[Topher]

That is an interim provision which reminds MS and ABK that they can’t be cute and have the purchased entity pretend to buy the purchaser.

The scenario I am talking about (which you will note I said ‘could take years’) is where they set up a wholly new UK subsidiary that offers MS’ services on unique, UK domestic terms.

It’s unlikely, but entirely possible.

Seriously, stop being such a fanboy. A couple of lawyers at a domestic regulator do not get to determine the entire international strategy of MS, or Sony, or Amazon or anyone outside their borders.

They absolutely do if that corporation wants to continue to operate within the UK.

 

[DeepEnigma]

This would be valid if MS were the only one using acquisitions to bolster up their line-up, all platform vendors do that, all of them have their set backs as well. ABK's internal mismanagement and the host of workplace ethics and other unrelated lawsuits they're currently undergoing encourages new ownership/leadership more than anything, fans of ABK games and regulators should be happy about it DeepEnigma



They did say they can't exist without CoD. But they wouldn't of lost CoD if this acquisition goes through in any case either, the main thing they would have lost is the year-long exclusivity for various modes PS4/5 get like the last few games.

MS have acquired more studios and IPs than anyone in the industry in the past 10 years. Ask them to produce and stop buying and playing takeaway from other platforms, in which we know is the real giddy excitement for the most ardent teet hangers.

 

[L*][*N*K]

No its actually pretty good. It's definitely more than a lot of other 1st party titles.

Which is my point, if 8.4 is better than some of their other titles then they had the right to panic like they did

 

[PropellerEar]

Also Ragnarok sold over 12 million copies as well.

Look I know losing COD could affect PlayStations bottom line quite a bit but they would still exist. Other 3rd parties sell well plus 1st party titles seem to do fine.

Yes, but you went after the bait.

 

[Sanepar]

That’s not protecting consumers. That’s protecting Sony’s share of the consumers.

You’re arguing for less competition.

Sony share of consumers(Biggest one) are what? ETs?

 

[Topher]

 

[MasterCornholio]

Which is my point, if 8.4 is better than some of their other titles then they had the right to panic like they did

I was talking about i general not just Sony 1st party titles. 8.4 million is very good.

Maybe you can prove why Sony believes those numbers are bad. You must have a source if yoy believe it.

 

[IllegalLemon]

Amazing and transparent. They approve so they can investigate and potentially levy fines (free money!) later. EU business per usual.

All at the expense of the consumers and other market competitors. Fines don't prevent them from continuing to operate at what got them the fines. Pushes them to scoop up for more revenue. You create the beast that needs to be fed.

Like I said earlier, EU's currency is in disarray and is literally falling apart. Somehow the EU approving this, so they could levy fines and most probably get free money does not surprise me. EU would do everything(even take bribes), to ensure that their much feeble currency doesn't fall apart. I've been reading some news lately that they've even considering turning the euro into an all-digital currency.

 

[Solidus_T]

Yes, for their flagship series on two most popular consoles of all time I say 8.4 is very bad, if by next year Zelda has sold 8.4 million we will all call it a flop.

I was just about to make a similar comparison. Just look at how ToTK is flying off the shelves. Sure, TLOU is enjoying a groundswell and God or War is a triumph, but Sony still relies on third party support.
This all being said, Nintendo and Sony both release the greatest first party games. Sony's model just relies a little more on third party support.

 

[Edmund]

Also Ragnarok sold over 12 million copies as well.

Look I know losing COD could affect PlayStations bottom line quite a bit but they would still exist. Other 3rd parties sell well plus 1st party titles seem to do fine.

Losing COD would mean that Sony won't have as much budget to invest in high quality AAA games and also will have much less funds to sign exclusive deals. It also means less budget for acquisitions and funding new developers.

Losing COD might not seem like a big deal but it really is.

Nintendo games sell what, 30-40 over million and are much cheaper to make. And Nintendo games are almost always sold at full price. Nintendo makes a fuck ton out of their games.

You compare that with the very expensive big budget games Sony does and the comparatively lower sales that Sony first party games do and how quickly they drop in price, it just shows that Sony really needs COD and can't afford to lose it. That's why Jim is fighting so hard to get the acquisition blocked.

 

[Heisenberg007]

The UK has a population of 70million people, you really think that they'd risk access to that market for the sake of this deal?

 

[IllegalLemon]

AFAIK CMA (and UK Supreme Court) is a non-ministerial governmental department. You know, to stop that happening.

It basically functions as its own court and is entirely independent. Not even regulated or babysitted by the UK government.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Like I said earlier, EU's currency is in disarray and is literally falling apart. Somehow the EU approving this, so they could levy fines and most probably get free money does not surprise me. EU would do everything(even take bribes), to ensure that their much feeble currency doesn't fall apart. I've been reading some news lately that they've even considering turning the euro into an all-digital currency.

All by design. "Conspiracy theorists" go "told ya so brrrrrr"

 

[MasterCornholio]

Losing COD would mean that Sony won't have as much budget to invest in high quality AAA games and also will have much less funds to sign exclusive deals. It also means less budget for acquisitions and funding new developers.

Losing COD might not seem like a big deal but it really is.

Nintendo games sell what, 30-40 over million and are much cheaper to make. And Nintendo games are almost always sold at full price. Nintendo makes a fuck ton out of their games.

You compare that with the very expensive big budget games Sony does and the comparatively lower sales that Sony first party games do and how quickly they drop their price, it just shows that Sony really needs COD and can't afford to lose it. That's why Jim is fighting so hard to get the acquisition blocked.

I can understand that. I just don't believe that over 8 million sold is a bad number.

 

[L*][*N*K]

I was talking about i general not just Sony 1st party titles. 8.4 million is very good.

Maybe you can prove why Sony believes those numbers are bad. You must have a source if yoy believe it.

I don’t, its just my guess, and I better just not say more and go play Zelda or I will earn a vacation

 

[Slikk360]

You are thinking in human time. 20 years is 1/4 of a life, a LOT happens.
But for Xbox, 20 years is like, 4 games, its not enough time for anything, it goes in a blink.

So wth is a 10 year agreement if 20 years is not enough time to do anything. If they been around that long and can't compete.

 

[Edmund]

I can understand that. I just don't believe that over 8 million sold is a bad number.

It's definitely not a bad number but it's not good enough.

 

[DForce]

Yes, for their flagship series on two most popular consoles of all time I say 8.4 is very bad, if by next year Zelda has sold 8.4 million we will all call it a flop.

Elden Ring sold 20 million on 5 platforms
Resident Evil 8 sold over 7 million back in January on 5 platforms.


These games flopped based on your terrible logic. lol

 

[Elios83]

Honestly, I think Activision got something far more valuable than money from this deal:

Absolutely no one has talked about their workplace issues at all since it was announced. The $3 billy is a bonus.

He was able to bide time to ride out of the scandals and put COD back on a growth track.
Now that he doesn't need the golden parachute anymore we'll soon see his real face when they'll try to negotiate an extension to this deal.
For the risks involved to continue to go ahead with this he's going to ask 105$ per share instead of 95$ and the breakup fee will go even higher.
If Microsoft doesn't like that he will cash on the 3 billions, he will make all the deals he can't do right now covering his back for years and he will try to sell to other companies with less antitrust complications. We already know that he would like Meta to be the alternative to Microsoft.

 

[MasterCornholio]

I don’t, its just my guess, and I better just not say more and go play Zelda or I will earn a vacation

Guess based on what? That Sony isn't happy when one of their games sell over 8 million copies? It really doesn't seem like a bad number to me.

As for earning a vacation we'll that's up to you. Just don't go claiming things when you really don't have any proof though. If Sony is not satisfied with those numbers you need to provide a source.

 

[MasterCornholio]

It's definitely not a bad number but it's not good enough.

Good enough for what? Not every 1st party title needs to sell like Spiderman did to be successful. Usually its a lot less than that.

 

[ShadowkillXNA]

There's a part of this statement that I disagree with.

Microsoft has the right to try and win again, it's a right that both Nintendo and Sony have used in various stages, but I think Microsoft is genuinely afraid of the idea of taking risks on big budget content.

I don't know if it's brain drain, or if the company that made its money on enterprise cannot suddenly acquire the culture of taste, but I genuinely feel like the current Microsoft gaming leadership would simply never be able to launch the likes of Gears or Halo from scratch, they would fuck it up in some way shape or form, and that's the crux of their problem.

It's telling that Gears was developed by epic, not microsoft, and that halo was well into development by bungie when microsoft acquired them.

 

[Ar¢tos]

So wth is a 10 year agreement if 20 years is not enough time to do anything. If they been around that long and can't compete.

We all know that those 10 year deals were just for show for the regulators.

 

[Edmund]

We all know that those 10 year deals were just for show for the regulators.

It's just unfortunate the dumb fucks at EU believed Microsoft.


Anyway, has any corporation/megacorp fought so hard like MS to get a merger done?

I don't think there's any in history that's pulling out all the stops and behaving in such an aggressive manner like MS is doing right now. Lobbying, bribing, astroturfing, threatening a whole country etc.

It's fucking disgusting.

I'm a Sony fan but if Sony starts doing bribery, threatening countries over a merger etc. I'd fucking throw my Ps5 out the window in disgust and just play on pc.

 

[DeepEnigma]

It's just unfortunate the dumb fucks at EU believed Microsoft.


Anyway, has any corporation/megacorp fought so hard like MS to get a merger done?

I don't think there's any in history that's pulling out all the stops and behaving in such an aggressive manner like MS is doing right now. Lobbying, bribing, astroturfing, threatening a whole country etc.

It's fucking disgusting.

"believed"

 

[xHunter]

If we would live in that alternate reality where Microsoft actually leaves the UK, wouldnt they also have to move their UK based studios to another location including the developers and their families?

 

[ShadowkillXNA]

It's definitely not a bad number but it's not good enough.

That's not up to you to decide.

 

[Ar¢tos]

It's just unfortunate the dumb fucks at EU believed Microsoft.


Anyway, has any corporation/megacorp fought so hard like MS to get a merger done?

I don't think there's any in history that's pulling out all the stops and behaving in such an aggressive manner like MS is doing right now. Lobbying, bribing, astroturfing, threatening a whole country etc.

It's fucking disgusting.

It's their only chance. They won't be able to acquire any big publisher after this, regardless of it going through or not. Every eye is on them on acquisitions from now on.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

He was able to bide time to ride out of the scandals and put COD back on a growth track.
Now that he doesn't need the golden parachute anymore we'll soon see his real face when they'll try to negotiate an extension to this deal.
For the risks involved to continue to go ahead with this he's going to ask 105$ per share instead of 95$ and the breakup fee will go even higher.
If Microsoft doesn't like that he will cash on the 3 billions, he will make all the deals he can't do right now covering his back for years and he will try to sell to other companies with less antitrust complications. We already know that he would like Meta to be the alternative to Microsoft.

Bobby Kotick didn't get this far by not being a cunning business man. He'll try to take MS for a hell of a ride to keep this sham going even though he knows it's ogre. I legit wonder why MS is still publicly fighting this, they should have learned from US DoJ back in the 1990's that even they are not above sovereign governments of nation states. This is not Deus Ex (yet) and corporations are not more powerful than governments (yet).

 

[Pelta88]

8.4 million copies is bad now?

In 1 year and 3 months, no less

We all know that those 10 year deals were just for show for the regulators.

Microsoft: Oh there's 5 of you on this no a service? Take this 10 year deal
Satya:

 

[Edmund]

That's not up to you to decide.

In case you misunderstood, I'm a Sony fan. And as a Sony fan I want their games to sell gangbusters.

And I was speaking on the assumption that Sony loses COD in the future. Their first party games gotta sell even more if that happens.

 

[Clear]

Has anyone ever heard of the EGDF before today?

 

[DeepEnigma]

Has anyone ever heard of the EGDF before today?

Sounds like a space fleet. Imagine the smells on those vessels.

 

[DForce]