Support NeoGAF

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

Imagine cheering against consumer protection.

Why? So that Sony can raise games prices to $80 next generation? It's clear that Sony is the one making a huge deal over nothing here and they are the only ones currently negatively impacting gamers with raising prices and offering less for more.

 

[CatLady]

Luckily the CMA and other regulatory bodies don’t just look at current pricing, but the company’s potential opportunity to increase prices once you are in a walled garden with no serious competitions far in to the future.

You mean like Sony raising game prices? Sony bumping up the prices of their consoles???

 

[Mr Hyde]

Some big dick energy right there.

Based

Badass

How to spot the 12-year olds.

 

[Mr Moose]

You mean like Sony raising game prices? Sony bumping up the prices of their consoles???

No one tell her the price of Call of Duty games.

 

[CatLady]

No one tell her the price of Call of Duty games.

No one tell him the price of Xbox 1st party games.

 

[Mr Moose]

No one tell him the price of Xbox 1st party games.

They will be first party if they get acquired. Prices won't change.

 

[Negotiator101]

It just shows confidence more than anything else, Microsoft have far smarter people than us who have gone through this deal with a fine tooth comb, all this investigating will come to nothing.

 

[Banjo64]

We did, it pretty blatantly states that the CMA is worried about Sony's ability to compete

It doesn’t surprise me that that’s the paragraph you cherry picking out of the full report but yes, they state at the start that MS, Sony and Nintendo are the major 3 console players and have been for 20 years.

For the past twenty years, the same three companies have been the only significant suppliers of console gaming – Microsoft (Xbox), Sony (PlayStation) and Nintendo (Switch being the current generation console), with little or no entry from new rivals. As part of its investigation, the CMA sought to ensure that the Merger would not substantially reduce either current or future potential competition.

Just to help you understand the bolded part, current = Nintendo and Sony, future potential = other companies that may want to venture in to gaming.

Are you really that daft that you think this is a gatcha, that the CMA are worried that this might substantially weaken Sony’s ability to compete? Their remit is to explore this exact scenario

 

[graywolf323]

Why? So that Sony can raise games prices to $80 next generation? It's clear that Sony is the one making a huge deal over nothing here and they are the only ones currently negatively impacting gamers with raising prices and offering less for more.

wtf? they weren’t even the first ones to raise prices, 2k & Activision were + now Ubisoft is doing so as well (and I wouldn’t be surprised if MS does after the AB purchase goes through since they’ll now own one of the publishers that did so)

where did this strange idea that Sony were the first (and apparently only?) to hike prices come from? what world are you all living in? inflation is a legit thing and games hadn’t had a price increase in a decade & a half

is anyone happy that games cost more? no of course not but where was this outrage back in 2005/2006 when Microsoft had Xbox 360 games from 3rd party publishers cost $10 more and then suddenly come 2007 they hiked the price on first party games by another $10 as well with Halo 3?

 

[SportsFan581]

Nah. He's simply tossing a wrench in the works to kick the can down the road. Maybe this will buy Sony another year or two of COD which gives them time for their own multiplayer titles to take off and/or for COD fever to finally die out.

This seems like a pretty basic strategy but console warriors are taking it personally.

This deal either happens or it doesn't by the middle of next year. I don't see how this expected result changed the timelines at all.

 

[Mr Moose]

This deal either happens or it doesn't by the middle of next year. I don't see how this expected result changed the timelines at all.

Because someone said something silly and people thought "yeah seems about right".

https://www.neogaf.com/threads/microsoft-and-activision-blizzard-the-ftc-could-approve-the-acquisition-in-august.1639176/

 

[Infamy v1]

What's funny about all of this is how the talk in all the original threads was about how the deal will go through smoothly without a hitch and that the regulators wouldn't look into this one etc. And now that they are it's flipped to "oh it was going to phase 2 regardless"? Kidding yourselves, every step of the way.

What's funny is how Microsoft themselves gave an expected date all the way out by summer 2023, because they know how this shit works, and how the vast majority of people assume there will be regulatory scrutiny due to the nature of every large acquisition ever, yet someone on an internet forum thinks he has brownie points because a few anonymous people thought the "deal would go smoothly without a hitch."

The irony is that there hasn't been a hiccup yet. Nothing happening is out of the ordinary in terms of how the process goes. But this one person on NeoGaf.com said it wouldn't go to phase two and now it is so hahaha take that!

Yikes.

 

[Kilau]

 

[SportsFan581]

Because someone said something silly and people thought "yeah seems about right".

https://www.neogaf.com/threads/microsoft-and-activision-blizzard-the-ftc-could-approve-the-acquisition-in-august.1639176/

That's talking about the FTC though. The FTC could clear this before the Phase 2 is even complete in the UK.

 

[bitbydeath]

Would Activision still be a good buy if they were forced to spin out COD from the deal?

 

[Abriael_GN]

And this is exactly the response you should give to meaningless little bureaucrats that want to meddle with capitalism.

 

[Mr Moose]

That's talking about the FTC though. The FTC could clear this before the Phase 2 is even complete in the UK.

It's mid-September, it didn't happen. If it happens it'll take as long as it takes, people saying "by the end of August" pulled it out of their butt for the clicks.

 

[SportsFan581]

What's funny is how Microsoft themselves gave an expected date all the way out by summer 2023, because they know how this shit works, and how the vast majority of people assume there will be regulatory scrutiny due to the nature of every large acquisition ever, yet someone on an internet forum thinks he has brownie points because a few anonymous people thought the "deal would go smoothly without a hitch."

The irony is that there hasn't been a hiccup yet. Nothing happening is out of the ordinary in terms of how the process goes. But this one person on NeoGaf.com said it wouldn't go to phase two and now it is so hahaha take that!

Yikes.

IKR. This processes is the expected result. A hitch would be if they had to go the full legal process to force the deal through, example taking on the FTC in a law suit.

 

[Cornbread78]

Monolith Soft going multiplayer when? Bungie?

Bungies a bad comp since Sony & Bungie both said Destiny will remain multiplat

 

[adamsapple]

Just to help you understand the bolded part, current = Nintendo and Sony, future potential = other companies that may want to venture in to gaming.

I hear that, but all this song and dance has already happened once in Brazil already. Nintendo declined to comment, Apple had no issue, Meta was A-Ok, Ubisoft and a bunch of other major third parties had no issue.

Literally Sony is the only one whose complaining here while also pocketing studios and exclusivities on the side. Like, you can't see all of this and not laugh at Sony's hypocrisy and how blatantly obvious CMA is being here in cahoots with their fellow rich influential UK business-man Jim Ryan.

 

[prinz_valium]

Microsoft should just forget about Activision/Blizzard and go for Take-Two. It would be much cheaper and better for them...

No, Microsoft needs mobile knowledge, experience and market.
Activision has that, Take-Two not.

 

[Banjo64]

I hear that, but all this song and dance has already happened once in Brazil already.

Brazil and Saudi Arabia are not serious pro-consumer entities like the UK and EU.

Nintendo declined to comment,

If accurate, that’s the only interesting part of your comment.

Apple had no issue, Meta was A-Ok,

American data harvesters that view you and I with nothing but distain and with dollar signs in their eyes;

Ubisoft and a bunch of other major third parties had no issue.

So companies that aren’t platform holders with their own store fronts that be not make a 30% cut had no issue with it? Ok. And?

Literally Sony is the only one whose complaining here while also pocketing studios and exclusivities on the side.

Because they are the ones who could lose out on hundreds of millions of pounds annually if MS pull CoD from their platform?

Like, you can't see all of this and not laugh at Sony's hypocrisy and how blatantly obvious CMA is being here in cahoots with their fellow rich influential UK business-man Jim Ryan.

You absolute loon.

 

[Hawking Radiation]

Why? So that Sony can raise games prices to $80 next generation? It's clear that Sony is the one making a huge deal over nothing here and they are the only ones currently negatively impacting gamers with raising prices and offering less for more.

Dude everyone will be raising their prices this gen.

Did you honestly expect games to stay at 60 fucking dollars with game development costs increasing with each new gen and inflation.

I said before the gen even started that game prices will be on the increase.

It's going to be fun to revisit posts like yours in future when games are going to be (industry wide) at a new $70 price point.

These corporations are not a charity nor are they your friend. But yeah, Sony raising prices = Bad Sony


IDG: Other publishers are considering raising game prices for PS5 and Xbox Series X

"The last time that next-gen launch software pricing went up was in 2005 and 2006, when it went from $49.99 to $59.99 at the start of the Xbox 360 and PS3 generation," he says.

"During that time, the costs and prices in other affiliated verticals have gone up."

Osaki says that next-gen console game production costs have increased by 200% to 300%, depending on the IP, studio and genre, but the prices have remained at $59.99. Meanwhile, cinema ticket prices have risen 39%, Netflix subscription costs have gone up 100%, and Cable TV packages have risen by 105%.

 

[Sosokrates]

The truth of the matter is gaming companies have been getting exclusive content to provide USP's for there platform since the sega vs Nintendo days, people are only butthurt about it when it effects there platform negatively.

1 or 2 publishers is fine its when they buy like 3 or 5 is when they are basically buying the market. but then again android and apple basically have a monopoly on the smartphone and tablet OS market. Facebook are pretty close to owning social media.
Maybe the gaming industry is ready to be in a higher form of competition, where the ones not strong enough will perish.

 

[SportsFan581]

I hear that, but all this song and dance has already happened once in Brazil already. Nintendo declined to comment, Apple had no issue, Meta was A-Ok, Ubisoft and a bunch of other major third parties had no issue.

Literally Sony is the only one whose complaining here while also pocketing studios and exclusivities on the side. Like, you can't see all of this and not laugh at Sony's hypocrisy and how blatantly obvious CMA is being here in cahoots with their fellow rich influential UK business-man Jim Ryan.

Don't you know the competition regulators can't let a little thing like competition change the pecking order in the slightest, would be unbecoming.

 

[Cyberpunkd]

Imagine cheering against consumer protection.

It is not customer protection. Exclusives are still legal. If you want go buy Xbox and profit.

Let's use another example - do you make an argument you should have a right to put a V6 whatever supercar engine there is in a Peugeot?

 

[Hawking Radiation]

Would Activision still be a good buy if they were forced to spin out COD from the deal?

Of course.

Just look pedigree of IPs under that umbrella.
It's the perfect buy for GamePass.

COD is the icing on the cake.

 

[Banjo64]

It is not customer protection. Exclusives are still legal. If you want go buy Xbox and profit.

Let's use another example - do you make an argument you should have a right to put a V6 whatever supercar engine there is in a Peugeot?

Does me buying a Lamborghini instead of a Peugeot potentially shape an entire market and potentially result in less choices for millions of consumers?

 

[GHG]

What's funny is how Microsoft themselves gave an expected date all the way out by summer 2023, because they know how this shit works, and how the vast majority of people assume there will be regulatory scrutiny due to the nature of every large acquisition ever, yet someone on an internet forum thinks he has brownie points because a few anonymous people thought the "deal would go smoothly without a hitch."

The irony is that there hasn't been a hiccup yet. Nothing happening is out of the ordinary in terms of how the process goes. But this one person on NeoGaf.com said it wouldn't go to phase two and now it is so hahaha take that!

Yikes.

This is how I know you're clueless.

It was Kottick who stated the June 2023 date:

Kotick said the company still expects the deal to go through by the end of Microsoft's fiscal year (June 30, 2023), adding that the acquisition has "already received approvals from a couple of countries" and the process with other regulators is "generally moving along as we expected."

CMA recommends second phase of Microsoft Activision investigation

The Competition and Markets Authority has decided that Microsoft's record-breaking acquisition of Activision Blizzard m…

www.gamesindustry.biz

Microsoft stated "in FY2023":

You should be able to work out when FY2023 starts and ends (hint: we are already in it).

Yikes indeed.

 

[SportsFan581]

Does me buying a Lamborghini instead of a Peugeot potentially shape an entire market and potentially result in less choices for millions of consumers?

Neither does not being able to buy CoD. Ask Nintendo.

 

[SportsFan581]

This is how I know you're clueless.

It was Kottick who stated the June 2023 date:

CMA recommends second phase of Microsoft Activision investigation

The Competition and Markets Authority has decided that Microsoft's record-breaking acquisition of Activision Blizzard m…

www.gamesindustry.biz

Microsoft stated "in FY2023":

You should be able to work out when FY2023 starts and ends (hint: we are already in it).

Yikes indeed.

I'm pretty sure that MS would have had some say in whatever date in the deal triggers that $3b penalty, I think they knew how much time they gave themselves from the start.

 

[Banjo64]

Neither does not being able to buy CoD. Ask Nintendo.

I feel like I am banging my head against a wall here but I will repeat this again;

Splatoon, Apex Legends, Destiny 2 DO NOT make hundreds of millions of dollars annually.

 

[adamsapple]

MS don't have time for CMA's petty bullshit. They have a bigger boss to fight.

Microsoft Reportedly Gearing Up Filing for Planned Activision Blizzard Deal With European Commission

Microsoft is said to be gearing up a European filing for its planned $69 billion Activision-Blizzard mega-deal.

wccftech.com

At least, that's what financial outlet Seeking Alpha now reports based on a Dealreporter item, which, allegedly, cited sources familiar. According to the report, the Microsoft/Activision deal is now moving toward a filing with Europe's antitrust regulator, the European Commission. The exact timing isn't known, but apparently, "the antitrust regulator hasn't singled out major issues after a thorough prenotification."

Microsoft is said to have told Dealreporter that it remains confident that the deal will be finalized in the company's FY2023.

 

[SportsFan581]

I feel like I am banging my head against a wall here but I will repeat this again;

Splatoon, Apex Legends, Destiny 2 DO NOT make hundreds of millions of dollars annually.

I feel like I'm banging my head against the wall here. Gaming is a billion dollar industry many, many times over and Nintendo is a shining example that CoD is not the lynch pin to success in that market. You can literally erase every $ Activision earned off of PS from Sony's bottom line (which would be a huge miscalculation since Sony only got a 30% share) and Sony would still has a thriving business. Activision is less than 10% of the market, not 50 or 60% of it.

 

[zcaa0g]

Don't sell consoles and games there. Lose money, but fuck'em and show them who their daddy is in this realm.

 

[Bo_Hazem]

Anything that cripples, slows-down, or shuts down this deal and give MS a hard time is always a positive.

 

[GHG]

I'm pretty sure that MS would have had some say in whatever date in the deal triggers that $3b penalty, I think they knew how much time they gave themselves from the start.

Well the earliest they would have been able to get the deal done is September regardless because that was the decision date set by some of the regulatory offices that are required to approve the deal.

The 3 billion penalty only applies if they walk away from the deal, not if the date needs to be extended beyond the one Kotick stated.

 

[Roxkis_ii]

This is neither a win or a loss. It's just proof that Jimbo was right and Phil wasnt being honest when he said his intent was to keep CoD on playstation. He was talking in riddles using words like intent that I remember calling out earlier this year, and clearly didnt want to keep CoD on PS forever.

And not that he should. If you are paying $75 billion for something, you should get to do with it as you please, but that simply means exposing yourself to this process which may or may not go your way. I personally think the deal will go through like all these like this eventually go through. These regulatory bodies are just as corrupt as every other govt branch, and they have let bigger companies merge and acquire before.

I don't even think Sony would expect Microsoft to keep COD on PlayStation. If I had to call it, Sony probably aren't fans of call of duty going to gamepass while still being on PlayStation, which would make since to me.

Better for the dispute to be out in the open so it's not a big surprise if Sony say fine, take your ball and go. It would be some painful pr for Sony if they arent able to renew call of duty but at the end of the day, it is what it is.

 

[Hawking Radiation]

I feel like I am banging my head against a wall here but I will repeat this again;

Splatoon, Apex Legends, Destiny 2 DO NOT make hundreds of millions of dollars annually.

You're going to need a CT scan after its all said and done mate. These crazy comparisons will keep coming.

 

[Infamy v1]

This is how I know you're clueless.

It was Kottick who stated the June 2023 date:

http://[URL][URL]https://www.gamesi...d-phase-of-microsoft-activision-investigation

[/URL][/URL]

Microsoft stated "in FY2023":

You should be able to work out when FY2023 starts and ends (hint: we are already in it).

Yikes indeed.

Yikes indeed, talk about desperation.

Microsoft says in FY2023, and Kotick says by the end of FY2023? By the end of, insinuating during but not later than FY2023?

Imagine moving the goalposts so hard that your gotcha ends up backfiring and slapping you in the face.

Try again.

 

[Banjo64]

I feel like I'm banging my head against the wall here. Gaming is a billion dollar industry many, many times over and Nintendo is a shining example that CoD is not the lynch pin to success in that market. You can literally erase every $ Activision earned off of PS from Sony's bottom line (which would be a huge miscalculation since Sony only got a 30% share) and Sony would still has a thriving business. Activision is less than 10% of the market, not 50 or 60% of it.

Nintendo have survived practically
without Rockstar, EA, Ubisoft, CDPR, Bethesda and every other major third party publisher.

So would you be happy for MS to buy them all because Nintendo can survive on their own first party, so by that logic Sony can too?

And importantly, do you think that would be good for the consumer? For any or all of those publishers to be under one umbrella? Where would you draw the line?

 

[SteelCurtain 59]

Because Microsoft with its cloud infrastructure, subscription service, ability to eat costs and potential first party game line up with Activision could prevent any serious competitor from entering the cloud based/subscription market which means NO CHOICES FOR YOU, THE CONSUMER.

Game Pass has existed since 2017, in its current state (first party games Day 1) since 2018. How long are they supposed to wait for a "serious" competitor before they're allowed to move in on the market? Amazon/Apple/Meta/Google/etc. have all had plenty of time to plan a partnership or buy a bunch of studios for a similar service. Playstation and Nintendo have had more than enough time to create their own Game Pass alternative (and both arguably have made their attempt). Is Microsoft supposed to just wait until another major competitor sees the value in streaming/subscription services before they're allowed to do anything? What if that never happens? Microsoft buying Activision isn't ending competition in any sector, as there are still several huge publishers, and even with this purchase Microsoft will be far behind Sony/Tencent in terms of gaming revenue. And if Microsoft follows this up with an attempted purchase of Take Two or EA well then that's different and those will be way more criticized. We can't judge this acquisition based on some uncertain future purchase Microsoft might make.

 

[Orbital2060]

Never had I expected to hear government regulator stan for a videogame.

Bizarro world.

 

[Edgelord79]

I wonder if Phil loses credibility with the MS top brass if this deal ends up failing.

I would think so.

 

[Hawking Radiation]

I don't even think Sony would expect Microsoft to keep COD on PlayStation. If I had to call it, Sony probably aren't fans of call of duty going to gamepass while still being on PlayStation, which would make since to me.

Better for the dispute to be out in the open so it's not a big surprise if Sony say fine, take your ball and go. It would be some painful pr for Sony if they arent able to renew call of duty but at the end of the day, it is what it is.

The thing is though the COD community is HUGE on PlayStation platforms. Remove COD from there and you're losing out on millions of $$ per year in revenue.

Silly example but if there's 70 million strong userbase on PS platforms and you make COD exclusive to GamePass/Xbox, not every one of those 70 million users will all of a sudden rush out to either get a PC or Xbox to continue playing. That requires more investment on their behalf just for the 1 game.

Keep COD on PS and you retain that large userbase and the annual revenue the IP generates. I see in a few years Xbox and PS sitting down and striking some sort of a deal for COD on PS platforms. Either it's going to cost Sony hefty amounts of money to keep the game on their platform OR Sony will be forced to adopt GamePass.

Either way it will be interesting to see what happens here.

 

[SportsFan581]

Nintendo have survived practically
without Rockstar, EA, Ubisoft, CDPR, Bethesda and every other major third party publisher.

So would you be happy for MS to buy them all because Nintendo can survive on their own first party, so by that logic Sony can too?

And importantly, do you think that would be good for the consumer? For any or all of those publishers to be under one umbrella? Where would you draw the line?

Typically the line starts at around 20% and hardlines at about 30%. MS would never get large publisher/developer deals pushed through once they are at that threshold in the gaming software market. They would be forced to nip around the edges or build from within at that point.

 

[Orbital2060]

They know its a slam dunk case if it goes to court.

 

[Banjo64]

Typically the line starts at around 20% and hardlines at about 30%. MS would never get large publisher/developer deals pushed through once they are at that threshold in the gaming software market. They would be forced to nip around the edges or build from within at that point.

So hypothetically MS buy 30% of the entire market, do you think it’s realistic that anyone else would be able to compete with that in the future?

And again, would that be good for the consumer?

 

[MikeM]

And this is exactly the response you should give to meaningless little bureaucrats that want to meddle with capitalism.

I can’t wait for this deal to be either quashed or closed. The fanboyism from both sides is terrible.

 

[SportsFan581]

They know its a slam dunk case if it goes to court.

Well, I don't think anyone would ever say that. These regulatory agencies win more times than they lose, but they aren't unbeatable. FTC loses like a third of the time or something like that.