-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Microsoft: Call of Duty and other popular AB games will continue to be released on PlayStation and Nintendo platforms beyond current agreements
- Thread starter HeisenbergFX4
- Start date
Thirty7ven
Banned
Yayyy I guess call of duty is "good" again lol
Trash, I was so ready for MS to destroy it.
Concern
Member
Same. Modern Warfare was the first cod I enjoyed in a long time too. Warzone was a lot of fun before its current state and also caused me to stop playing
kingfey
Banned
Open platform. You can make your business through windows, and MS wont stop you there.
Unless you are talking about OS part. There are other OS in the world. Its just that, its not friendly user as windows.
kingfey
Banned
Open as in you can make your business on that platform.
I can download 3rd party software's on windows, and i am not forced to use on their apps.
OS wise, its closed.
MisterXDTV
Member
So wait, how do you think Microsoft became a corporation that has a market value of 2.43 TRILLION Dollars??
With Xbox consoles? The same Xbox brand that has finished last in sales since 2001 until today...
Last edited:
I still see it as a slam dunk really. Third place at the end of the day still matters.
Microsoft tries to win over regulators for its massive Activision Blizzard deal | CNN Business
Microsoft is trying to persuade regulators to approve its $68.7 billion acquisition of Activision Blizzard with a series of new app store commitments that it says will put the company “on the right side of history” as policymakers worldwide debate new laws to force competition open in digital...edition.cnn.com
So they're even offering Sony to actually renew their current deal (expiring in 2024) for multiple years
This is still going to get a lot of scrutiny.
It might become the scapegoat case to actually write the laws of future fair competition over contents and services for all the high tech companies.
Microsoft is not dumb, they're not going against their own interests for nothing, they just see these concessions as a fair price to pay compared to the long term reward which they think is going to be a leadership position in services and contents.
Regulators are not dumb either, they know that if a company is offering something is because they see a bigger gain elsewhere and they're going to investigate into the implications as well.
Microsoft just wants to put themselves in a good position proving their good faith.
In any case those people who thought that Microsoft buying Activision was a deal done with no consequences have been proven to be totally wrong.
kingfey
Banned
By selling windows OS.So wait, how do you think Microsoft became a corporation that has a market value of 2.43 TRILLION Dollars??
With Xbox consoles? The same Xbox brand that has finished last in sales since 2001 until today...
I am not gonna argue with you on the OS part. That is Closed 100%.
What I am saying is that windows outside of the OS is an open market. Tons of companies thrive on that system. Its not limited to MS. Even google made a business using that OS.
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Underrated great point here guys!
GHG
Member
Show me a single instance where a company has used a previous unrelated merger as a defence during an FTC M&A investigation and then we can talk.
This isn't some petty disagreement on a forum or a kid whining to it's parents about another sibling getting preferential treatment.
Same goes for you
kingfey
Negotiator101
Member
Playstation will keep COD but you'll pay $80 for it and you'll like it! Us PC and Xbox gamers on the other hand.....
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
I'm not too sure this is correct. And if it is.....it's probably 51% to 49%.
kingfey
Banned
Since you want to fight on this hill, let me ask you a question.Show me a single instance where a company has used a previous unrelated merger as a defence during an FTC M&A investigation and then we can talk.
This isn't some petty disagreement on a forum or a kid whining to it's parents about another sibling getting preferential treatment.
Same goes for you
At what grounds will FTC block MS activision deal, if they let Disney go through before?
GHG
Member
Please educate yourself and watch:
Lina Khan outlines everything pretty clearly throughout that interview.
Last edited:
ChuckeRearmed
Member
Azure and Office (mainly Azure). Big bet on Cloud allowed Microsoft reach this capitalization.
Keep in mind, that all other giants (Amazon partially) heavily rely on mass consumer market. Microsoft was able to reach this market cap purely on business market and servers.
Regarding Windows - Windows is open platform. Access to the sources does not make platform open - it makes it open-source. In Windows you can release whatever you want, open your own business (shop or whatever) and Microsoft won't ask you to pay % for the stuff you are developing. You can use Vulkan, DirectX and whatever. Unlike Apple or Google where you can easily die if you don't use AppStore or Google App Services.
Last edited:
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
because "make them available" or "keep them available" is not the same as Bungie's outright "future games in development will be multiplatform".
One is a set of vague words that is mostly left for interpretation. The other is a solemn commitment about future games in development being created for multiple platforms.
Possibly but I don't know if I would weigh Destiny vs Call of Duty on the same scale TBH.
Ass of Can Whooping
Member
How is "multiplatform" not more vague? There's no mention of any platforms unlike with this post. PS and PC are multiplatform for Jim.
Last edited:
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
If that's the case then this would make Microsoft look something like a simp or cuck IMO. You don't give a little without getting a little back.
Topher
Gold Member
Ass of Can Whooping
Member
Dude....
I think I could get further with the brick wall tbh
Topher
Gold Member
ChiefDada
Gold Member
Pump the breaks because this imo is where things get interesting. Now that CoD is under Xbox and with Sony understanding that their base would be subsidizing a huge chunk of the development of a new CoD if their players pay full price, don't be surprised if they engage in tense war for contract renewal negotiations once existing contracts expire. Instead of the typical 70/30, Sony may feel as though they can demand 60/40 or even 50/50.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Both Bungie and MS's statements are carefully worded speak. One just reads a lot more clearer in its intent to me.
Alright fam, clearly there's an impasse here, half the people are reading the statements one way, half are reading it the other. The only way we'll know for sure is when the currently agreed upon slate of 3 CoD games, which will lapse at the end of 2023, will end.
TheGodfather07
Member
we already know. microsoft couldnt be any more clearer. call of duty is staying multiplatform beyond 2023. even other activision games too because microsoft specifically mentioned that aswell. im thinking the multiplayer service games will stay multiplatform.
Topher
Gold Member
Ass of Can Whooping
Member
Here's a little bit of thought for you so you can get your head around the language they're using
Why didn't they use the word "release" when they were talking about contractual agreements? Part of those contractual agreements are the upcoming COD games, so why didn't they?
Last edited:
Ozzy Onya A2Z
Member
Good for gamers. There is enough pull to win some customers over to Xbox that wish for Gamepass/cross saves with PC etc and day one access without paying $70 a game. PS fans keep good games and we all share crossplay together, hopefully still separating console vs PC at player/party choice too.
kingfey
Banned
All she does is talk about this guideline, and past MS deals with anti trust laws.
First, are the guidelines adequately attentive to the range of business strategies and incentives that might drive acquisitions, be it moat-building or data-aggregation strategies by digital platforms, or roll-up plays by private equity firms? More broadly, how should the guidelines analyze whether a merger may “tend to create a monopoly,” including in its incipiency, or whether there is a “trend toward concentration” in the industry?
Second, do the guidelines adequately assess whether mergers may lessen competition in labor markets, thereby harming workers? Are there factors beyond wages, salaries, and financial compensation that the guidelines should consider when determining anticompetitive effects? And when a merger is expected to generate cost savings through layoffs or reduction of capacity, should the guidelines treat this elimination of jobs or capacity as cognizable “efficiencies”?
Third, are the guidelines unduly limited in their focus on particular types of evidence? Are there certain markets where the guidelines should provide a framework to assess direct evidence of market power? What types of indicia of market power should the guidelines consider? And more generally, what types of evidence should the guidelines consider in evaluating nonprice effects?
These are the points, in which the FTC would look for it.
Point 1: Disney broke that rule. Considering the vast content they have over their competitors.
Point 2: MS would make Activision life much better, compared to them working with activision.
Point 3: Disney have much power now on the theatre, which they can use their authority, due to their recent fox deal.
3 easy points, which MS lawyer can argue about it.
Lognor
Banned
We'll be debating this for another 18+ months.
I don't see it as much different from Starfield though. That's a 20m+ seller right there. It's Xbox exclusive. If Microsoft comes out in the next 12 months and announces it for PS5 everything changes. Until then, I'm taking this as PR talk.
Ass of Can Whooping
Member
"You let him get away with murder so why can't I?"
Is what your argument boils down to.
kingfey
Banned
No, My argument is what the FTC set the precedent for. By allowing this deal, they opened whole can of worm.
Topher
Gold Member
Previously you said this was only going to be about the "existing contracts". You were wrong then, but sure....double down if you want.
No, they didn't. Policies change with new administrations. This isn't "precedent" as in judicial review. Not the same at all.
DaGwaphics
Member
It would probably look worse if Spencer and co. expected Sony to sing Kumbaya with them because of anything related to Activision. If MS releases all of their first-party content on PS while Sony continues to have exclusives, I think that is what would make them look like a simp. I don't really think MS looks bad by securing a lot of content for GP while maintaining the status quo.
Lognor
Banned
But I'm not wrong on "existing contracts." I said Warzone would continue on PS5. What contract applies to that? None. Yet they will continue to release it there since it's free to play. Keep up.
Mr Moose
Member
Ah yes, continue to release something that's already released.
Ass of Can Whooping
Member
My god you cannot be this stupid
Topher
Gold Member
No, you said it would be limited to existing contracts and that is all (I really have to explain that?). Don't pretend you didn't say that. Keep up with your own words.
Last edited:
Coulomb_Barrier
Member
This is the new cope now that COD is not exclusive:
'But we get it for FREE while you have to pay $80'
You know that $15 a month you've missed coming out of your bank account the last 12 months adds up to $180...
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
"Contractual agreement" tells everything you need to know, there's no point in adding any extra qualifiers over it.
I think we're all looking into this a little too much lol.
DaGwaphics
Member
I wold just read it as everything at Activision stays as it is, except we might get some bonus content on GP and MS gets more content for their metaverse. We'll know for sure when games get released after this closes. Hopefully, this will allow some of these studios to be more creative in the future, that would benefit us all.
Last edited:
Lognor
Banned
Warzone 2, Warzone 3, etc. ARe YOU that dumb?
Damn you triggered. What a tool. lol
No, I didn't. I said Warzone and Warzone 2, etc. There are no contracts for Warzone 2. Don't pretend I said stuff I didn't. You're wrong. Deal with it.
Ass of Can Whooping
Member
"Contractual agreement" tells everything you need to know, there's no point in adding any extra qualifiers over it.
I think we're all looking into this a little too much lol.
Not understanding my point
You're trying to claim they're being vague by using "make available" instead of "releasing"
Why are they not using the latter to talk about upcoming COD games?
Mr Moose
Member
Yes, I am the dumb one.
Ass of Can Whooping
Member
You're another one who looked like an absolute clown from the other thread and doubling down in denial
Last edited:
kingfey
Banned
Policies change. We can agree on that part.
But that past incident would be used against FTC, regardless of policy change, as that was a failure from their side. And If one thing I am sure about big techs, They wont let that incident slide.
Topher
Gold Member
Wow....ok. Lie to yourself then.
You are talking nonsense. You need more meditation.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Locked