akimbo009
Gold Member
No way they launch on Xbox or Nintendo the next Bungie game. There has been no promises to regulators or concessions. What they said in public is about as legally valid as my toilet paper in my toilet.
-
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 / Activision Deal Approval Watch |OT| (MS/ABK close)
- Status
No way they launch on Xbox or Nintendo the next Bungie game. There has been no promises to regulators or concessions. What they said in public is about as legally valid as my toilet paper in my toilet.
Warablo
Member
That they are now owned by Sony and common sense.
You're going to quote some thing about remaining multiplatform. Which just means keeping Destiny updated on rival consoles and future PC releases.
DarkMage619
$MSFT
I think it's funny that MS offers a ten year contract for CoD on Nintendo, Steam and PlayStation and they are called liars yet Bungie makes a quick reference about staying multi-platform and people assume Xbox will get their next new title. Strange times indeed.
phil_t98
#SonyToo
Organic in what way? They have a multiplatform game that’s put on all consoles and pc.
They have a marketing deal with Bungie
Other than that how is it organic?
oldergamer
Member
I don't know why you are only including publishers. They bought dev studios under ps4, secured spiderman as a exclusive license via threats to pull out of the MCU ( forget that? ).
Was insomniac (in house)? I seem to recall them going multiplatform before sony bought them.
Still paid to keep games and or titles from hitting game pass day 1. Paid for third party exclusivity on certain games
Who says one of the biggest software companies in the world cant do both? Stop assuming you know whats going on when u have a lack of information.
oldergamer
Member
It typical of those uninformed
Ass of Can Whooping
Member
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
Because studios =/= multiplatform publishers.
They bought Insomniac, a second-party studio that Sony basically set up and flourish years ago, in 2019, after Microsoft's acquisition spree. Which studios did Sony buy between 2013 and 2018?
Nope. Never happened. We're making up stories now?
Marvel was looking for a platform holder to make AAA Marvel games, because Activision couldn't make those big-budget Spider-Man games and those games failed.
Marvel actually offered Microsoft to have the Marvel license and make Xbox exclusive Marvel games. Phil, in his infinite wisdom, turned down the offer.
Marvel then reached out to Sony to see if they were interested. Sony took up the offer, hooked up Marvel with Insomniac, and they chose to make a Spider-Man game. Here you go:
Xbox Declined Offer To Make Marvel Games, According To Marvel Executive
And now there are two PlayStation-exclusive Spider-Man games with at least one more on the way.
www.gameinformer.com
Nope, never happened. Present your source that Sony exchanged money to prevent a game from going to Gamepass.
Both Sony and Xbox marketing agreements prevent games from going to competitor subscription services. But you're talking about only Sony paying money to prevent titles joining Gamepass. That never happened.
Like High On Life, Ark 2, Tunic, The Medium, The Ascent, The Artful Escape, Slime Rancher 2, Scorn, The Gunk, Stalker 2, etc.?
Both Sony and Microsoft pay third-party companies to prevent games from launching on the other platform. Only Microsoft buys multiplatform publishers and IPs to reduce PlayStation's game library in an attempt to level the playing field.
Pelta88
Member
When people are so invested they start making up narratives to suit their own narrative.
Disney, Sony, and Insomniac are all on record as to how this collaboration came about. Facts which make the above an outright and fully fledged lie. But my question to you is why bother making up this horse shit that detracts from the conversation?
Last edited:
Torrent of Pork
Banned
If they're saying Sony buying one of the biggest GAAS dev teams to bolster something they know jack shit about is 'organic growth' then you know the argument was always BS in the first place. Anyway until I see the contract that says Bungie gets to nope out the moment Sony tells them what to do I've already written off whatever they're next IP is ever coming to Xbox.
feynoob
Member
Everyone has phd in their field here.
feynoob
Member
With Khan, the FTC is unpredictable.
At least MS has a big advantage here, which is khan's lack of court experience. If it was previous FTC administration, MS would have had a big issues by now.
feynoob
Member
Is there a document for that?
What are we talking about here, title 42? If anything the fact that it hasn't been lifted is ideological itself.
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
I think he is possibly referring to this but I'm not sure
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2022/dec/27/us-supreme-court-pandemic-era-immigration-limit-title-42
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
What happened?
feynoob
Member
How is this connected to this case?
Did I miss something?
Yeah, was referring to title 42 and the fact that the Supreme Court is stretching the historical bounds of their power by keeping title 42 in place until the case next year.
feynoob
, just could be interesting in relation to Axon vs FTC
Last edited:
PropellerEar
Member
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
That's what MS wants you to think with their not so clever wording. They do the same shit, as does Nintendo.
It called third party exclusives or timed exclusives. Nothing new.
Last edited:
twilo99
Member
Those really shouldn't exist! It's very confusing.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
lachesis
Member
Not sure if this rumor(?) is indeed true, (or if this linked site is anything trustworthy) - I know it's going thru initial review in Japan, but I find it kind ironic.
US against a US company becoming bigger and siding with a Japanese company
Japan siding with a US company and preventing a possible advantage point for a Japanese company.
It's like a 4d chess going on...?
US against a US company becoming bigger and siding with a Japanese company
Japan siding with a US company and preventing a possible advantage point for a Japanese company.
It's like a 4d chess going on...?
Pelta88
Member
Not sure if this rumor(?) is indeed true, (or if this linked site is anything trustworthy) - I know it's going thru initial review in Japan, but I find it kind ironic.
US against a US company becoming bigger and siding with a Japanese company
Japan siding with a US company and preventing a possible advantage point for a Japanese company.
It's like a 4d chess going on...?
I mean no disrespect but surely you can't be this ignorant?
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
This rumor was flying around but it's not a confirmation, just speculation.
Last edited:
feynoob
Member
It's a misleading title, says as much in the edit
"edit: The article's saying it's unlikely the deal will be blocked, but it's not saying JFTC actually already approved it. Sry about the wording on title"
Last edited:
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
I wrote " This rumor was flying around but it's not a confirmation, just speculation. " under the tweet
Banjo64
cumsessed
You genuinely think a company the size of Marvel/Disney would do a deal under hostile circumstances - or that a company the size of Sony would be stupid enough to engage in such behaviour?
In reality 2 highly successful and profitable companies who have pre-existing ties did a deal to make them both money.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Speculation isn't even a rumor. That is where the silly lines get blurred, and every gamer from Gaf to Twitter act like "rumors" are press releases. Which is a whole other can of noise.I wrote " This rumor was flying around but it's not a confirmation, just speculation. " under the tweet
SenjutsuSage
Banned
Yeah, was referring to title 42 and the fact that the Supreme Court is stretching the historical bounds of their power by keeping title 42 in place until the case next year.
They're 100% ruling against the FTC. It's just a matter of how aggressively will they rule against the FTC. There was a 2018 Supreme Court decision, Lucia vs Securities and Exchange Commission where a constitutional challenge was made on the way the Administrative Law Judges in the SEC's internal proceedings were appointed, and the Supreme Court ruled against the SEC, but they narrowed their ruling to ONLY cases that have not yet been closed. And immediately multiple companies filed suit in federal court to try to get out of the proceedings. That was a 5-4 less partisan court then. It is not a 6-3 court that has since added Justice Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.
Axon is making similar constitutional challenges to the FTC's structure and ALJ process. Microsoft for its own part is also making constitutional challenges to the FTC's structure in its response to the FTC, clearly signaling they're willing to fight longer than some think. Microsoft is challenging the constitutionality of the manner in which commissioners are shielded from the President despite being appointed by the President and wielding so much independent executive power. Microsoft says it violates Article II of the constitution and the separation of powers.
Microsoft is also challenging the fact that the complaint is held in internal administrative proceedings which are then adjudicated by the very same commissioners who brought the complaint in the first place regardless of what the ALJ judge decides. Should the Supreme Court rule any aspect of the FTC's structure unconstitutional in the Axon case, or make clear that district courts do have jurisdiction, which I certainly see them doing, rather than just appeals courts at the very end of the process, Microsoft will be able to immediately file suit in federal district court to have an opportunity to have the FTC's proceedings enjoined entirely on the very constitutional grounds the Supreme Court ruled on.
Important in every single one of the cases before the FTC seems to be the fact that not a single company is arguing about any decision made against them, but just the merit of being put into the proceedings in the first place and the length of time that the process can take. Despite someone defeating the SEC back in 2018, 4 years later they are still entangled with them. I see the Supreme Court taking a very hard line on these types of delay tactics on both the FTC and SEC side of things. And the worst thing Lina Khan could have done is give a partisan 6-3 conservative majority a massive $68.7 billion target with which to focus on like a laser. So the only risk to this deal is if UK and EC rule against Microsoft. If they don't, the FTC simply won't have the ability to stop it no matter what.
Microsoft raising constitutional challenges is a sign they will fight this to 2026-2027 if they must. They're willing to have their case heard in the supreme court. But I don't think it goes that long. If the Supreme Court rules very aggressively and punishes the FTC for delays, the deal is immediately cleared upon the Supreme Court decision. If they simply rule to allow immediate district court jurisdiction, Microsoft sues and likely has their day in court by 2024 and wins, and then they can close with no more having to deal with FTC. They can close even before such an outcome while still engaging in the FTC proceedings, for the record.
Last edited:
lachesis
Member
I'm not too aware of real ins and outs of the legality of this case - so please do forgive me if I do come off as ignorant.
I just thought it's pretty humorous to see the different takes and "spins", given the situation.
Don't worry, noone here knows what the hell they are talking about. You fit right in with the rest of us lol
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Yep, we're all just waiting for the next spicy article or tweet to react 10 more pages to.
feynoob
Member
And that depends on whether I have a good day or bad day.
Pelta88
Member
Believe it or not, Japan VS US has been a theme of some in this thread. Like some global regulatory board is looking at nationalism as opposed to how A&M applies to their regulatory system.
So I had to ask
DarkMage619
$MSFT
Sadly that argument makes more sense than some of the ideas tossed out by the FTC. The idea that Nintendo isn't competing in the gaming industry or Game pass and cloud gaming are completely different markets outside of other gaming markets really makes them look like they know nothing about the industry they are trying to police. The Supreme Court ruling can't come quick enough.Believe it or not, Japan VS US has been a theme of some in this thread. Like some global regulatory board is looking at nationalism as opposed to how A&M applies to their regulatory system.
So I had to ask
3liteDragon
Member
Last edited:
akimbo009
Gold Member
Is this true?
feynoob
Member
Yes. MS turned down marvel games.
https://www.videogameschronicle.com...wn-leading-to-spider-man-on-ps4-exec-reveals/
ChorizoPicozo
Member
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
oldergamer
was active after my reply but just completely vanished from the thread instead of acknowledging he was wrong. That's how you know how dishonest and disingenuous his posts are.Edit:
oldergamer
reached out to me. He was prevented from posting further in this thread. Posting it here for the sake of transparency. We're having a nice chat in DMs. All's good.
Last edited:
ChorizoPicozo
Member
Maybe he went to pee.
bender
What time is it?
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
Phil looks really old and tired in this GIF, man. I hope he is doing okay.Can't lose them all.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked