Microsoft-Activision acquisition verdicts have been postponed pending further investigation by the governments of Australia and New Zealand

Azurro

Member
Did you not see the huge list of the studios that Sony bought over the years and do you think if they could they wouldn't have bought Activision Blizzard first? I have Game Pass so I see it as a good thing. Can it get out of control being a bad thing for competition eventually? Maybe. But it's just videogames so I don't take it so seriously.

If Sony's PS6 gets Dreamcasted, another will take it's place. Yawn.

That list is really dishonest. Buying up Bethesda is a huge amount of studios, buying Activision Blizzard is just hilariously more. It's like saying that buying a cow counts the same as buying a farm. It's not correct market behaviour, it's funny how people would normally be against monopolistic behaviour, except with their favourite plastic box.
 
so basically guaranteed?

So if I put 40 grand in....I would get a pay out at 95 dollars?

But for some reason if it did fail and not go through.....I would be stuck with the inevitable drop in share price?

I have never invested. I want to but im scared ...lol

Don't do it if you're not comfortable. The feeling of not losing your money is better than missing out on a supposed "guarantee"

Just ask the guys who yolo'd into twitter because of Musk
 

DavidGzz

Gold Member
That list is really dishonest. Buying up Bethesda is a huge amount of studios, buying Activision Blizzard is just hilariously more. It's like saying that buying a cow counts the same as buying a farm. It's not correct market behaviour, it's funny how people would normally be against monopolistic behaviour, except with their favourite plastic box.

You just explained why you're sad about this in the last sentence. I own both consoles and will own a PS6 as long as they keep releasing amazing games. Sony can't afford the same buys which is the only reason they arent making the same acquisitions. There is nothing I can do about that. Maybe they will eventually block this acquisition and you won't have to worry so much.
 

modiz

Member
You think SteamOS (or even linux) or steaming all together has a player base comparable to Windows?

Even those solutions still have to translate the Windows API calls and in particular the dependency on single OS API DirectX - which was the start of Xbox (direct - X - box) which seems pertinent to this topic.

So, yes you do "touch" Windows in all those situations AFAIK, and for SteamOS I suspect WINE or a successor is in use for most Windows only games. But for popular F2P games like Valorant I believe they are totally Windows only, because of the WinIntel Secure boot initiative (and win11 TPM2.0) requirement that the game requires.
But you don't need to buy or even install Windows in that case. Billions of devices can play Xbox games right now.
Who cares about the API in the background in that case? Which API should they use instead?
It's about letting players choose the platform and that goes beyond Windows PC and an Xbox, right now, and even more so in the future.
 

PaintTinJr

Member
But you don't need to buy or even install Windows in that case. Billions of devices can play Xbox games right now.
Who cares about the API in the background in that case? Which API should they use instead?
It's about letting players choose the platform and that goes beyond Windows PC and an Xbox, right now, and even more so in the future.
The API is the Microsoft weapon of choice and has been in every single thing they've done to be successful over the years, and is normally the weapon of evidence when they are being taken to task by regulators.

/edit
And most of those billions of devices"currently" don't need anything Microsoft is offering to access those same multi-platform games, so they aren't bringing anything to anyone from taking Activision games away, and re-supplying with their APIs.
 
Last edited:

modiz

Member
You haven't "touched windows" on android or ios but the cloud OS that the game is running on is "touching windows".
Yeah, and if you play a game via PSNOW you are "touching" the PS API they use to develop games.
But you don't pay for it, you don't even see it.
Honestly, is this a "big brain" moment? Is Azure a legit argument, only because Sony can't compete with that? Anyway, it is of no use to argue here further, others will decide eventually, no matter how much we argue here.
 

modiz

Member
The API is the Microsoft weapon of choice and has been in every single thing they've done to be successful over the years, and is normally the weapon of evidence when they are being taken to task by regulators.
That API sure worked great for Xbox!
I mean, of course the API is a crucial part because it is their IP. They build it, they invented it. Why would they not use it? Shouldn't companies build their own thing now or what?
 

PaintTinJr

Member
That API sure worked great for Xbox!
I mean, of course the API is a crucial part because it is their IP. They build it, they invented it. Why would they not use it? Shouldn't companies build their own thing now or what?
They initially did a deal to take Opengl for windows before directx existed (hence the inbuilt 1.4 support) and then got a leg up from getting access to opengl implementations, then backed out of the deal. They haven't "created" anything other than a closed API to protect their dominant position over general computing for the world.
 

Three

Member
But you don't need to buy or even install Windows in that case. Billions of devices can play Xbox games right now.
Who cares about the API in the background in that case? Which API should they use instead?
It's about letting players choose the platform and that goes beyond Windows PC and an Xbox, right now, and even more so in the future.
Obviously competition in OS and platforms cares. This would be like saying who cares about the EU antitrust cases that MS was guilty in, you could have just ran WINE for Office!

Yeah, and if you play a game via PSNOW you are "touching" the PS API they use to develop games.
But you don't pay for it, you don't even see it.
Honestly, is this a "big brain" moment? Is Azure a legit argument, only because Sony can't compete with that? Anyway, it is of no use to argue here further, others will decide eventually, no matter how much we argue here.
Sure, except also no. For PS3 games you are probably using IBM server blades running Linux but for others I'm sure you will be using windows in the future, even for 'Ps Now' (you mean premium I'm guessing). Pretty sure that's what the deals were. The difference is that Sony isn't doing a $70B deal to buy a huge publisher but if it were and owned linux/had an OS they would need to make the same commitments.
 
Last edited:

Buggy Loop

Member
Waiting GIF


Will every little impertinent countries hold this goddamn transaction? Who’s next? Vatican City? Barbados?
 

Darsxx82

Member
What's absurd is suggesting the CMA isn't looking at the interest of consumers.

LOL. It is as simple as you just have to point out at what point the CMA mentions the user and the effects on him of a company abusing its dominant position. I remind you that Xbox and Nintendo users are also consumers (although you don't care about them and see them as second rate users with no right to complain) and they have been affected for many years.

I also invite you to tell me where they mention or "concern" about the interests of the workers.... A very important part after scandals of humiliating treatment and job security.

Nothing, they only show concern that Sony will affect their income and their leadership position. That this omission to other third parties more important than the benefits that Sony may lose is not relevant to you, of course, it is not surprising 😉

What's even more absurd is you suggesting that the CMA should be concerned about inflation/exchange rate price increases instead. Do you know what predatory pricing is even? You have no knowledge about competition law.
I have as clarity than you about what inflation is and its effects. The difference is that you are seeing it only from the point of view of your beloved

Unfortunately, what we see in your speech is only a defense of the interests of your beloved company before those of the users of that same company. Inflation and taxes affect everyone. Wanting to make users and consumers bear the burden by favoring a position of dominance is an unfortunate practice. But less unfortunate than, being a user, defending it.
 

Three

Member
LOL. It is as simple as you just have to point out at what point the CMA mentions the user and the effects on him of a company abusing its dominant position. I remind you that Xbox and Nintendo users are also consumers (although you don't care about them and see them as second rate users with no right to complain) and they have been affected for many years.

I also invite you to tell me where they mention or "concern" about the interests of the workers.... A very important part after scandals of humiliating treatment and job security.

Nothing, they only show concern that Sony will affect their income and their leadership position. That this omission to other third parties more important than the benefits that Sony may lose is not relevant to you, of course, it is not surprising 😉


I have as clarity than you about what inflation is and its effects. The difference is that you are seeing it only from the point of view of your beloved

Unfortunately, what we see in your speech is only a defense of the interests of your beloved company before those of the users of that same company. Inflation and taxes affect everyone. Wanting to make users and consumers bear the burden by favoring a position of dominance is an unfortunate practice. But less unfortunate than, being a user, defending it.
Again the fact that you believe the CMA should be looking at ABK workers conditions (as if that can't be resolved without a buyout and is in any way related to the Competition and Mergers Authority) shows me that it's you who has a "beloved" or is it arch-enemy and enjoys deflection of the issue.
 
Last edited:

Drewpee

Banned
Sony doesn't want Call of Duty on Gamepass, it's clear to me that's what the pushback is about.

Spiderman is my favorite Marvel franchise and Final Fantasy is by far my favorite JRPG franchise. Non Sony fanboys can point out the hypocrisy all day long in Jim's statement.
 
Last edited:

modiz

Member
Obviously competition in OS and platforms cares. This would be like saying who cares about the EU antitrust cases that MS was guilty in you could have just ran WINE for Office!
You don't need WINE at all, you can run office in the cloud, like your games, in your browser :⁠-⁠)
 

modiz

Member
They initially did a deal to take Opengl for windows before directx existed (hence the inbuilt 1.4 support) and then got a leg up from getting access to opengl implementations, then backed out of the deal. They haven't "created" anything other than a closed API to protect their dominant position over general computing for the world.
There's way more to DirectX than just the graphics API.
 

Azurro

Member
You just explained why you're sad about this in the last sentence. I own both consoles and will own a PS6 as long as they keep releasing amazing games. Sony can't afford the same buys which is the only reason they arent making the same acquisitions. There is nothing I can do about that. Maybe they will eventually block this acquisition and you won't have to worry so much.

I don't play Call of Duty, this doesn't affect me much. . I have no interest in fanboyism nor telling the other side "nah nah nah". That's childish and misses the broader point. It's still monopolistic behavior and it must be seen from that viewpoint.

Does it worry me? Yes, as I don't want a MS monopoly in the high performance console market.
 

Darsxx82

Member
Again the fact that you believe the CMA should be looking at ABK workers conditions (as if that can't be resolved without a buyout and is in any way related to the Competition and Mergers Authority) shows me that it's you who has a "beloved" or is it arch-enemy and enjoys deflection of the issue.
LOL, I remind you that it was ACT-BLZ that decided to sell it and it was MS that offered the best conditions. With the approval of the shareholders and the celebration of its workers. I have not a single doubt that for you the problem is only that MS is the buyer because of the consequences on you as a PS5 user.

Tell me what other company would be willing to pay 70B and maintain the rights of their workers or even improve them. Tencent? That Activision was sold to pieces and Sony could choose to buy COD IP? Mass layoffs? I have no doubt that Sony (and you) would have preferred that situation 😉

The reality is that the console market is today subject to the dominance of Playstation. The CMA's brief only shows sole and exclusive concern on how it will affect Sony's revenues and its position in the market.
At the moment in which the CMA wants to make believe that XBOX is in the same position is when the arguments abound due to the absurdity of such a statement.
 

DaGwaphics

Member
That's not a valid argument since a stipulation for the Bungie acquisition was they they remain multi-platform. And it was already confirmed that Call of Duty would only stay multi-platform for three years.

That's imaginary BS right there. That was the length of time that MS was willing to offer an upfront guarantee. Nothing more. As has already been discussed, forever contracts don't exist in business, if they did CoD would already be in place for Sony wouldn't it?
 

DForce

Member
Sony doesn't want Call of Duty on Gamepass, it's clear to me that's what the pushback is about.

Spiderman is my favorite Marvel franchise and Final Fantasy is by far my favorite JRPG franchise. Non Sony fanboys can point out the hypocrisy all day long in Jim's statement.
Yet other final fantasy games still have a chance to appear on Xbox and we still don't know the deal with Final Fantasy 16.

Comparing these games to COD is ridiclous.
 

hlm666

Member
So does the whole world need to agree? Does this hold it up completely or can MS close s d sort this shjt later. I guess that's not possible.
I got no idea but it's kinda amusing my country (aus) can't even get these multinationals to pay tax and they care so little they don't even turn up to the hearings. So I suspect if Aus says no MS you can't do this and other countries allow it'll pffft whatever.
 

MikeM

Member
I wonder what the green side would think if Apple bought Sony, EA and Ubisoft and said that all games would be platform exclusive and day 1 one PS Plus.

I mean, EA market cap is about $36billion and Ubisoft at about $5billion, so about half of the AB deal. Maybe buy a few more publishers because thats cool now.
 

Three

Member
You don't need WINE at all, you can run office in the cloud, like your games, in your browser :⁠-⁠)
Yes, not when it lost those antitrust cases though. There was no cloud version. The competition from Google Suite and losing those antitrust cases for vendor-locked office pushed them to stop selling a windows only Office and really moved to cloud based office. Apple and Macbooks thrived due to it too.

In any case you're missing the point I'm making. Say I want to enter the cloud gaming market like Blacknut. I want to offer the popular games on my platform. What can I do? First I need to licence windows from MS for my server blades since there is little choice in that OS space for game support and may be even less after these acquisitions. Next I would need to get the games like CoD or Elder Scrolls or whatever is popular at the time. what if I can't do that because somebody in the space is buying all the popular games like Minecraft, ES, CoD, etc? The CMA want to make sure that game support is not hindered for other OSs and for new entrants to cloud gaming. The people who don't see that just want to turn a blind eye because they are cheerleading for MS.
 
Last edited:

Three

Member
LOL, I remind you that it was ACT-BLZ that decided to sell it and it was MS that offered the best conditions. With the approval of the shareholders and the celebration of its workers. I have not a single doubt that for you the problem is only that MS is the buyer because of the consequences on you as a PS5 user.

Tell me what other company would be willing to pay 70B and maintain the rights of their workers or even improve them. Tencent? That Activision was sold to pieces and Sony could choose to buy COD IP? Mass layoffs? I have no doubt that Sony (and you) would have preferred that situation 😉

The reality is that the console market is today subject to the dominance of Playstation. The CMA's brief only shows sole and exclusive concern on how it will affect Sony's revenues and its position in the market.
At the moment in which the CMA wants to make believe that XBOX is in the same position is when the arguments abound due to the absurdity of such a statement.
The right of the workers has nothing to do with the aquisition or abusing market power. It's ridiculous that you think it is related or mutually exclusive to it. There is nothing stopping MS from making commitments to not abuse market power while improving worker conditions. Just stop it, you're ridiculous.
 
Last edited:

Darsxx82

Member
Of course you could have written it too. I have no doubt 😂😉

Really? Or is it about not having a shortsighted look and taking Good Guy Phil’s words at face value but the actions they make and how much you want to trust a few Trillions $ corporation once they have the cards in their favour? I know GamePass is a good value for some and the idea to have more games for cheap feels good, but that is not the only concern here.
As short-sighted as believing that Sony are some kind of saviors of the console market and the competition when the opposite is true.

I have no need to believe what the big corporations do and don't do... I only judge their actions.

The CMA's writing is full of absurdities that reflect a lack of knowledge of the console market situation. To defend that XBOX is in a situation of equality is absurd. And more absurd as to defend that exclusive COD would reduce the power of other companies to enter the console market. Absurd. What has reduced competition is Sony's quasi-monopoly position.

If XBoX exists it is because of the economic strength of MS because otherwise there would only be Playstation. A separate XBOX from MS would have the same future as the Dreamcast. Xbox cannot access the exclusivity agreements that Sony pays to Third Parties for AAA franchises that are decisive when users choosing a console. If Nintendo exists today it is because it knows how to reinvent itself in the face of this situation of domination by Sony.

That you don't see it makes sense 😉
Oh please, this reads a bit disingenuous, like a post throwing every possible argument at the wall to see what sticks… sure, for the workers.


Yes it does, consumers != just the people looking at GamePass today and wanting more games for the cheap nor people that would love Sony to go third party either ;).

What I have said is to expose the unprecedented nature of the CMA report. That there is no mention of the interests of third parties such as the workers (who have supported and even celebrated the potential purchase) and or of the users. NO MENTION either for better or for worse. The report only indicates "concerns" about the effects on Sony's income and if it would mean losing users. Unheard.

As a user your interest should be in the benefits of the competition. Among others the balance of prices. But of course, I have seen defending Sony for raising the prices of games, services and, even unseen, a 2-year-old console with which they said they were already making profits with its sale. Something that only and exclusively can be done only by Sony for that position of quasi-monopoly and not the rest.

Timed exclusivity vs full unlimited exclusivity just after announcing your were not buying the publisher to restrict access to these games for PS users… sure…

LOL. The way you present it if it is being a demagogue. 🤣

It is not a simple temporary exclusive, NO. They are the purchase of many AAA franchises anda content that have a definite impact on the choice of console among users. Practice that is done from a position of absolute dominance.

From it, users of other consoles are deprived of access to those games (3+ years, its crazy) , being seriously harmed.
MS does not have that option in those agreements. Either they deny them or they must pay 3x what they demand from Sony....
If there are 3 consoles on the market today it is because of the financial power of MS and the "reinvention" of Nintendo.
If for the CMA this situation is not acceptable to highlight, then I do not understand anything.
Anyways…Rumors and speculations of a much smaller overall company doing the same thing as a company convinced and fined multiple times for abusing their dominant market share to gain leverage in other markets… but sure, do not let false equivalences stop you.


Sure, more false equivalences. Just be honest and go with “why should not a rich company use its money to kill off others” it is not like you are driving a train of thought much different than that anyways. Just makes it more fun when not in first place people talk about being pro market competition and all that ;).

The false equivalence is to make believe that because MS has more economic power than SONY it no longer has the right to use that power to compete in a market where I remind you it has been 20 years. It is as ridiculous as Sony already did it at the same time and not believe that if Sony today were a 1 trillion company it would not use its economic power to impose itself.
Your problem here is clearly that you don't like the possibility that PS could stop having the position it has today. And that is exactly why you are not able to see anything reprehensible in the CMA report.😉
 

Clear

Member
Here's a question nobody seems to be asking:

Does anyone believe that under a MS buyout and the terms that will entail, ABK are going to become more successful than ever?
 

adamsapple

Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Here's a question nobody seems to be asking:

Does anyone believe that under a MS buyout and the terms that will entail, ABK are going to become more successful than ever?

Successful we won't know until it happens.

But at the very least everyone (including people at Acti themselves) are *excited* for the new management and leadership.

Pretty much everyone in the gaming industry wants Kotick out, if nothing else.
 
Last edited:

modiz

Member
In any case you're missing the point I'm making. Say I want to enter the cloud gaming market like Blacknut. I want to offer the popular games on my platform. What can I do? First I need to licence windows from MS for my server blades since there is little choice in that OS space for game support and may be even less after these acquisitions. Next I would need to get the games like CoD or Elder Scrolls or whatever is popular at the time. what if I can't do that because somebody in the space is buying all the popular games like Minecraft, ES, CoD, etc? The CMA want to make sure that game support is not hindered for other OSs and for new entrants to cloud gaming. The people who don't see that just want to turn a blind eye because they are cheerleading for MS.
Doesn't Stadia and Luna prove the opposite? Even PSNow? You can get into cloud gaming but it requires money. You don't get all the games? Make new ones, innovate if you don't have that much money. There was and is no platform where you get everything and you surely don't *need* every game, see Nintendo.
 

Clear

Member
Successful we won't know until it happens.

But at the very least everyone (including people at Acti themselves) are *excited* for the new management and leadership.

Pretty much everyone in the gaming industry wants Kotick out, if nothing else.

Yeah but, its an important point of discussion insofar as reduced profitability tends to translate to downsizing and layoffs. Like for example when MS strip-mined Nokia for its patents and IP and left it far reduced from the state in which they acquired it.

Events like this are good reasons for EU regulators to take a long hard look as that was a pretty significant deal within the bloc.
 

Darsxx82

Member
The right of the workers has nothing to do with the aquisition or abusing market power. It's ridiculous that you think it is related or mutually exclusive to it. There is nothing stopping MS from making commitments to not abuse market power while improving worker conditions. Just stop it, you're ridiculous.
LoL, the only one who is being ridiculous here is you besides being disrespectful.

To say that in an acquisition of this size the interest of the workers does not require even two lines in a report that is supposed to decide the suitability or not of said acquisition, it is a gigantic degree of absurdity.

That you believe (or want to believe) that the only thing that the CMA must attend to before accepting or owing the acquisition is whether Sony (the undisputed market leader) can lower its income or lose users and that the basis for this is an accumulation of inaccuracies and ignorance of the real state of the console and video game market... I can only understand that from a single PS5 user speaking from his interest in not losing content on his console... Certainly not from someone who pretend to be rational.
 

Three

Member
Doesn't Stadia and Luna prove the opposite? Even PSNow? You can get into cloud gaming but it requires money. You don't get all the games? Make new ones, innovate if you don't have that much money. There was and is no platform where you get everything and you surely don't *need* every game, see Nintendo.
They prove the oppisite because are Stadia or Luna successful? Weren't people cheerleading the fact Stadia is on its deathbed? And that's two of the richest companies out there trying to compete. Does its library of games or ability to compete match you think?
 

modiz

Member
They prove the oppisite because are Stadia or Luna successful? Weren't people cheerleading the fact Stadia is on its deathbed? And that's two of the richest companies out there trying to compete. Does its library of games or ability to compete match you think?
Wait, isn't PSNow also more popular than xcloud still? Is xcloud that successful? I don't know how much the libraries compare, are they that much worse? Are we arguing about a snail race here?
Also still, both Luna and Stadia entered the market - why they are not successful with it has many reasons but do you think Windows is the main reason for that?
 

Banjo64

cumsessed
Doesn't Stadia and Luna prove the opposite? Even PSNow? You can get into cloud gaming but it requires money.
It’s a combination of every factor.

Microsoft already has a combination of assets that is difficult for other cloud gaming service providers to match. By having a large and well-distributed cloud infrastructure, Microsoft will be able to host games on its servers on preferential terms and reach gamers throughout the world without having to pay a fee to third- party cloud platforms. By having Windows, the OS where the vast majority of PC games are played, Microsoft can stream games from Windows servers without having to pay an expensive Windows licensing fee and may be able to design and test games made for Windows more effectively than rivals. And by having an existing console ecosystem, Microsoft has an existing user base of gamers to which it can promote its cloud gaming services, as well as a range of popular games that it can offer.

33. The Merger would, therefore, bring together the company in a uniquely strong position to offer cloud gaming services with one of the industry’s strongest gaming catalogues. The CMA is concerned that, by leveraging ABK’s content and Microsoft’s wider ecosystem, Microsoft will have an unparalleled advantage over current and potential cloud gaming service providers. This could result in increased concentration in cloud gaming services or the market ‘tipping’ to Microsoft, and ultimately deny consumers the benefits of competition between new and emerging providers vying to succeed in cloud gaming. The CMA recognises that, if Microsoft were to significantly increase its market power in cloud gaming services, this could have knock-on effects on independent game developers and publishers who compete against Microsoft’s own gaming portfolio, and who could be disadvantaged in a number of ways, such as by having to pay higher fees or by being demoted on Microsoft’s gaming ecosystem.

34. The CMA therefore believes the Merger could substantially reduce competition in cloud gaming services.
Page
 

onesvenus

Member
Say I want to enter the cloud gaming market like Blacknut. I want to offer the popular games on my platform. What can I do? First I need to licence windows from MS for my server blades since there is little choice in that OS space for game support and may be even less after these acquisitions.
You can use Proton under Linux distributions and use all the games that the steam deck supports. So it's not true that you need windows, you could get a fair amount of games with Linux + Proton

Next I would need to get the games like CoD or Elder Scrolls or whatever is popular at the time. what if I can't do that because somebody in the space is buying all the popular games like Minecraft, ES, CoD, etc?
What if you can't do that because the market leader buys exclusivity deals on those? Isn't then a problem anymore?
 

Three

Member
LoL, the only one who is being ridiculous here is you besides being disrespectful.

To say that in an acquisition of this size the interest of the workers does not require even two lines in a report that is supposed to decide the suitability or not of said acquisition, it is a gigantic degree of absurdity.

That you believe (or want to believe) that the only thing that the CMA must attend to before accepting or owing the acquisition is whether Sony (the undisputed market leader) can lower its income or lose users and that the basis for this is an accumulation of inaccuracies and ignorance of the real state of the console and video game market... I can only understand that from a single PS5 user speaking from his interest in not losing content on his console... Certainly not from someone who pretend to be rational.
Yes it doesn't require two lines and the fact that you keep bringing it up is ridiculous because again it has nothing to do with competition or merger concerns. The companies merging can improve worker conditions without any concerns for market abuse by putting proposals that could do both.

One can even happen without any merger. It would be like me going to court to dispute a speeding fine and complaining that the court did not write about my family troubles at home. They are not related even though the fine probably doesn't help.
 
Last edited:

Three

Member
Wait, isn't PSNow also more popular than xcloud still? Is xcloud that successful? I don't know how much the libraries compare, are they that much worse? Are we arguing about a snail race here?
Also still, both Luna and Stadia entered the market - why they are not successful with it has many reasons but do you think Windows is the main reason for that?
PSNow was discontinued and rebranded to get users as PS+ premium. I have no idea how many are signed up to premium but I'd imagine it's way less.
 
Top Bottom