• 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)

Do you believe the deal will be approved?


  • Total voters
    886
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.

NickFire

Member
Changing Indiana Jones to exclusive really shows their true intent that people wanted to deny and that the case-by-case was BS.
It absolutely does.

IMO, there is no way Disney did not get significant compensation for the lost opportunity on PS. Putting aside potential lost revenue from game sales, they just neutered the chances that the game will increase the value of the general IP. Games can create interest in movies too. It's not a one way street where movies create interest in games anymore.
 

DeepEnigma

Gold Member

boom smile GIF


I haven't seen this much testimonial destruction since the "stepped on a bee" and Rittenhouse cases.
 

GHG

Gold Member


They didn't need permission.

The reality is that from a legal perspective Nivida could have gone scorthed earth on all of the shitstain publishers that decided to revoke the rights of all the gamers who purchased their games, but instead they decided to play fair because they are in it for the long haul (and it's further muddied by the development partnerships they have on a per-game basis).

All they would have had to do is pivot the service into being a "virtual machine" one from a marketing/PR perspective and there would have been fuck all anyone could do.
 

Darsxx82

Member
Changing Indiana Jones to exclusive really shows their true intent that people wanted to deny and that the case-by-case was BS.
It is not incompatible. And that's why Pete Hines himself puts the example of Detahloop and Tokyo that were going to be launched at the same time on PS5 and Xbox but decided that it was more appropriate to sign the exclusivity agreement with SONY.

The FTC's problem is proving with facts and not indications that MS is going to make COD exclusive. It's not a strong test when there are Zenimax games that will keep releasing on PS5 and when the Zenimax purchase was approved without conditions.
 

Varteras

Gold Member
Jesus Christ this is a slaughter right now and one of Microsoft's own is handing the FTC so much ammo in their case. Maybe we're seeing why the FTC was eager to have this case now. Not that the judge will rule in their favor, but this is already a far more damning hearing than I think any of us expected. So many narratives just went out the window.
 

SlimySnake

Flashless at the Golden Globes
Not a fan of the government recently, but I gotta say FTC is doing a damn fine job with this.

Cant believe they had all the receipts and several countries OK'd the deal. Even CMA was like they dont think COD would go exclusive. Like, dude, its all right here. MS is literally lying to your face.

If this deal is blocked thanks to the FTC then we can safely say that the U.S would have effectively saved this industry from a monopoly. Worse, an MS monopoly which if the last ten years of xbox are any indication would've been a fucking disaster.
 

tmlDan

Member
It is not incompatible. And that's why Pete Hines himself puts the example of Detahloop and Tokyo that were going to be launched at the same time on PS5 and Xbox but decided that it was more appropriate to sign the exclusivity agreement with SONY.

The FTC's problem is proving with facts and not indications that MS is going to make COD exclusive. It's not a strong test when there are Zenimax games that will keep releasing on PS5 and when the Zenimax purchase was approved without conditions.
No, incorrect, those deals preceded the contracts with Sony - MS is being accused, not Zenimax. The difference in the Indiana Jones deal is likely they asked Disney to amend it and likely paid them a large sum of money to exclude a platform.

That's why they're using new games as accusatory cases against them because MS had a say and guided them towards exclusivity for all new titles while claiming "case-by-case" when, so far, there is no single case yet that includes a new game that is on PS.
 
Last edited:

DForce

NaughtyDog Defense Force
It is not incompatible. And that's why Pete Hines himself puts the example of Detahloop and Tokyo that were going to be launched at the same time on PS5 and Xbox but decided that it was more appropriate to sign the exclusivity agreement with SONY.

The FTC's problem is proving with facts and not indications that MS is going to make COD exclusive. It's not a strong test when there are Zenimax games that will keep releasing on PS5 and when the Zenimax purchase was approved without conditions.
We know why they made it exclusive, so no need to spin it to make MS look innocent. It's not about reducing workload, it's about making their ecosystem better.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom