Support NeoGAF

[GHG]

Exactly that.

Woooof, you are setting yourself up for a classic L when Sony requires logins to their PSN network for their Gaas games on Steam or Epic launcher.

Because you know its coming right?

?

If it happens with games that I'm interested in purchasing then I'll complain about that exactly the same way I do with every single PC release that requires some additional form of DRM/login aside from the storefront it's purchased on.

Not sure why you want to make this an Xbox only thing when in fact it's much broader than that. Here is my stance on the issue overall:

After installed you can even launch Ubi games you bought on the Epic store via Uplay, skipping the Epic launcher entirely.

Multi layered DRM really needs to fuck off. Launchers launching launchers is such a ridiculous concept, I have no idea why its even allowed.

And on Sony having a launcher of their own:

Also, you really want Sony to be responsible for building their own storefront/launcher on PC? Do you not remember how awful their Walkman software was? It still makes me shudder to this day.

The only reason this has been brought up in the context of this thread is because it's an example of their hypocrisy when it comes to "player choice". If you want to play any of their games in any way you are funnelled through their ecosystem, even worse with cloud due to the extremely limited single option they enforce there (which is why Nvidia, Google, etc are taking issue with this acquisition).

It's their property so its their right to do with it what they wish, but if this is how it's going to be let's not pretend Xbox is an open platform when it's clearly not and they are more than happy to inconvenience users who don't make purchases directly through them.

Some of you are trying hard with this you "oh you just hate xbox" crap, well bad luck. No, I just happen to hate shitty policies and practices, of which xbox has many, but so many of you are willing to turn a blind eye to it because they've fooled you into thinking they are some sort of humanitarian organisation. As a result of this people want them to have control of some of the most important publishers and properties in the industry. That stance is short sighted at best and ignorant at worst.

 

[gothmog]

Microsoft is open to being open when they control the experience. Other experiences reduce choice because Microsoft does not control it...yet.

 

[SenjutsuSage]

Pure comedic gold.

Going back and reading your dedication to the deal's failure once this is all done and dusted will be the real comedic gold.

 

[quest]

Microsoft is open to being open when they control the experience. Other experiences reduce choice because Microsoft does not control it...yet.

Must of missed were they bought out valve and own steam. They control shit there but still release day 1 on steam.

 

[bentanchorbolt]

 

[Fredrik]

Some of you are trying hard with this you "oh you just hate xbox" crap, well bad luck. No, I just happen to hate shitty policies and practices, of which xbox has many, but so many of you are willing to turn a blind eye to it because they've fooled you into thinking they are some sort of humanitarian organisation. As a result of this people want them to have control of some of the most important publishers and properties in the industry. That stance is short sighted at best and ignorant at worst.

I really just want more games for less money. I’ve accepted that I need all platforms going forward since exclusives are everywhere so I couldn’t care less if exclusives happens or not. All I see if this acquisition goes through is games popping up on the Gamepass library that I don’t need to buy to try out, and if it gets blocked I need to buy them.

The consolidation future will happen no matter what and things could get far worse than a company growing who do day 1 console and PC releases with shared licenses and save syncing.

 

[twilo99]

?

If it happens with games that I'm interested in purchasing then I'll complain about that exactly the same way I do with every single PC release that requires some additional form of DRM/login aside from the storefront it's purchased on.

Not sure why you want to make this an Xbox only thing when in fact it's much broader than that. Here is my stance on the issue overall:

Regardless of right or wrong, you are living in the past with that attitude, but I am sure you are aware of that...

 

[Topher]

Regardless of right or wrong, you are living in the past with that attitude, but I am sure you are aware of that...

No, he isn't. I play games all the time that do not require me to login to anything at all.

 

[bentanchorbolt]

Regardless of right or wrong, you are living in the past with that attitude, but I am sure you are aware of that...

Having to log in to Xbox Live for an Xbox Games Studios game you purchased on Steam seems like the kind of problem you'd complain about when you've run out of things to complain about. At that point its really tough to view a gripe like that as legitimate. Annoying at best.

 

[Topher]

I really just want more games for less money. I’ve accepted that I need all platforms going forward since exclusives are everywhere so I couldn’t care less if exclusives happens or not. All I see if this acquisition goes through is games popping up on the Gamepass library that I don’t need to buy to try out, and if it gets blocked I need to buy them.

The consolidation future will happen no matter what and things could get far worse than a company growing who do day 1 console and PC releases with shared licenses and save syncing.

I can appreciate that point of view because it focuses on what you see this deal will do for you as a gamer rather than what is best for <insert mega-corporation name here>.

 

[SenjutsuSage]

Wonder if they might do a deal now to avoid further embarrassment.

They're basically holding out hope for EC and CMA. They know they have a losing hand. If the EC and CMA both approve the deal then the FTC, to save itself the embarrassment and look like it's getting a win. Or they can gladly continue on and lose another court case if they want.

 

[bentanchorbolt]

They're basically holding out hope for EC and CMA. They know they have a losing hand. If the EC and CMA both approve the deal then the FTC, to save itself the embarrassment and look like it's getting a win. Or they can gladly continue on and lose another court case if they want.

How can you be so sure of this?

 

[Edmund]

People at Resetera seem very confident that the deal will pass soon. Is there something that I missed?

The way they talk reminds me of jocks in school hi fiving each other in the locker room after a sports game.

 

[POKEYCLYDE]

From Idas:

Nvidia is part of the FTC process because ABK served them a subpoena.

They have until February 13th to respond

Didn't expect Nvidia was brought in by anyone other than the FTC.

 

[Topher]

People at Resetera seem very confident that the deal will pass soon. Is there something that I missed?

The way they talk reminds me of jocks in school hi fiving each other in the locker room after a sports game.

Probably reading way too much into the Meta FTC news. I'm fairly certain the deal will pass as well, but if they are going to take Meta/Within as good news in the US then Facebook/Giphy was bad news in the UK.....just because.

 

[POKEYCLYDE]

People at Resetera seem very confident that the deal will pass soon. Is there something that I missed?

The way they talk reminds me of jocks in school hi fiving each other in the locker room after a sports game.

Just the FTC losing it's case against Meta. Nothing new, but any good news will push people to believe that it'll close, while any bad news will push people to believe it's doomed.

I'm sure if we got to read the SO from the EC, there'd be people saying it would be easily remedied and others saying the deal is dead in the water.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Microsoft gave the FTC documents up to 9.5m pages long for the initial period of the FTC investigation and is offering to give it to the lawyers in the gamers case.

Seems they want this draw this out longer to have 9.5m million pages of mostly fluff.

Probably betting on caving through fatigue.

 

[DeepEnigma]

It's going to be a tough year for you isn't it? Xbox is going to crush it with games and close the deal. How will you cope?

Hendrick's got that sassy thot energy going,

 

[reksveks]

Seems they want this draw this out longer to have 9.5m million pages of mostly fluff.

Probably betting on caving through fatigue.

Timeline of the ftc was still agreed to however I do agree that MS are making the FTC and the Gamers lawyers work extra hard.

In other news, some Chinese regulators 'news'.

Chinese game developers said to give positive feedback on Activision/Microsoft

Chinese videogame developers are said to have recently given some positive feedback to China regulators in regard to Microsoft's (MSFT) planned acquisition of Activision...

seekingalpha.com

 

[GHG]

I really just want more games for less money. I’ve accepted that I need all platforms going forward since exclusives are everywhere so I couldn’t care less if exclusives happens or not. All I see if this acquisition goes through is games popping up on the Gamepass library that I don’t need to buy to try out, and if it gets blocked I need to buy them.

The consolidation future will happen no matter what and things could get far worse than a company growing who do day 1 console and PC releases with shared licenses and save syncing.

I addressed stances like the one you describe in the very post you quoted. This is all part of Microsoft's current image where they want to be seen as the "value" option across the industry, that along with several other policies that they've recently adopted all serve to make them appear to be humanitarian in their efforts. You want cheap games, that makes sense, but at what cost (both in the short term and the long term)?

Further consolidation does not need to happen. The only reason ATVI are up for sale is because Kotick saw the writing on the wall and sought to find an out avenue that was on his own terms, resulting in a huge payday for himself and the rest of his leadership team. The great irony is that if this attempted acquisition never came to fruition then he would already be gone - hence anyone saying they approve of this deal because it means ATVI will rid themselves of Kotick is... To be polite, misguided.

The following does not apply to activision but from a big picture perspective, companies who are unable to sustain themselves financially are typically those who have failed to manage themselves appropriately and/or companies who have failed to provide products which have an appropriate level of demand in the market. Those companies typically don't get purchased and this certainly does not describe ATVI. Microsoft are just being opportunistic here.

Having to log in to Xbox Live for an Xbox Games Studios game you purchased on Steam seems like the kind of problem you'd complain about when you've run out of things to complain about. At that point its really tough to view a gripe like that as legitimate. Annoying at best.

Yeh it's a simple inconvenience until its not.

But well done on misinterpreting and misrepresenting my point.

 

[SenjutsuSage]

How can you be so sure of this?

It's common sense they have a weak case. Nintendo doesn't matter? Nintendo is basically not a console for serious gamers? Call of Duty is essential to competition but ignore the fact that Nintendo doesn't have COD at all, but can still outsell both? Yes, ignore that company there. Come on. The FTC has no case. Their case was stronger against Meta, and they still lost. Their argument against Microsoft is really the price tag and it being big bad Microsoft. We all know the cloud streaming games market is nothing and no immediate threat to traditional sales. Windows? Not a serious enough concern because Activision titles only come to Windows PCs anyway. Game Pass? It will basically help expanding the games to many more operating systems. Consumer benefits are obvious and overwhelming. It will extend their games to even more platforms and devices through game pass cloud streaming, and the price is an incredible value. It's literally just a different form of payment for games.

This 2023 is going to further make Microsoft's case about the strength and dynamism of the games market.

 

[NickFire]

Seems they want this draw this out longer to have 9.5m million pages of mostly fluff.

Probably betting on caving through fatigue.

I wouldn't read too much into the amount of docs provided. But I wouldn't completely dismiss your line of thinking on caving through fatigue. It's certainly not an unheard of litigation strategy.

That said, if MS was trying to slow walk anything (which I am NOT saying they are), my guess would be the motivation is far less about winning through fatigue, and more likely buying time to see what other two agencies end up doing. From a risk management stand point, it's vital for MS to know where they stand in each jurisdiction where they want to keep doing business. No matter how much time and money is spent fighting FTC, it's sunk money if they can't win in EU. No matter how much time and money is spent fighting in EU, its sunk money if they can't win in US. And break up fees escalate as time goes by.

On this topic, it would be cool if we had some UK / EU posters who could give some dispassionate observations of how EU and CMA carry themselves. I hope its not a controversial take, but people running US agencies are appointed by someone who needs to get elected. So "looking tough" can sometimes drive the boat more than anything else. But "not losing" can also take the wheel at times. And this is why I suspect the FTC will fight tooth and nail for now, but might back down if EU and CMA clear the deal. Reason is simply that risk for FTC optics goes up once a loss would be egg on their face. Conversely, FTC losing quickly become yesterday's news if their objective was still realized thanks to EU or CMA. So this is why I would love dispassion information about how UK and EU act. Will they refuse to back down to avoid looking less tough than FTC? Or do optics matter less to them?

 

[twilo99]

No, he isn't. I play games all the time that do not require me to login to anything at all.

Good for you, but unless you want to continue to play older games that allow for that, you will have to log into an online account eventually.

 

[Topher]

Good for you, but unless you want to continue to play older games that allow for that, you will have to log into an online account eventually.

What? You said he was "living in the past". Now you are talking about something that might happen eventually?

 

[laynelane]

Yes. I'd rather there's no additional DRM for games I've purchased other than the storefront DRM present on the store I've purchased said game on. It's an additional layer that only ever ends in tears later down the line. This has been proven many times and I'm not alone in this thinking. Go and look at the reviews on steam of any game that requires additional 3rd party DRM and logins.

Steam offer their own DRM, if you're going to sell your games on there then use it. There is zero benefit to the consumer when these additional layers are added. They only exist for control and data collection purposes.

Your TV streaming example doesn't fly, without logging in there is no content. The content does not reside on your TV or streaming device.

Part of the issue, for me, is the contrast in the messaging by MS and the reality. "Play Anywhere" and "Giving more options..." have been used on a regular basis, but what it all boils down to is all these purchases and strategies are designed to drag you into their ecosystem. It's transparently coercive to anyone who actually cares about choice.

 

[reksveks]

On this topic, it would be cool if we had some UK / EU posters who could give some dispassionate observations of how EU and CMA carry themselves. I hope its not a controversial take, but people running US agencies are appointed by someone who needs to get elected. So "looking tough" can sometimes drive the boat more than anything else. But "not losing" can also take the wheel at times. And this is why I suspect the FTC will fight tooth and nail for now, but might back down if EU and CMA clear the deal. Reason is simply that risk for FTC optics goes up once a loss would be egg on their face. Conversely, FTC losing quickly become yesterday's news if their objective was still realized thanks to EU or CMA. So this is why I would love dispassion information about how UK and EU act. Will they refuse to back down to avoid looking less tough than FTC? Or do optics matter less to them?

I am in the UK, but the questions asked via reported articles by the EC have been perfectly sensible and indicates that they are properly looking at this deal otherwise. I don't think you ask questions about proton/wine without have a better or more comprehensive view of the gaming industry. Maybe this is because they seemed to do a good job during the Zenimax deal to learn the basic.

The market definition in CMA phase 1 are reasonable even if I don't know if they stand up to historical precedence but the TOH are okay. The other nice thing about the CMA is their transparency and we should hopefully get more documentation from them re the market participants comments.

Going back to the first paragraph I didn't quote, they could have tried to have pushed back or slowed down the discovery period or the trial. I don't think it's about slowing down the case but its about attrition, I don't know how big the FTC budget and resources are but they are going to be busy especially if they appeal the Meta decision.

 

[feynoob]

R reksveks
What do you think of this?

 

[feynoob]

 

[NickFire]

I am in the UK, but the questions asked via reported articles by the EC have been perfectly sensible and indicates that they are properly looking at this deal otherwise. I don't think you ask questions about proton/wine without have a better or more comprehensive view of the gaming industry. Maybe this is because they seemed to do a good job during the Zenimax deal to learn the basic.

The market definition in CMA phase 1 are reasonable even if I don't know if they stand up to historical precedence but the TOH are okay. The other nice thing about the CMA is their transparency and we should hopefully get more documentation from them re the market participants comments.

Going back to the first paragraph I didn't quote, they could have tried to have pushed back or slowed down the discovery period or the trial. I don't think it's about slowing down the case but its about attrition, I don't know how big the FTC budget and resources are but they are going to be busy especially if they appeal the Meta decision.

If I understand you correctly, I think you're saying they don't really take political optics into account when ruling on these. If that is accurate, then it certainly might benefit MS in the end, both in US and abroad IMO. The most serious threat, again IMO, would be if all 3 regulatory bodies are focused on optics. That would expose MS to the risk of everyone delaying to just run out the clock.

Regarding attrition, I am not dismissing it as part of the strategy at all. But I still feel confident that any slowdown initiated by MS with FTC, would primarily be to (hopefully) get a lay of the land in EU and CMA. It's possible I am wrong, but I think the only way they would not be conducting risk management assessments would be if they truly didn't care about the total financial cost of the deal not passing. Seems unlikely to me, but maybe it shouldn't.

 

[Topher]

R reksveks
What do you think of this?

Isn't going to make much difference for anything in the short term.

 

[reksveks]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/02/01/facebook-meta-app-purchase-ruling/

Little more detail, a couple of glimmers for the FTC there around the market definitions.

R reksveks
What do you think of this?

Kinda irrelevant for this deal, could fuck up the likelihood of bipartisan antitrust bills passing (including bills like the OAMA). That's an annoyance, may have to rely on the EU’s DMA to implement that policy globally.

 

[SenjutsuSage]

You simply can't foreclose this just with Call of Duty, even if it were exclusive to Xbox. And it launched within Call of Duty's launch window. Imagine if it had launched simultaneously on Steam or PC in general? Where would it be? I bet it already be over 15-18 million.

 

[Topher]

You simply can't foreclose this just with Call of Duty, even if it were exclusive to Xbox. And it launched within Call of Duty's launch window. Imagine if it had launched simultaneously on Steam or PC in general? Where would it be? I bet it already be over 15-18 million.

That's a hell of a lot better argument than that Nintendo stuff you were regurgitating.

 

[feynoob]

You simply can't foreclose this just with Call of Duty, even if it were exclusive to Xbox. And it launched within Call of Duty's launch window. Imagine if it had launched simultaneously on Steam or PC in general? Where would it be? I bet it already be over 15-18 million.

Dude, stop it.
You are going crazy like lulu.

 

[demigod]

You simply can't foreclose this just with Call of Duty, even if it were exclusive to Xbox. And it launched within Call of Duty's launch window. Imagine if it had launched simultaneously on Steam or PC in general? Where would it be? I bet it already be over 15-18 million.

We sure can. Different genres and CoD is a YEARLY TITLE.

 

[NickFire]

Isn't going to make much difference for anything in the short term.

http://[URL]https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/02/01/facebook-meta-app-purchase-ruling/

[/URL]

Little more detail, a couple of glimmers for the FTC there around the market definitions.


Kinda irrelevant for this deal, could fuck up the likelihood of bipartisan antitrust bills passing (including bills like the OAMA). That's an annoyance, may have to rely on the EU’s DMA to implement that policy globally.

I don't care where you two stand on this deal and I don't care about your politics either. I just want to commend you both for understanding basic civics, which so few people online seem to do. I figured for sure someone would pick up on that news and claim MS wins or MS loses, even though a minority party committee chair has very little say over either FTC or courts.

 

[feynoob]

We sure can. Different genres and CoD is a YEARLY TITLE.

COD mw2 did like 17m in 10 days. Even vanguard did more than 14m.

 

[DeepEnigma]

You simply can't foreclose this just with Call of Duty, even if it were exclusive to Xbox. And it launched within Call of Duty's launch window. Imagine if it had launched simultaneously on Steam or PC in general? Where would it be? I bet it already be over 15-18 million.

 

[IFireflyl]

R reksveks
What do you think of this?

There's this from Thomas Massie:



I think he agrees that big tech should be scrutinized, but I think he's more likely to give them a pass than Ken Buck would.

 

[GHG]

You simply can't foreclose this just with Call of Duty, even if it were exclusive to Xbox. And it launched within Call of Duty's launch window. Imagine if it had launched simultaneously on Steam or PC in general? Where would it be? I bet it already be over 15-18 million.

Also looks like Xbox is competing just fine to me without ATVI:

https://www.tweaktown.com/news/9015...ng-playstation-but-only-in-one-way/index.html

More Mau than playstation, roughly the same amount as Steam. Blimey.

 

[reksveks]

There's this from Thomas Massie:



I think he agrees that big tech should be scrutinized, but I think he's more likely to give them a pass than Ken Buck would.

I was going to write in my reply to feynoob , both sides hate Big Tech for very different reasons and sometimes it causes very different solutions, some of which are stupid as hell.

 

[bentanchorbolt]

Yeh it's a simple inconvenience until its not.

But well done on misinterpreting and misrepresenting my point.

I'll be 40 month after next, been gaming off and on almost the entire time. Can count on one hand or worst case both with how many times issues like these have affected me. Experiences may very, but in mine this isn't a legit concern., and in the end its okay if we have different stances on this.

 

[Ansphn]

You simply can't foreclose this just with Call of Duty, even if it were exclusive to Xbox. And it launched within Call of Duty's launch window. Imagine if it had launched simultaneously on Steam or PC in general? Where would it be? I bet it already be over 15-18 million.

So since Xbox has 26 studio but unable to create hardware/software selling games, they should be allowed to buy up the industry? What's next? When will it stop? What if even after the deal goes through , the only system sellers from Xbox is Minecraft, and COD? Should they be allowed to buy up EA, Rockstar and Ubisoft too?

I mean Playstation does have system sellers like God of War, Horizon, Spiderman, Ghost of Tsushima, Gran Turismo, The last of Us....

 

[DeepEnigma]

So since Xbox has 26 studio but unable to create hardware/software selling games, they should be allowed to buy up the industry? What's next? When will it stop? What ifeven after the deal goes through , the only system sellers from Xbox is Minecraft, and COD; should they be allowed to buy up EA, Rockstar and Ubisoft too?

I mean Playstation does have system sellers like God of War, Horizon, Spiderman, Ghost of Tsushima, Gran Turismo, The last of Us....

"Yes. Because 'Fuck You' that's why!"

 

[bentanchorbolt]

It's common sense they have a weak case. Nintendo doesn't matter? Nintendo is basically not a console for serious gamers? Call of Duty is essential to competition but ignore the fact that Nintendo doesn't have COD at all, but can still outsell both? Yes, ignore that company there. Come on. The FTC has no case. Their case was stronger against Meta, and they still lost. Their argument against Microsoft is really the price tag and it being big bad Microsoft. We all know the cloud streaming games market is nothing and no immediate threat to traditional sales. Windows? Not a serious enough concern because Activision titles only come to Windows PCs anyway. Game Pass? It will basically help expanding the games to many more operating systems. Consumer benefits are obvious and overwhelming. It will extend their games to even more platforms and devices through game pass cloud streaming, and the price is an incredible value. It's literally just a different form of payment for games.

This 2023 is going to further make Microsoft's case about the strength and dynamism of the games market.

Care to cite any negatives of the deal or is this all good for you?

Also, to play devils advocate here, what additional platforms and devices would these games come to where they currently aren't available? Because ultimately if the deal goes through with no concessions, what is to stop MS from making these games exclusive to Xbox platforms and platforms where their UI or front end is specifically active? What devices that dont have these games will suddenly have these games because of this deal?

 

[bentanchorbolt]

I'm for this deal and I've not said otherwise, but its mighty faithful of so many people to believe that once this deal goes through that suddenly ABK games will rain from the sky and onto platforms where they currently don't exist. It stands to reason that if those other platforms are viable, whatever platforms they are, wouldn't ABK have explored that and released there already? If the end goal is to make money and they aren't legally beholden to any one platform, why is being owned by MS suddenly going to make them even more open than they were before?

It just doesn't make sense to me. It's pretty obvious to anyone that once the deal goes through, like with Bethesda, these games are going to become less inclusive, not more.

 

[feynoob]

Care to cite any negatives of the deal or is this all good for you?

Also, to play devils advocate here, what additional platforms and devices would these games come to where they currently aren't available? Because ultimately if the deal goes through with no concessions, what is to stop MS from making these games exclusive to Xbox platforms and platforms where their UI or front end is specifically active? What devices that dont have these games will suddenly have these games because of this deal?

He has stake on this deal.
Passing this deal means he makes money from the stock.

 

[bentanchorbolt]

He has stake on this deal.
Passing this deal means he makes money from the stock.

Weird. He comes off like a shill but who here does he need to convince for the deal to go through? Sounds more like he's trying to convince himself.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Weird. He comes off like a shill but who here does he need to convince for the deal to go through? Sounds more like he's trying to convince himself.

He has thousand$ of reasons why he wants it to go through.

 

[SenjutsuSage]

We sure can. Different genres and CoD is a YEARLY TITLE.

There is no game genre classification in assessing the competitiveness of the gaming market, especially with all the cross-over of genres we have in the industry. That's an even weaker argument. What's next? Defining markets down to just the games with a similar art and visual style to Hi-Fi Rush? Perhaps a rhythm action game market definition is needed too? How about a super hero category since they're so damn popular. How many other markets can the industry be carved up and dissected into to claim that one party has too strong a share?

COD is yearly and still the large majority of playstation owners don't ever buy or support the game. Its market share yearly is dwarfed by the rest of the games published in the industry. The entirety of Activision Blizzard's games, meaning not just Call of Duty, accounts for less than 10% of the global market of all published games sold, they're whole catalog of sold games is less than 10% of the market in the UK, and it's also less than 10% of the market in Europe. It's also less than 10% of the U.S. market.

We know COD's sales for the year. The 2022 video game market accounted for $56.6 billion in sales according to NPD. https://venturebeat.com/games/u-s-video-game-spending-hit-56-6b-in-2022-down-5-esa/#:~:text=Overall video game sales saw,consoles in December 2022 alone.

Sony had 3 games in the top 10. God of War, Horizon and MLB: The Show 22. COD MW2 surpassed $1 billion in sales in 10 days. Do you want to know what Call of Duty would need to do for the year to have 10% of the U.S. market? $5.66 billion. And to make Sony's case even worse... they're largely complaining about COD on CONSOLES, which will further decrease Call of Duty's market share in the larger scope of things since a shit ton of people play on PC also.

Activision Blizzards entire worldwide 2021 worldwide revenues were at $8.80 billion. That's the entire company worldwide. The global games industry is far, far larger than that figure. We don't have the full 2022 numbers yet, but even then it won't matter because it will still be dwarfed by the numbers worldwide. In no one major territory does Activision Blizzard have market power large enough to consider this deal illegal. And keep in mind Sony is focused on CONSOLES. A chunk of the money I reported also comes from COD mobile and King. This is the uphill climb the FTC has.

Call of Duty may be yearly, but compared to all the videogames sold in the entire industry, even on PC, on all consoles (nintendo included), Call of Duty does not possess the power you want to believe. How do people go from mocking COD as non-important and stale for years to now suddenly saying that no company can live without it even as Microsoft is making a binding commitment not to remove it from Playstation and has held to every contract they've ever signed related to gaming? Ghostwire: Tokyo proves Microsoft will honor a contract. Deathloop is proof Microsoft will honor a contract. Microsoft still supporting major multi-player releases on Playstation is proof they will continue to support major multiplayer communities on Playstation. The case is just too weak, and I think everybody knows this.

Care to cite any negatives of the deal or is this all good for you?

Microsoft making Call of Duty completely exclusive to Xbox despite all the spending and commitment made to the game/franchise by Playstation gamers would be a very bad thing for the industry. It would basically be making all of Sony's fans' commitments to the game and franchise as part of their playstation experience over the years useless. It would be taking away something that's essential for those gamers, and Microsoft has no right to disrupt a multiplayer community as large as Call of Duty is even if it doesn't come anywhere close to meeting the market percentages for a monopoly or market power. It would also be throwing away a shit ton of money. Microsoft can do that with Starfield and Elder Scrolls 6. It would be very stupid with Call of Duty with as much money as it makes.

I think that would be bad outcome in my personal view. Here's the catch, though. It still wouldn't meet the legal definition of what would constitute an illegal monopoly or significant lessening of competition because the numbers don't support that for one franchise, Call of Duty. The numbers don't even support that for ALL of Activision Blizzard & King. Politics would have to get this deal blocked, not the law. Cause the law is clear.