bentanchorbolt
Banned
To be fair, prior to Sony buying either studio, there were good and long standing relationships with both studios, who until then were mainly viewed as second party studios.
-
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
.
Power to influence the movements and release decisions of third parties in the market that depend on their sales on Playstation.
And now imagine a situation where Xbox disappeared and only Playstation remained......
Make believe that PlayStation, the market leader, does not exercise control or use its position of dominance to its advantage is simply not wanting to acknowledge the evidence.
Last edited:
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Still with the disingenuous bad faith arguments comparing dev studios to the largest third party publishers of all time.
Ok.
Nobody complained when MS bought developers that were "2nd party." Just stop the lack of context and nuance already, it's embarrassing.
Ok.
Nobody complained when MS bought developers that were "2nd party." Just stop the lack of context and nuance already, it's embarrassing.
HeisenbergFX4
Gold Member
As far as cross play goes there was a time in the 360 days when Xbox said no thanks because they couldn't control the quality or the players experiences of other consoles
SneakersSO
Member
If the deal closes, I really do not anticipate much of a material difference will impact either the current market composition or the industry at large.
Folks who think this will be the silver bullet MS needs to regain HW marketshare in their strongest territories are in for a massively rude awakening when that doesn't even come close to happening.
What will happen is MS will get a massive revenue injection, something they are in desperate need of right now given the current trajectory of their fiscal results contrasted against what they forecast internally where they would be by now.
Will this increase GP adoption in the PC marketplace? Sure; the most obvious vertical integrations that will occur as a result of this deal will be GamePass being added to Battle.Net, and all of these games transitioning over from their current Cloud solutions to Azure. It'll be a decent bump for GP potentially, but an absolutely massive bump for Azure. As far as these vertical integrations are concerned, it just means that Azure will continue to gain in its marketshare war against AWS, and MS gets another marketplace they can expand GP users with that doesn't involve them having to put GP on rival platform holders (Valve/Nintendo/Sony) with terms that are beneficial towards the platform holders.
MS' goal is to make GP so big that their bargaining position is highly favorable when negotiating with Sony/Valve/Nintendo. Long-term, MS is acutely aware that there is no scenario in which their software or services continue to grow without them expanding out of the Xbox HW ecosystem. The fact that Spencer and others have admitted that they have approached Sony/Valve/Nintendo for GP inclusion on their platforms should tell you as much. Obviously, however, MS has no desire to have to pay out a 30% cut to these platform holders for in-game purchases for games played via game pass (something that the other sub services like EA Play or Ubisoft's thing do pay out), or giving a scaling % rate on users who utilize the service on said platform (something EA and Ubisoft both do as well).
MS would rather just be on the platforms and have as large as a cut they possibly can. And the only way they get that is to make GP as large and ubiquitous as possible in order to give them the maximum leverage while bargaining with these platform holders. As far as they see it, they are willing to take loads of short-term losses, even massive ones, if it means they can have that leverage in perpetuity.
This all being said, I think MS is massively underestimating how much Sony stands to win coming out of this fight over ATVI. Sony were already in top position in the console market and were a growing PC publisher as well. Prior to this deal, there would have always been questions surrounding Sony making any acquisition bigger than the ones they already have, but if the deal goes through, Sony is gonna get free reign to make some incredibly big moves, potentially. There is not a single argument that can be made against Sony making some future acquisition in front of these different regulators if they all agreed to approve what is ultimately one of the largest buyouts in corporate history. This is precisely why Sony chose to do this fight here and now - the fight itself puts Sony in a win/win situation. If the deal goes through, Sony has the opportunity to make some really big and impactful acquisitions, even moreso than ATVI, who imo is massively overvalued. And if Sony manages to somehow block the deal, then consolidation between the big industry players gets put to a halt almost immediately, which bakes in Sony's market position.
I would have thought they'd say no because the PS3 still had free online, and it would have been bad business when people learned it was cheaper to play on PS3.
HeisenbergFX4
Gold Member
May have been the real reason but they stated publicly the other
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
Last edited:
Hendrick's
If only my penis was as big as my GamerScore!
Isn't that exactly what they are doing with Final Fantasy and their Game Pass clause?
Yep it's not like Sony can tell Capcom to stop releasing games on Xbox or else they won't be allowed to release games on PlayStation.
No you are not, the publisher in question decides that.
X-Wing
Member
I don't know why decades of existence of both companies are left out of your argument... Microsoft's existence, and empire, lays all on the fact that Bill Gates bought DOS for cheap from a student and sold it for a lot of money to IBM, subsequently stabbed IBM in the back and went to sell the OS to IBM's rivals. From there on the company's success was built on mergers and screwing over their rivals. They entered the console business because they thought this was an opportunity to expand the Windows monopoly beyond the PC.
Sony exists since the 40's and made it's success by innovating in electronic hardware. They entered the gaming industry as a platform holder after being fucked over by Nintendo and have been successful since then. Their success entering the market relied on releasing affordable hardware in comparison to the competition and being smart in locking some exclusives in their platform like Final Fantasy VII.
Both companies achieved success in really different ways, and I'm sorry but I do think that actually innovating and growing as a company because you innovate is a lot more respectable than growing by exploiting your dominant position on a market.
solidus12
Member
bentanchorbolt
Banned
Your assessment of both companies very obviously favors one over the other.
List of acquisitions by Sony - Wikipedia
Sony has also expanded into other markets in the same manner as Microsoft. Movies, music, anime, for example.
Last edited:
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
That's not the equivalent of controlling a market.
Xbox denied High on Life, Crossfire, Scorn, Gunk, Ark 2, Stalker 2, etc. from another platform (PlayStation). Does that mean Xbox controls the gaming market?
That would be so if we believe that the publisher decides freely and without any influence. That is not what happens.
The choice of the publisher is influenced by the market situation. And the market leader exerts major influence on the publishers and this is reflected in the conditions of the agreements and in the capacity to carry them out.
Last edited:
DeaDPo0L84
Member
Your point would be valid if Sony today were to attempt to buy them after all the success they've had. So it is indeed entirely different to Microsoft attempting to buy Bethesda who have in the past decade had multiple highly successful multiplatform games and suddenly being like "yea we'd like to make that exclusive to our platform".
feynoob
Banned
aggregate sites.
They usually copy other website materials and use them to link to their websites using bots.
Topher
Gold Member
"I checked with Microsoft to be sure Rodberg wasn't maybe just mis-hearing them. Maybe Microsoft wanted to break the barrier too? Here's a Microsoft spokesperson saying "no," while promoting how awesome the Xbox 360's online service is: "Xbox Live delivers the best entertainment experience unmatched by anyone else, with 35 million actively engaged members. We have a high level of expectation for our game developers to ensure that all Live experiences remain top notch. Because we can't guarantee this level of quality, or control the player experience on other consoles or gaming networks, we currently do not open our network to games that allow this cross-over capability.""
I Saw the PlayStation 3 Wired to Play Against an Xbox 360, but You Won't
I'm supposed to be telling you about a new video game called Defiance, but... I have to tell you something else: I saw one guy controlling the game on an Xbox 360. Another was playing in on a PlayStation 3
kotaku.com
Banjo64
cumsessed
That’s because they had control of the video game market.
feynoob
Banned
In other words "Sorry your service is shit, and I dont want my service to be tainted by that shit".
Its funny quote.
Topher
Gold Member
It was bullshit. 360 was in a superior position overall and cross play would have been more helpful to PS3 than it would be to 360. Not as stupid as Jim Ryan's nonsense about "children", but still silly reasoning.
LOL...No, what this Game list reflects is that XBox controls to a much lesser extent than Playstation.
The type of agreements is not the same (especially in extension of time), nor the importance of the IPs nor in the quantity. I find it funny when you name the XBOX agreements and you only name AA or indi games most with exclusivity periods of 3-6 months.
FFR, FFXVI, Forspoken, SilentHill, SW, etc. are agreements (and you must recognize cleary) on another level and out of the reach of MS due to the market situation itself.
That PlayStation has the opportunity to reach this type of agreement is influenced and as a consequence of its position as market leader. That position clearly gives it a high degree of control of the market.
Logically Sony does not have the control or power to buy everything or pay to prevent MS from reaching some agreements especially those that are clear have no negative effects on PS5 sales.
Last edited:
DarkMage619
$MSFT
It's like you took a video of me explaining to you Sony's tremendous influence over the games' industry. Hopefully you'll figure it out one day. Sony will be just fine after this acquisition I promise.
When you are the market leader with the biggest install base you are dictating terms on how games work across the board. There is no way Sony could demand cuts from other platforms MTX if they had the install base of Xbox for instance.
Also I disagree that cross play only helps Xbox. It's helps everyone playing the cross play title because no matter how big the PlayStation base is, it's not bigger than all platforms combined. More people playing benefits gamers as a whole not just Xbox.
100% agree. People are trying to have a semantic argument about the word 'control'. It simply means Sony has the ability to dictate to 3rd parties when or if a game will hit other platforms or if cross play will even be a thing. They have a much easier time doing these things than MS ever could.
I will concede one point to the limits of Sony's market control. They could not force MS to keep supporting Minecraft on PlayStation if they didn't change their cross play policy so it seems like even Sony has limits to their influence so touche on that point.
Banjo64
cumsessed
No, it’s like you can’t even read.
DarkMage619
$MSFT
The publisher absolutely does decide freely.
Having a product, through competition, that is attractive to publishers is not controlling the publisher. The market situation influencing a publisher is not the same as controlling a publisher. The publisher decides to do what they want, the product being more attractive has nothing to do with that. If the platform holder uses a market situation to force that publisher that's different. For example requiring a publisher not to release on a competing platform if they want to release on theirs. That would be considered controlling.
If your girlfriend decides to run off with Justin Timberlake doesn't mean Justin Timberlake is controlling your girlfriend even if his money and looks influences your girlfriend. If Justin Timerlake is saying be my girlfriend otherwise i will make you homeless, that's control. Influencing/being attractive to and controlling are not the same thing obviously.
Last edited:
MasterCornholio
Member
Nope. Like you said third parties are the ones to enter into agreement with Sony or Microsoft. It's not like Sony or Microsoft is forcing them to make those deals. Now if they owned those developers that would be a different story.
Ozzy Onya A2Z
Member
The denial from the usual posters is heading to a glorious meltdown when this deal goes through. I'm all for it, I consider GAF gold my sub for this entertainment.
freefornow
Gold Member
Last edited:
feynoob
Banned
Old CMA and China info Idas(this is from equity report, and needs a sub)
This one is from December 14th 2022:
https://www.equityreport.co.uk/microsofts-proposed-commitments-unlikely-to-appease-the-cma/
The sources are two UK antitrust lawyers following the case for their clients.
- One of the lawyers says that he was aware that the CMA "had received a significant number of complaints", although he could not confirm the names of the companies involved.
- Both lawyers thought that the agreements with Nintendo and Steam for COD wouldn't be enough for the CMA because historically the CMA has not been supportive of behavioural remedies.
- One of the lawyers thought that there was a chance "higher than 50%" of the deal being blocked by the CMA. He also said that the EC and CMA had been most likely cooperating and that whatever happens the decision would be similar.
- Both lawyers thought that MS could appease regulators by agreeing to licensing ABK's games on FRAND terms (Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory), but that such an agreement would be commercially unattractive for MS and it's difficult to monitor.
This one is from December 7th 2022:
https://www.equityreport.co.uk/micr...rdles-in-china-chinese-antitrust-lawyers-say/
The sources are two Chinese antitrust partners advising local and international gaming companies.
- Both thought that the deal would not raise significant concerns in China.
- MS has a "pretty good" relationship with China, something that should help. At the same time, any political influence could be ruled out for the case.
- One of them thought that Tencent is big enough to counterbalance any reduction in competition that the deal would lead to. The other one thought that Tencent will still be the market leader after the deal, so it doesn't have any impact on their position.
- One of them thought that the transaction had not attracted much interest from market players in China given that he would usually receive several calls from his clients to discuss high profile cases and he hadn't received any call about MS/ABK.
And lastly
This one is from January 26th 2023, and only indirectly related:
https://www.equityreport.co.uk/cma-and-ec-compare-notes-on-broadcom-vmware-merger-case/
The source is a lawyer working for the merging parties in this case (Broadcom/VMware).
- The communication channels between the EC and CMA have not been as open as they were before Brexit, but there is some level of cooperation on high profile cases.
- The ABK case, like the Broadcom/VMware or the Booking/Etravel, are mainly about vertical foreclosure concerns. These are complex cases that sometimes can be solved through the in-depth review and where the EC is more willing to accept behavioural remedies.
PS: The Booking/Etraveli case was approved without remedies by the CMA during Phase 1 in September 2022.
Edit: I added the source website.
This one is from December 14th 2022:
https://www.equityreport.co.uk/microsofts-proposed-commitments-unlikely-to-appease-the-cma/
The sources are two UK antitrust lawyers following the case for their clients.
- One of the lawyers says that he was aware that the CMA "had received a significant number of complaints", although he could not confirm the names of the companies involved.
- Both lawyers thought that the agreements with Nintendo and Steam for COD wouldn't be enough for the CMA because historically the CMA has not been supportive of behavioural remedies.
- One of the lawyers thought that there was a chance "higher than 50%" of the deal being blocked by the CMA. He also said that the EC and CMA had been most likely cooperating and that whatever happens the decision would be similar.
- Both lawyers thought that MS could appease regulators by agreeing to licensing ABK's games on FRAND terms (Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory), but that such an agreement would be commercially unattractive for MS and it's difficult to monitor.
This one is from December 7th 2022:
https://www.equityreport.co.uk/micr...rdles-in-china-chinese-antitrust-lawyers-say/
The sources are two Chinese antitrust partners advising local and international gaming companies.
- Both thought that the deal would not raise significant concerns in China.
- MS has a "pretty good" relationship with China, something that should help. At the same time, any political influence could be ruled out for the case.
- One of them thought that Tencent is big enough to counterbalance any reduction in competition that the deal would lead to. The other one thought that Tencent will still be the market leader after the deal, so it doesn't have any impact on their position.
- One of them thought that the transaction had not attracted much interest from market players in China given that he would usually receive several calls from his clients to discuss high profile cases and he hadn't received any call about MS/ABK.
And lastly
This one is from January 26th 2023, and only indirectly related:
https://www.equityreport.co.uk/cma-and-ec-compare-notes-on-broadcom-vmware-merger-case/
The source is a lawyer working for the merging parties in this case (Broadcom/VMware).
- The communication channels between the EC and CMA have not been as open as they were before Brexit, but there is some level of cooperation on high profile cases.
- The ABK case, like the Broadcom/VMware or the Booking/Etravel, are mainly about vertical foreclosure concerns. These are complex cases that sometimes can be solved through the in-depth review and where the EC is more willing to accept behavioural remedies.
PS: The Booking/Etraveli case was approved without remedies by the CMA during Phase 1 in September 2022.
Edit: I added the source website.
Last edited:
bentanchorbolt
Banned
I would say its unlikely anyone that posts on these forums is likely to have a real educated guess of the outcome that would hold up under scrutiny.In any case people, we are in the end game.
The deal is now facing the CMA which has the potential to kill it.
The deal passing chances is decreasing fast.
The_Mike
I cry about SonyGaf from my chair in Redmond, WA
Microsoft wouldn't need other acquisitions.
They would have the most popular fps, a mastodont of a mmorpg and big titles like Diablo, Warcraft and Starcraft
Banjo64
cumsessed
I actually work for the CMA.
Anyway. I’m off now to play Call of Duty on my PlayStation. Peace.
solidus12
Member
They need to compete though...
The_Mike
I cry about SonyGaf from my chair in Redmond, WA
You are losing me here.
Will they compete more or less with the acquisition?
I really don't get why you don't think call of duty alone, and together with the Warcraft and Diablo franchise has no value in the compete space.
I mean, I kinda get what you are aiming at in a sad fanboy way.
Last edited:
Banjo64
cumsessed
The ability to compete has already been achieved with Obsidian, Zenimax and Double Fine.
https://opencritic.com/game/7404/psychonauts-2
https://opencritic.com/game/10993/deathloop
https://opencritic.com/game/13960/pentiment
https://opencritic.com/game/14227/hi-fi-rush
Bonsaibäumchen
Member
Don't be mean to him. These are special xbox shares only he ownes. They were once worth 40K now obviously only 8K says enough about the value of xbox between then and now, doesn't it?
PaintTinJr
Member
I think the 10,000 job losses at Microsoft - that included losses for Zenimax - tipped the scales completely in the UK and EU for them not even to need further justification to block it,In any case people, we are in the end game.
The deal is now facing the CMA which has the potential to kill it.
The deal passing chances is decreasing fast.
A cost of living crisis and other real threats to people being able to pay their bills in the EU clashes with the idea of backing a $2T company consolidating gaming around the largest publisher - costing further jobs - as it just looks like failing to read the room IMO.
I said before that they are fighting this on three fronts and that historically is a bad omen, but they aren't, they are actually fighting it on 4 fronts because gaf type gamers at large are against it, and even if the deal went through against gamers wishes, gamers will verbally crucify Xbox forever because of that and tie the issue to the brand even after CoD is dead - based on how arguing about retro consoles and who's fault it was that Sega exited hardware has lost none of its intensity over the years.
bentanchorbolt
Banned
Places like GAF are at best a vocal minority. The average consumer doesn't share the same concerns as the people on an enthusiast forum. Most people will view this as "I have a PlayStation and this is bad for me" or "Yay now I have more games on Game Pass".
The_Mike
I cry about SonyGaf from my chair in Redmond, WA
bentanchorbolt
Banned
I meant in the sense that average gamer joe and jane won't be sitting around waxing about the market ramifications of such a deal or hanging on the every word of the regulatory committee they dont even understand.
Last edited:
solidus12
Member
Xbox can compete without having to acquire a major third party publisher, saying otherwise is blind fanboyism.
I truly hope this acquisition doesn't go through 
Handel
Member
Having first party games that are critically well received doesn't always equal being successful or competitive in the industry. GameCube underperformed and came in third place despite having very well reviewed first party software as well as a few top end third party games like RE4 be exclusive at release.
Funny though you post two multiplatform games(one of which was exclusive to Playstation for a year), and two games that "don't count" in the gamer sphere because they're not AAA. Do you really think they're moving the needle? Changing the narrative? Numbers that actually matter to a business in the end say otherwise.
twilo99
Member
You are right, no silver bullets in this industry.
Your last paragraph is the only real argument I see with all of this as it opens the door for more big deals such as this one, but even that seems far-fetched to me and we won't really know the real impact for years to come.
Personally, I still think that this deal will get blocked by one or multiple government institutions, but not for the right reasons.
As a selfish PC gamer and gamepass user, this deal sounds great as I will be getting lots of high-quality content...
Right, I really don't see Microsoft messing with the current status of big multiplayer games like the ones you mention, just like they didn't mess with Minecraft, it just doesn't make any sense to do that.
I was talking about the single player games and IP around those.. that will certainly shift around, and Sony will certainly miss out some new stuff, but even then, I don't think they will withhold all new IPs from Sony, again, it doesn't make any business sense.
So unless we take what sneakers is saying up top, I see no significant issues here.
PaintTinJr
Member
That's rubbish IMHO. Places like Gaf shape gaming generations at their infancy and set the stage, and unlike your typical group that gets trodden on by Microsoft that get displaced, gamers are like Jedi, as an audience we are relentless and never go away because we can live as the same group on whatever happens to be the most popular platform of the time and carry all our complaints with us - which is why the lack of PS1-3 B/C is a vocal issue on PS5 despite those system's ages.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked