Support NeoGAF

[feynoob]

I haven't been following it that closely I know CMA where, but also EC?

If that 10 year deal is just to put cod on playstation, then surely this offer is not gonna fly with the EC?

COD on PS was just contract issue (PS losing COD).

EU had the same issue as CMA on their recent finding which was cloud and sub service. If EU wants concessions, it would be those 2, and guarantee COD on PS(not permanent contract).

 

[Menzies]

Yes, why doesn't the rest of the industry follow the platform holder who is in last place down a path that would ultimately put them in a financially compromising position without the backing of a 2 trillion dollar business.

Because consumers benefit with value and GamePass makes money? Doesn’t Sony already have higher subscribers? Won’t they see significant subscriber growth if the likes of Ragnarok were day and date?

Such compassion and empathy for Sony’s coffers whilst they’re raking in billions in profits. When do we start putting consumers first?

 

[GHG]

Because consumers benefit with value and GamePass makes money? Doesn’t Sony already have higher subscribers? Won’t they see significant subscriber growth if the likes of Ragnarok were day and date?

Such compassion and empathy for Sony’s coffers whilst they’re raking in billions in profits. When do we start putting consumers first?

Am I missing something here? Is mathematics no longer required in schools?

 

[feynoob]

Cod mobile will be under Activision not King

It was a tencent studio which made the game.
What I ment was that COD+King is MS desire. Losing that COD mobile, means not enough powerhouse with their mobile division, even though King is still strong.

 

[Bonsaibäumchen]

So, Sony doesn't want Gamepass on Playstation, but wants PS Plus on Xbox?

Yeah right, sure that's gonna work.

Your Argument works exactly the other way around, too.

Ffs everytime i follow such threads i'm reminded of this movie

 

[feynoob]

I heard candy crush is pretty hot these days.

But seriously, it will be interesting to see if any of the regulators call their bluff on all this talk about mobile.

I dont think they will call them on that. MS has little presence on mobile, and regulators wants competition there. This an area, where MS have an advantage on this deal.

 

[adamsapple]

So the news here is Microsoft is offering the thing they already offered to Sony?

Yes, they're doing what some users here were complaining about before "why don't they write it officially then ?"

 

[Bo_Hazem]

The bitrate is higher on most apps via the Apple TV vs anything inbuilt to your TV. You will also find similar benefits with a firestick, chromecast, etc.

Other than an ancient useless ipad the apple TV is the only apple product I own.

Could be for non-Android TVs, which means mostly the vast majority minus Sony as there is LG's, Samsung, and the Chinese one. The image quality I see by native apps, either youtube or Netflix, is vastly superior to PC to TV via HDMI, at least. Usually watch 4K HDR Netflix content, and use Youtube app to check the quality of my videos through PC it's a slightly worse than native. For a 2016 TV the quality is still pretty pristine. It's my PC monitor as well, and PS5 tv.

 

[Warablo]

This is wrong, Sony didn't say that they tried to bring PS Plus to Xbox.

They say that MS does not permit PS+ to be on Xbox, which is a different thing.


Sony said that MS doesn't allow PS+ to be on Xbox, but didn't say that Sony offered MS to put PS+ on Xbox. Notice the difference.


Sony, MS and Nintendo confirmed to be working on consoles for the next gen as usual. And in the case of Sony they mentioned that even if they are making PC ports and mobile games or even licensing their IPs for movies their focus will continue being PlayStation and making games for it.


PlayStation Plus is a multi game subscription since 2010, when back then offered games of multiple generations, time limited full game trials and discounts for games way before Game Pass existed, or years before they started to include online MP (for non F2P games) on PS+.

PS Now, which now is merged into PS+, also offered a catalog of hundreds of games and multiplatform cloud gaming, years before MS did it with GP.

These thiers are only the merge of PS+ and PS Now with some tweaks, making it more similar to the MS offering.

Which is exactly why I said Playstation Tiers, because it has barely existed. What you wanted Microsoft to put PS+ 2 monthly free games and online play for Playstations on Xbox? It doesn't make sense unless it was more like Game Pass which they eventually tried to create.

 

[GHG]

I dont think they will call them on that. MS has little presence on mobile, and regulators wants competition there. This an area, where MS have an advantage on this deal.

That's exactly my point, it's probably the one area where they wont have an issue. Microsoft know that and that's why they are saying this deal is primarily to bolster their mobile gaming offering.

Could be for non-Android TVs, which means mostly the vast majority minus Sony as there is LG's, Samsung, and the Chinese one. The image quality I see by native apps, either youtube or Netflix, is vastly superior to PC to TV via HDMI, at least. Usually watch 4K HDR Netflix content, and use Youtube app to check the quality of my videos through PC it's a slightly worse than native. For a 2016 TV the quality is still pretty pristine. It's my PC monitor as well, and PS5 tv.

The apps (or streaming via a browser) on PC are some of the worst options out there. My Philips OLED 806 is an android TV, I've done some back to back testing on this and have got superior results from the apple TV, particularly with Apple TV+ and Prime content.

 

[reksveks]

It was a tencent studio which made the game.
What I ment was that COD+King is MS desire. Losing that COD mobile, means not enough powerhouse with their mobile division, even though King is still strong.

okay, i think i know where you are going with this. you are saying microsoft wants both the new/old cod mobile revenue and king/candy crush. I can see that.

the new Cod Mobile is obviously an in-house thing.

 

[Menzies]

Am I missing something here? Is mathematics no longer required in schools?

So because they can earn more revenue the traditional way, means no competitor can innovate and create new business models and try to compete on value?

A business model which is allegedly now profitable, with fewer subscribers than what they (Sony) currently enjoy. Fact is they can take a hair cut whilst still making money and consumers benefit.

 

[Ronin_7]

The concessions to EU are laughable LMAO EU most likely will ask them to sell studios or even IPs that ain't flying.

+ FTC block should arrive before years end, NVIDIA Block was announced December 2nd Last Year.

 

[Bo_Hazem]

That's exactly my point, it's probably the one area where they wont have an issue. Microsoft know that and that's why they are saying this deal is primarily to bolster their mobile gaming offering.



The apps (or streaming via a browser) on PC are some of the worst options out there. My Philips OLED 806 is an android TV, I've done some back to back testing on this and have got superior results from the apple TV, particularly with Apple TV+ and Prime content.

Ok that would make sense if they have some sort of a deal Disney+ etc. For Netflix it shows 15Mbps at one series/movie. So far only Sony's proprietary Bravia Core hits around 80Mbps which is near Blu-Ray-level. Not sure if it's available around our region though.

 

[Humdinger]

Just play whatever you want on xcloud. It’s not the best experience but it’s at least a way to avoid buying another console.

You mean on PC? But I don't have gaming PC. Just a desktop, about 7 years old.

 

[gothmog]

Which is exactly why I said Playstation Tiers, because it has barely existed. What you wanted Microsoft to put PS+ 2 monthly free games and online play for Playstations on Xbox? It doesn't make sense unless it was more like Game Pass which they eventually tried to create.

The new PS+ service didn't just materialize out of thin air. It had been rumored for years before it was officially announced. Plenty of time to make overtures around allowing it on other platforms.

I still think there was never any kinda formal ask about putting it on Xbox, but between The Show getting an Xbox release and the new PS+ getting developed you would think someone said "what if we could deliver our own subscription service to Xbox like EAPlay and GamePass?". Seems like a no brainer to at least research.

 

[skit_data]

Hoeg has a stream going live now

 

[GHG]

So because they can earn more revenue the traditional way, means no competitor can innovate and create new business models and try to compete on value?

A business model which is allegedly now profitable, with fewer subscribers than what they (Sony) currently enjoy. Fact is they can take a hair cut whilst still making money and consumers benefit.

I'll take the business model that guarantees me a steady stream of high quality games that I enjoy. It makes no sense for me, or any other consumers who are happy with the products that get put to market, to demand they do something that puts them in a worse position, particularly if that would mean less money to reinvest into the games that are most loved by gamers (based on sales). If them changing their business model means their output starts to resemble Microsoft's then I along with millions of others will respectfully say "no thanks".

If you want to support a business model just because you feel like you're getting a deal and because the business behind it are effectively subsidising you then go for your life. Just realise there are millions of other customers out there whom the likes of Nintendo and Sony (and even the biggest publishers, ironically including Activision) are keeping happy in a completely different way.

For what it's worth, your statements very much align with what a race to the bottom looks like. There's a lot more to all of this than price to a lot of people, if not many of the most loved products would have no place in this world.

 

[gothmog]

Yes, they're doing what some users here were complaining about before "why don't they write it officially then ?"

Must be a slow news day.

 

[R3claimer117]

Yes, why doesn't the rest of the industry follow the platform holder who is in last place down a path that would ultimately put them in a financially compromising position without the backing of a 2 trillion dollar business.



Sony aren't the only industry participant who have voiced their concerns about this deal and/or made complaints about Microsoft's handlings of properties from their other recent acquisitions.

Regulators don't want Microsoft to dominate any space because as a business they have a history when it comes to monopolistic practices that have been proven to harm industries and consumer choice. They have a rap sheet.

There is a simple way around this, but it would involve earning a position of dominance via merit, not just by throwing daddy's cash about. If they were to build a position similar to the way that Apple did with their smartphone (and related) business for example then the regulators would be powerless to stop them whilst they embark on that journey. You cannot argue with building a business that provides the majority of consumers with what they want. However if you want to buy that position through cannibalising the largest and most important third party companies in the industry then you've got to be able to handle the regulatory scrutiny that will inevitably come your way.

The more you speak the more you reinforce exactly why the big regulators are taking the stance that they currently are with this deal. Learn to cope, there's still a long road ahead.

Going by your logic here why does it matter then since the industry loser is just burning through their own money you shouldn’t be scared of this deal going through right?

 

[adamsapple]

Must be a slow news day.

That's one way to look at it, another is that they're starting to reach the point where official concessions are being discussed, something they completely declined to even comment on for phase 1.

It's forward progression

 

[R3claimer117]

So the news here is Microsoft is offering the thing they already offered to Sony?

Lol yup played right into their hands. They were never going to remove the game anyways. Think Serbia just approved the deal as well.

 

[R3claimer117]

Yes, why doesn't the rest of the industry follow the platform holder who is in last place down a path that would ultimately put them in a financially compromising position without the backing of a 2 trillion dollar business.



Sony aren't the only industry participant who have voiced their concerns about this deal and/or made complaints about Microsoft's handlings of properties from their other recent acquisitions.

Regulators don't want Microsoft to dominate any space because as a business they have a history when it comes to monopolistic practices that have been proven to harm industries and consumer choice. They have a rap sheet.

There is a simple way around this, but it would involve earning a position of dominance via merit, not just by throwing daddy's cash about. If they were to build a position similar to the way that Apple did with their smartphone (and related) business for example then the regulators would be powerless to stop them whilst they embark on that journey. You cannot argue with building a business that provides the majority of consumers with what they want. However if you want to buy that position through cannibalising the largest and most important third party companies in the industry then you've got to be able to handle the regulatory scrutiny that will inevitably come your way.

The more you speak the more you reinforce exactly why the big regulators are taking the stance that they currently are with this deal. Learn to cope, there's still a long road ahead.

Cope with what lol you’re the one that has to do that once this deal closes with you’re one sided takes.

 

[GHG]

Going by your logic here why does it matter then since the industry loser is just burning through their own money you shouldn’t be scared of this deal going through right?

Cope with what lol you’re the one that has to do that once this deal closes with you’re one sided takes.

You've responded to my same post twice and you're telling me to cope? Are you sure you're ok?

Not sure why you'd be happy for Microsoft to burn through hundreds of billions of dollars while contributing nothing new to you as a gamer or to the industry overall, but each to his own. The "industry loser" burning through potentially trillions of dollars picking up publisher after publisher is good for nobody, particularly when they've yet to prove they can effectively manage what they already have.

 

[gothmog]

I'll take the business model that guarantees me a steady stream of high quality games that I enjoy. It makes no sense for me, or any other consumers who are happy with the products that get put to market, to demand they do something that puts them in a worse position, particularly if that would mean less money to reinvest into the games that are most loved by gamers (based on sales). If them changing their business model means their output starts to resemble Microsoft's then I along with millions of others will respectfully say "no thanks".

If you want to support a business model just because you feel like you're getting a deal and because the business behind it are effectively subsidising you then go for your life. Just realise there are millions of other customers out there whom the likes of Nintendo and Sony (and even the biggest publishers, ironically including Activision) are keeping happy in a completely different way.

For what it's worth, your statements very much align with what a race to the bottom looks like. There's a lot more to all of this than price to a lot of people, if not many of the most loved products would have no place in this world.

I was playing some games last night on my phone after not really playing any for a year or so. What a wasteland of shit. Unskippable ads everywhere and constant attempts to squeeze me for money. That's my nightmare scenario here around race to the bottom. The content isn't worth anything because there so much more money to be made by gaming people's brains directly.

 

[Menzies]

I'll take the business model that guarantees me a steady stream of high quality games that I enjoy. It makes no sense for me, or any other consumers who are happy with the products that get put to market, to demand they do something that puts them in a worse position, particularly if that would mean less money to reinvest into the games that are most loved by gamers (based on sales). If them changing their business model means their output starts to resemble Microsoft's then I along with millions of others will respectfully say "no thanks".

If you want to support a business model just because you feel like you're getting a deal and because the business behind it are effectively subsidising you then go for your life. Just realise there are millions of other customers out there whom the likes of Nintendo and Sony (and even the biggest publishers, ironically including Activision) are keeping happy in a completely different way.

For what it's worth, your statements very much align with what a race to the bottom looks like. There's a lot more to all of this than price to a lot of people, if not many of the most loved products would have no place in this world.

‘That horrible output from Microsoft’ - most of their recent studios haven’t put anything out to market yet. I certainly don’t see any reason to believe these games are worth walking away from the industry over. Aren’t they investing further into these new studios and upping head counts across the board? Won’t they start to improve with sharing talent and knowledge?

I’m pragmatic, we’ve seen technology liberate media consumption into subscription services everywhere else. There was resistance in music and film as well from the existing stakeholders protecting their margin then as well. It’s coming, whether or not Microsoft started it.

 

[Bonsaibäumchen]

Btw. I don't understand why people are still responding to SenjutsuSage just Ignore him ( without using the ignore function) his farewell to this thread didn't even last 24 hours.

Hell If I didn't know better I could've confused him with a MS PR Manager judging by his statements and contradicting behaviour.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

Lol yup played right into their hands. They were never going to remove the game anyways. Think Serbia just approved the deal as well.

Nadella suggested that Microsoft should not need to make any formal concessions to win regulatory approval for the deal

 

[R3claimer117]

You've responded to my same post twice and you're telling me to cope? Are you sure you're ok?

Not sure why you'd be happy for Microsoft to burn through hundreds of billions of dollars while contributing nothing new to you as a gamer or to the industry overall, but each to his own. The "industry loser" burning through potentially trillions of dollars picking up publisher after publisher is good for nobody, particularly when they've yet to prove they can effectively manage what they already have.

Lol man you know options are a thing right?! Microsoft hasn’t contributed anything to the industry? Lol Xbox live DSL on a console, hardrive wasn’t a thing ? What Microsoft did with online and social gaming on console Nintendo still hasn’t done in 3 generations Sony definitely had to catch up. Since you’re solely the one that decides who contributes what and doesn’t I’m guessing you think all innovations come from Sony. That’s like your opinion others have different opinions as well. It’s my opinion just like it’s yours you’re not fact check here so just spout out your one sided take at the end the deal passes and you have no say in it.

 

[jm89]

Btw. I don't understand why people are still responding to SenjutsuSage just Ignore him ( without using the ignore function) his farewell to this thread didn't even last 24 hours.

Hell If I didn't know better I could've confused him with a MS PR Manager judging by his statements and contradicting behaviour.

It's more enjoyable to make fun of him.

 

[R3claimer117]

Clearly that’s part of negotiations if they could get away with it they would but it doesn’t make sense to not give cod when they were never taking it away anyways plus the get the revenue from Sony for it. Again who knows what things look like in 10 years. Microsystems could decide call of duty is going on a 4 year cycle. Because they’ll have halo doom wolfestien cod they won’t need to do yearly releases and that ten years could mean 3 games lol.

 

[GHG]

‘That horrible output from Microsoft’ - most of their recent studios haven’t put anything out to market yet. I certainly don’t see any reason to believe these games are worth walking away from the industry over. Aren’t they investing further into these new studios and upping head counts across the board? Won’t they start to improve with sharing talent and knowledge?

Heard this for close to a decade now. Good thing for you and everyone else is that if they do actually manage to figure it out then their output will improve which will result in them being able to hit their gamepass subscriber growth targets. But until they manage to actually do that they won't get rewarded accordingly, and they know it hence they are attempting to buy up the biggest players in the industry to compensate.

I’m pragmatic, we’ve seen technology liberate media consumption into subscription services everywhere else. There was resistance in music and film as well from the existing stakeholders protecting their margin then as well. It’s coming, whether or not Microsoft started it.

There are arguments to be had as to whether or not film, TV and music are in a better place now than they were prior to streaming becoming the dominant method of content consumption. The answers depend on who you ask. Not for this thread though.

 

[R3claimer117]

Because consumers benefit with value and GamePass makes money? Doesn’t Sony already have higher subscribers? Won’t they see significant subscriber growth if the likes of Ragnarok were day and date?

Such compassion and empathy for Sony’s coffers whilst they’re raking in billions in profits. When do we start putting consumers first?

Lmao don’t talk logic with that guy as long as Microsoft is involved logic is not a thing.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

they’ll have halo doom wolfestien cod they won’t need to do yearly releases

 

[GHG]

Imagine buying something for $70 billion because of the money it makes, primarily due to annual releases, only to then not do annual releases for no reason other than spite.

I'd actually love to see it. Write-downs ahoy.

 

[R3claimer117]

Imagine buying something for $70 billion because of the money it makes, primarily due to annual releases, only to then not do annual releases for no reason other than spite.

I'd actually love to see it. Write-downs ahoy.

They’d have no reason to do annual releases if they’re serious about uncoupling a lot of those other teams like raven and others to work on new games then they’ll have to let infinity ward treyarch and sledgehammer make call of duty on a new cycle. Why would they stifle their own releases just because activision annualized the franchise doesn’t mean Microsoft will. They’ll be first party now and won’t have to be trying to annualized the game.

 

[Swift_Star]

Because they’ll have halo doom wolfestien cod they won’t need to do yearly releases and that ten years could mean 3 games lol.

The audience of these games are not the same people...

 

[sainraja]

‘That horrible output from Microsoft’ - most of their recent studios haven’t put anything out to market yet. I certainly don’t see any reason to believe these games are worth walking away from the industry over. Aren’t they investing further into these new studios and upping head counts across the board? Won’t they start to improve with sharing talent and knowledge?

I’m pragmatic, we’ve seen technology liberate media consumption into subscription services everywhere else. There was resistance in music and film as well from the existing stakeholders protecting their margin then as well. It’s coming, whether or not Microsoft started it.

Microsoft did not start it and if you are saying that because of industry then that would be EA.

 

[Bonsaibäumchen]

The audience of these games are not the same people...

Maybe you could compare cod to halo and wolfenstein to doom. Haven't played much of Halo though so I could be wrong.

I was a fan of wolfenstein games. Doom not so much though. Had great fun with CoD when I was a teenager and in my early twentys although nowadays I don't give a shit anymore. And as I said never really got into the Halo biz.

 

[feynoob]

They’d have no reason to do annual releases if they’re serious about uncoupling a lot of those other teams like raven and others to work on new games then they’ll have to let infinity ward treyarch and sledgehammer make call of duty on a new cycle. Why would they stifle their own releases just because activision annualized the franchise doesn’t mean Microsoft will. They’ll be first party now and won’t have to be trying to annualized the game.

Yes. MS should just give up billions of revenue, because someone on forum said, they dont need to do annual releases.

 

[Swift_Star]

Maybe you could compare cod to halo and wolfenstein to doom. Haven't played much of Halo though so I could be wrong.

I was a fan of wolfenstein games. Doom not so much though. Had great fun with CoD when I was a teenager and in my early twentys although nowadays I don't give a shit anymore. And as I said never really got into the Halo biz.

Wolfenstein is very political and focused on Single Player.
Doom is a SP focused too with aggressive enemies and whatnot.
Halo used to be focused on coop, at least that's what I see people saying.
I think they have different approaches do fps.

 

[feynoob]

If anyone interesting in why MS is ready to accept these concession.
MS wants to put a pressure on FTC, if they can get EU and CMA on their side. Once EU and CMA approve this deal, FTC hands would be tied.

Right now, MS wants to close this deal fast, as to not deal with FTC headache.

 

[Topher]

If anyone interesting in why MS is ready to accept these concession.
MS wants to put a pressure on FTC, if they can get EU and CMA on their side. Once EU and CMA approve this deal, FTC hands would be tied.

That's not true. FTC's decision isn't tied to EU or CMA at all.

 

[feynoob]

quick news: Serbia approved the deal.
So far now we have Serbia, Brazil, and Saudia arabia..

 

[feynoob]

That's not true. FTC's decision isn't tied to EU or CMA at all.

Those 2 approving the deal, means FTC would have a hard time challenging this merger.

Sounds to me that they are looking for a quick win in January from the EU to force the hand of the CMA and put pressure on the FTC if they go ahead with a lawsuit.

In other words, the European Commission must take a clearance decision as soon as the serious doubts of a case have been removed. If that 10 year remedy is enough to remove those concerns, then the EU could perfectly approve the deal in January and not in April.

That would allow MS to close the deal in the EU in January.

This could also be useful to pressure the CMA to take a similar decision because the markets and issues analysed are very similar to the ones in the EU and the timing would fit too (the CMA will publish provisional findings in January). So, if there are so many similarities and the EU is happy with that remedy, why not something similar in UK?

But I think that this move could have the FTC as a target. If MS can close the deal in Europe in January and the FTC wants to challenge the deal, now they would have to file a motion for a preliminary injunction in federal court along with its complaint (because there is a real risk of the merger closing).

That process is shorter in time (4-6 months). In that case the ability to litigate (or just threaten to litigate) within the deal time (July) normally improves the parties' negotiating posture with the agency over remedies and ultimate clearance. And if it doesn't, you probably have enough time to litigate without renegotiating the outside date.

But if the FTC challenges the deal and MS has to wait at least until March in UK or mid April in Europe to close it, then the FTC has no incentive (or even the ability) for a preliminary injunction, they would be less pressured for negotiation and they could take the longer path to litigation. So long, that MS would have to renegotiate the merger agreement if they still would want to go ahead.

I'm just speculating, but I think that could be one reason why all of a sudden they are looking for a fast approval with the EU: because they want a double domino effect.

It's not a bad strategy and it has been successful more than once in multi-jurisdictional reviews, specially when the FTC can be the last big obstacle

 

[feynoob]

BIG Mega News
Xbox Live has almost 100 million monthly active players (hereinafter: gamers), and 34 million paid subscribers.
This is from Serbia findings.

 

[Banjo64]

BIG Mega News
Xbox Live has almost 100 million monthly active players (hereinafter: gamers), and 34 million paid subscribers.
This is from Serbia findings.

I’m confused as to how that stacks with 29 million Game Pass users.

63 million people subscribed to either or. Install base One/Series is what? 75m probably?

Sony’s sub rate is less than 50%.

Only thing that makes sense to me is a GP Ultimate subscriber gets counted twice.

 

[DeepEnigma]

63 million people subscribed to either or. Install base One/Series is what? 75m probably?

Nah, lol.

 

[adamsapple]

BIG Mega News
Xbox Live has almost 100 million monthly active players (hereinafter: gamers), and 34 million paid subscribers.
This is from Serbia findings.

Serbia findings ?

is there a link for these ?

 

[feynoob]

I’m confused as to how that stacks with 29 million Game Pass users.

63 million people subscribed to either or. Install base One/Series is what? 75m probably?

Sony’s sub rate is less than 50%.

Gamepass has PC users, which increases the numbers of gamepass users.

The difference between xbox and PS is that, most of xbox online games required xbox live gold. Unlike PS, which doesnt require PS+ for f2p games,

Also most of MS games needs you to be online.