Support NeoGAF

[Warablo]

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.

I wonder if those 360 accounts would have been compromised if that Sony hack happened with crossplay?

I agree that the market leader on consoles are probably always hesitant with crossplay. Kinda crazy that Sony charges a fee for crossplay. Almost like a punishment/tax.

 

[feynoob]

I am glad we are civil here despite our differences. Some people on other hand dont know when to stop it.

Swift_Star

Feb 3, 2023

Permanent

Enough of your gaslighting. Go back to twitter where you belong.

Never go full fanboy.

 

[adamsapple]

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.

Places like gaf don't shape gaming generations anymore, places like Twitter/Tik Tok do.

I am glad we are civil here despite our differences. Some people on other hand dont know when to stop it.

Swift_Star

Feb 3, 2023

Permanent

Enough of your gaslighting. Go back to twitter where you belong.

Never go full fanboy.

 

[Topher]

I wonder if those 360 accounts would have been compromised if that Sony hack happened with crossplay?

Only if Xbox security was as shitty as PlayStation's was, in which case crossplay wouldn't have even mattered.

I agree that the market leader on consoles are probably always hesitant with crossplay. Kinda crazy that Sony charges a fee for crossplay. Almost like a punishment/tax.

Not quite. Sony only charges if a game has a disproportionate amount of revenue on another platform while at the same time having a disproportionate amount of game time on PlayStation. For example, if Fortnite gamers buy all their shit on their iPhone but only play the game on PlayStation then Sony is going to get a piece of that microtransaction revenue. It is a very specific scenario that has to occur for that fee to kick in. Common sense says the vast majority of gamers pay for transactions on the same platform they play on so most games never pay a dime.

 

[Topher]

I am glad we are civil here despite our differences. Some people on other hand dont know when to stop it.

Swift_Star

Feb 3, 2023

Permanent

Enough of your gaslighting. Go back to twitter where you belong.

Never go full fanboy.

Called it....

Meh.....Swift is on borrowed time in this forum regardless if you ask me. The warrior is strong in that one.

Ok....that wasn't a hard one to predict, but I suck at predictions so I'll take it. Remember that avatar....

 

[Three]

I wonder if those 360 accounts would have been compromised if that Sony hack happened with crossplay?

I agree that the market leader on consoles are probably always hesitant with crossplay. Kinda crazy that Sony charges a fee for crossplay. Almost like a punishment/tax.

No, PS3 already did crossplay with other systems/accounts and nothing was compromised. Crossplay matchmaking has no relevance to PSN user accounts on the PSN servers. That's just a silly excuse people used to justify things.

The fact that Sony allowed crossplay during the PS4 whereas MS downright rejected it during the 360 just goes to show what they would have done if others needed the installbase for their multiplayer games.

Crossplay itself doesn't have a charge either. Crossplatform store purchases do, to the publisher based on play time. If this were Apple, Google or MS in the 360 days you wouldn't even have crossplatform purchases because the store policy would have just completely rejected it. We are lucky we're making inroads on all fronts even if there is revenue sharing from the publisher.

 

[drganon]

Places like gaf don't shape gaming generations anymore, places like Twitter/Tik Tok do.

Says the ball licker who just came back from a ban with a permanent warning.

 

[adamsapple]

Says the ball licker who just came back from a ban with a permanent warning.

I'll let you join in if you behave.

 

[drganon]

I'll let you join in if you behave.

No thanks. I don't enjoy being on my knees like you do.

 

[adamsapple]

No thanks. I don't enjoy being on my knees like you do.

Whatever makes you feel secure, I'm always happy to reply to one of my followers

 

[Topher]

I'll let you join in if you behave.

 

[Stardust_Dragon]

Wow, I have been following this Microsoft-ABK merger topic for quite some time here on NeoGaf, and reading a lot of comments on here, some of them calm, and others quite heated. Not that I blame you all for that, I can understand why a publisher acquisition of this scale by a platform owner of one of three console makers bring out such intense discussions, and this topic has already hit 400 pages, wow! As for me, I want to share what I think is going to happen, and again this is just my own prediction, but I wanted to share my thoughts now ahead of time since the CMA decision is likely to come sometime next week, and whenever their PF findings are published, this place will be going crazy no matter the results.

Anyhow, my prediction is that the CMA will come to a provisional finding of approval with divestment of Xbox console hardware, along with a ban on producing future video game hardware.
I think based on the internal confidential documents the CMA has received from Sony, as well as ABK, will have the CMA come to the conclusion that even a 10 year commitment of a behavioral remedy by Microsoft won't be enough for Sony to counter Microsoft with their own alternative to COD. Like, sometimes I'm not sure if people appreciate just how much time, money, and capital is required to make these COD games on an annual basis, because it is quite huge, to be frank. For the most recent Call of Duty game, the 2022 version of Modern Warfare 2, here's a list of all the studios that were needed to help ship this game out the door and into consumers hands in Fall 2022:

"The development was led by Infinity Ward alongside Activision Central Design, Activision Central Tech, Activision Localization Dublin, Activision QA, Activision Shanghai, Beenox, Demonware, High Moon Studios, Raven Software, Sledgehammer Games, Toys for Bob and Treyarch." (Source)

I don't think this list even includes Solid State Studios and Digital Legends Entertainment who work on the COD mobile games. Anyways, the point is, that's a whole lot of studios that were needed to pitch in and help contribute to getting the game up and running on release day in October 2022. And you know what else too, the game still wasn't bug-free and had some issues at launch! I know this because I preordered Modern Warfare 2 and I was playing the game on opening weekend and experienced some of the issues at the time, namely the campaign (primarily one mission, at least for me anyways) frequently crashing, the pinging system on enemies had to be temporarily disabled due to other player being able to make the ping be stuck onto an enemy player for the entire duration of a match, the tuning mechanic for guns had to be disabled, and there wasn't even any barracks nor leaderboard section for online players to view their K/D ratio and other cumulative stats!

So, from Sony's arguments that I'm sure they've been making to regulators, it would be very, very difficult and financially risky for them to scale up the amount of studios necessary to have the labor manpower necessary to provide roughly the same amount of content and a similar release schedule comparable to Activision studios' COD franchise output. And even if Sony put all that time, resources, capital, and money into buying about a dozen studios or so for making a potential COD competitor, there's still no guarantees that it won't just be a major flop on release, and when comparing Sony's theoretical efforts to counter COD to the proven, established production pipeline that Microsoft would have with all these Activision studios from acquiring ABK, I can see Sony's lawyers making a strong case to regulators using their own internal documents + ABK documents to make their case that COD is irreplacable, and indispensable to the PlayStation platform, and that even a 10 year behavioral commitment by Microsoft just simply isn't sufficient because of the sheer size and scale needed in investment to even think about countering the COD franchise, let alone actually see a first-party COD competitor come into fruition.

Lastly, for Microsoft, what would they, and by they I mean Satya Nadella and the board of directors (meaning not Phil Spencer), decide to do if my prediction is the result they got from the CMA, because the Provisional Finding I predicted would essentially force Microsoft to choose between the Xbox hardware division (alongside Xbox Live online infrastructure in all likelihood), or Activision-Blizzard-King. At the end of the day Microsoft wants to make money beyond all else, and the fact of the matter is that Xbox hardware is sold at a loss and is struggling to retain marketshare compared to Sony's PlayStation, if the leaked NPD results and the latest reveal of console hardware-related statistics by both Sony and Microsoft recent earning calls for the previous quarter are any indication.

Meanwhile, Activision-Blizzard-King offers a trove of valuable gaming IPs and productive studios that are both popular and capture people's attention worldwide in COD, Diablo, Overwatch, and of course King with Candy Crush IP in mobile among other ABK properties. When was the last time Xbox had some huge blockbuster game come out as a console exclusive that really grabbed the attention and produced high amount of buzz worldwide beyond just the hardcore Xbox fanbase, I'm thinking maybe Gears of War 3 back in September 2011, that's about a dozen years ago. I know the Forza Horizon series is beloved and well-received by the Xbox fanbase, but I don't think racing games have the ability to really grab worldwide buzz like shooting games and action-adventure games can. Maybe Starfield by Bethesda will be that mind-blowing game that once again directs attention to the Xbox brand. But you know what, I bet that Satya would take a close, sobering look at Starfield, along with the rest of the projects that Xbox first party studios are working on before making any decision if my prediction about the CMA comes true. Especially since, you know, Microsoft has $70 billion on the line here and they'll have to pay out a few billion dollars to ABK if they drop the deal, so yeah Satya and the board should absolutely evaluate Xbox and Phil Spencer's management prior to making a crucial decision if my prediction comes to fruition.

Anyways, that's just me trying my best to read the tea leaves and following the discussion here on NeoGaf about this huge, unprecedented merger attempt in the video games industry, so even if people on here strongly disagree with most/all of what I wrote, I hope I still contributed positively here to this discussion. So I guess right now we're in the calm before the shitstorm that likely arrives sometime next week, courtesy of the CMA. Well, I'll be on here looking forward to the incoming major news either way the CMA PF findings are.

 

[feynoob]

Anyhow, my prediction is that the CMA will come to a provisional finding of approval with divestment of Xbox console hardware, along with a ban on producing future video game hardware.

 

[Stardust_Dragon]

I did say that was just my prediction, right? Not that it's necessarily going to happen. I just think it'll be quite difficult for regulators to ensure that COD stays on other non-Xbox console platforms beyond 10 years without some kind of major structural remedy, and the one I suggested would be one of the simplest to monitor and enforce for regulators and one of the most sure-fire method to ensure that Microsoft does not have the incentive to remove COD off of other console platforms.

 

[feynoob]

I did say that was just my prediction, right? Not that it's necessarily going to happen. I just think it'll be quite difficult for regulators to ensure that COD stays on other non-Xbox console platforms beyond 10 years without some kind of major structural remedy, and the one I suggested would be one of the simplest to monitor and enforce for regulators and one of the most sure-fire method to ensure that Microsoft does not have the incentive to remove COD off of other console platforms.

That is one way ticket to give Sony a monopoly.
If there is a hard remedy, it will be selling COD to take2 or EA. Normal remedies would be not taking COD from Sony (not term limit).

 

[Ozzy Onya A2Z]

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,

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.

Another idiotic post that has been covered pages ago. The pandemic meant almost all tech/online revenues were through the roof, Microsoft included.

In the last 3 years MS hired 75,000 new staff due to Covid expansion, the contraction this year is natural and again what you think is a gotchya moment is total horseshit. The reality is MS are hiring more, keeping more, enabling unions and creating fairer and more diverse workplaces than Sony or Nintendo or Valve etc.

Edit: As for GAF type gamers, places like Resetera balance that out all the same, essentially pro the acquisition.

 

[demigod]

I wonder if those 360 accounts would have been compromised if that Sony hack happened with crossplay?

I agree that the market leader on consoles are probably always hesitant with crossplay. Kinda crazy that Sony charges a fee for crossplay. Almost like a punishment/tax.

What do you think FFXI is? Thank god SE didn’t cater to ms with FFXIV.

 

[Stardust_Dragon]

That is one way ticket to give Sony a monopoly.
If there is a hard remedy, it will be selling COD to take2 or EA. Normal remedies would be not taking COD from Sony (not term limit).

I don't think it's really possible to separate COD from the rest of the ABK without just selling Activision off entirely given how dependent COD is on almost if not all their Activision studios helping getting the yearly COD games out the door, and I don't think Microsoft will accept a deal for just Blizzard-King, although at a lower price than $70 billion at that point obviously. I know Phil said a few months ago that King was the biggest reason for buying ABK, but I'm not exactly willing to take him at his word there, especially since I don't really recall him and other Microsoft executives talking up the King aspect to the merger agreement until late last year. That leaves Blizzard, and their games likely don't release frequently enough to help Game Pass keep at healthy subscription membership numbers. Like, Diablo 3 released 11 years ago and it may be another decade before Diablo 5 comes out, Overwatch 2 is free-to-play, and from my understanding World of Warcraft isn't really viable on consoles due to the sheer number of commands necessary for characters in raids and other aspects of the game to be ported over to consoles where their biggest Game Pass subscriber base is at now.

 

[Three]

I have been wondering, the FTC do not seem keen on behavioural remedies

“We have neither the resources nor the mandate to function as an industrial planner, Parties should expect us to be skeptical and risk averse when considering offers to settle in our merger investigations.”

The FTC clearly communicates with the CMA and EC. Does this mean they will be pushing structural remedies and not behavioural ones? If any of them is willing to accept behavioural remedies does that mean the FTC will be forced to accept them too and act as an "industrial planner" after all? I think if there is any disagreement between the regulators they would push for more concrete and less involved solutions like structural remedies or even a total block just so that it is easier to reach a unified solution. Could be completely wrong though.

 

[RickMasters]

I don't think it's really possible to separate COD from the rest of the ABK without just selling Activision off entirely given how dependent COD is on almost if not all their Activision studios helping getting the yearly COD games out the door, and I don't think Microsoft will accept a deal for just Blizzard-King, although at a lower price than $70 billion at that point obviously. I know Phil said a few months ago that King was the biggest reason for buying ABK, but I'm not exactly willing to take him at his word there, especially since I don't really recall him and other Microsoft executives talking up the King aspect to the merger agreement until late last year. That leaves Blizzard, and their games likely don't release frequently enough to help Game Pass keep at healthy subscription membership numbers. Like, Diablo 3 released 11 years ago and it may be another decade before Diablo 5 comes out, Overwatch 2 is free-to-play, and from my understanding World of Warcraft isn't really viable on consoles due to the sheer number of commands necessary for characters in raids and other aspects of the game to be ported over to consoles where their biggest Game Pass subscriber base is at now.

Agree. I think certain people are clinging to the idea that king is the main reason for the aquisiton. For 70Bn you want COD, tony hawk, Wow, starcart and everything else that is for sale/on offer. as for Wow on consoles, xbox has always had keyboard and mouse support (I have the razer turret which was designed for xbox, only really use it for browsing the few in the living room on the big screen though) , if they were serious about it they could put it on xbox, post acquisition....assuming deal goes through ...hard to say at the moment with all the doom and gloom, around here...



I think where phil messed up is with all his kum by yah " we want games to be everywhere" shite . It clearly left a lot of people confused. A lot of the comments in this thread seem to be based on phils legendary 'double speak' language. better off, just saying nothing.


Personally Im of the mindset that if I buy something Ill do what I want with it. I wouldnt want the government telling me what to do with my money or the thing I buy with it. That part leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

 

[Heisenberg007]

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.

1. If Microsoft can spend $75 billion on publisher acquisitions, surely they can pay a few extra millions to get these deals if they want to, right? So the 'money argument' is not even a valid one.
2. As for the market share situation, whose fault is that? By the end of the PS3/360 generation, both companies had a similar market share: PS3 (88 million) and 360 (84 million). Microsoft released an underpowered, over-priced system and asked people who didn't like DRM to stick with the Xbox 360 instead. Sony built this market share on the back of high-quality games.

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.

That's not control though. Xbox can just as easily reach this type of agreement. They will just have to pay a little more -- which is understandable considering they are minimizing the publisher's sale by a larger extent by preventing them from releasing on a bigger platform.

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.

Agreed. In essence, Sony does not have the power to control the market. Neither company has.

 

[Heisenberg007]

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.

And so will Microsoft if the deal falls through -- as ABK games will continue to release on both platforms, creating equal opportunities for both companies, consoles, and their userbase.

 

[SenjutsuSage]

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".

First of all, tighten up. Business is business is business. Microsoft has every right to do what they're doing now with Bethesda. Even regulators agreed with it, every last one. Also, Bethesda was a private company that wasn't publicly traded, which helps, the price tag wasn't as out there, and their biggest games release very infrequently, and most don't do anywhere near the kinds of numbers Call of Duty does. Zenimax/Bethesda is nothing at all like the yearly cycle that is Call of Duty, and also their biggest properties aren't as heavily reliant on multiplayer. Bethesda's last mega release, Fallout 4, will have been nearly 8 years ago, if not over 8 years ago, depending on when Starfield releases this year.

This is Microsoft doing business. The buyer doesn't get forced to sell. Microsoft made a convincing case, just like Sony did to buy Bungie, Naughty Dog, Guerilla, Insomniac (immediately after their biggest hit game ever), Sucker Punch, and all the other studios they bought over the years and just in the last two years alone. Housemarque, Bluepoint, Valkyrie, Nixxes, Jade Raymond's new studio. Simply because they don't all have IP as valuable as what Microsoft is picking up doesn't change the end result of Sony buying and acquiring to improve themselves.

Sony just bought something pretty fucking big. And they did it as the market leader no less. How does the market leader get to buy the #2 best-selling FPS behind Call of Duty for that many years and also the 7th best-selling franchise in that same period? I don't really care. I don't complain about these things. I accept that business will take place and I make adjustments as needed to those realities. Market leader can buy the #2 FPS in the biggest gaming market in the world, but dead last can't buy #1. Yea. That holds no water in my eyes. This Activision deal is on the up and up. Everybody knows it. Now will we get a legal decision, or a political one? If it's a legal one, the deal will be approved with whatever remedies are needed, or possibly zero concessions at all.

 

[SenjutsuSage]

And so will Microsoft if the deal falls through -- as ABK games will continue to release on both platforms, creating equal opportunities for both companies, consoles, and their userbase.

Yes, Microsoft will be fine, but the gaming market will be a lot less competitive due to it being blocked successfully by Sony. Which is precisely what Sony wants. Between the two outcomes, the outcome that creates MORE competition is the one that's better for the industry and all consumers. The best decision for Sony's sake is the worst outcome here, which is why I don't see it happening that way.

 

[RickMasters]

First of all, tighten up. Business is business is business. Microsoft has every right to do what they're doing now with Bethesda. Even regulators agreed with it, every last one. Also, Bethesda was a private company that wasn't publicly traded, which helps, the price tag wasn't as out there, and their biggest games release very infrequently, and most don't do anywhere near the kinds of numbers Call of Duty does. Zenimax/Bethesda is nothing at all like the yearly cycle that is Call of Duty, and also their biggest properties aren't as heavily reliant on multiplayer. Bethesda's last mega release, Fallout 4, will have been nearly 8 years ago, if not over 8 years ago, depending on when Starfield releases this year.

This is Microsoft doing business. The buyer doesn't get forced to sell. Microsoft made a convincing case, just like Sony did to buy Bungie, Naughty Dog, Guerilla, Insomniac (immediately after their biggest hit game ever), Sucker Punch, and all the other studios they bought over the years and just in the last two years alone. Housemarque, Bluepoint, Valkyrie, Nixxes, Jade Raymond's new studio. Simply because they don't all have IP as valuable as what Microsoft is picking up doesn't change the end result of Sony buying and acquiring to improve themselves.

Sony just bought something pretty fucking big. And they did it as the market leader no less. How does the market leader get to buy the #2 best-selling FPS behind Call of Duty for that many years and also the 7th best-selling franchise in that same period? I don't really care. I don't complain about these things. I accept that business will take place and I make adjustments as needed to those realities. Market leader can buy the #2 FPS in the biggest gaming market in the world, but dead last can't buy #1. Yea. That holds no water in my eyes. This Activision deal is on the up and up. Everybody knows it. Now will we get a legal decision, or a political one? If it's a legal one, the deal will be approved with whatever remedies are needed, or possibly zero concessions at all.

Funny thing is I play Destiny 2 on xbox, but I already expect and accept the idea that bungies next game may not be coming to xbox (no matter what they are saying right now...sony wont allow it, and/or they probably wont feel a need to anyway). I play destiny knowing that it might well be the last bungie game I ever play, yet I didnt go crying to their forums or any forum about it. This COD/ABK stuff is just business. Deal should hopefully done soon and COD can join madden as a game I play every year but no longer pay for every year on GPU.

 

[Yoboman]

First of all, tighten up. Business is business is business. Microsoft has every right to do what they're doing now with Bethesda. Even regulators agreed with it, every last one. Also, Bethesda was a private company that wasn't publicly traded, which helps, the price tag wasn't as out there, and their biggest games release very infrequently, and most don't do anywhere near the kinds of numbers Call of Duty does. Zenimax/Bethesda is nothing at all like the yearly cycle that is Call of Duty, and also their biggest properties aren't as heavily reliant on multiplayer. Bethesda's last mega release, Fallout 4, will have been nearly 8 years ago, if not over 8 years ago, depending on when Starfield releases this year.

This is Microsoft doing business. The buyer doesn't get forced to sell. Microsoft made a convincing case, just like Sony did to buy Bungie, Naughty Dog, Guerilla, Insomniac (immediately after their biggest hit game ever), Sucker Punch, and all the other studios they bought over the years and just in the last two years alone. Housemarque, Bluepoint, Valkyrie, Nixxes, Jade Raymond's new studio. Simply because they don't all have IP as valuable as what Microsoft is picking up doesn't change the end result of Sony buying and acquiring to improve themselves.

Sony just bought something pretty fucking big. And they did it as the market leader no less. How does the market leader get to buy the #2 best-selling FPS behind Call of Duty for that many years and also the 7th best-selling franchise in that same period? I don't really care. I don't complain about these things. I accept that business will take place and I make adjustments as needed to those realities. Market leader can buy the #2 FPS in the biggest gaming market in the world, but dead last can't buy #1. Yea. That holds no water in my eyes. This Activision deal is on the up and up. Everybody knows it. Now will we get a legal decision, or a political one? If it's a legal one, the deal will be approved with whatever remedies are needed, or possibly zero concessions at all.

Sony got to buy Bungie because they put the necessary structural remedies required for the acquisition up front, announced at the start of the acquisition. These included structuring Bungie within the organisational framework so that they sit outside of Playstation, allowing them to operate independently and platform agnostic. They said upfront that Bungie is remaining multiplatform, on all platforms they are currently on, with current and future projects.

Microsoft could have done this, instead they've tried to play it fast and loose because the acquisition was all about capturing exclusive content and IP.

 

[reksveks]

R reksveks what impact will this have on the deal?

Don't think much honestly, think if MS overcomes the hurdles from the CMA then they were going to have to go to court anyways.

 

[reksveks]

Another delay for MS's subpoena for Sony

https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ft...to-move-to-limit-or-quash-subpoena-public.pdf

Sony not too happy with the lawyers of MS's requests and their tactics.

 

[Akhawi]

"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

Microsoft's no cross-play policy back during the 7th gen gen was well-known, but there is absolutely no proof anywhere whatsoever that Sony actually wanted to do cross-play with Xbox back then either, and looking at how much they despised and fought against it while having to be dragged kicking and screaming into it last generation I think it's safe to say that if MS had asked Sony to do cross-play between X360+PS3 they would still have refused.

That said, PSN during the PS3 era was such a fucking terrible, insecure, unstable and laggy mess of a service that MS would have had to be absolutely insane to even consider doing cross-play with PlayStation at the time as it would have directly hurt Xbox gamers experience in online multiplayer games.

And as I recall CS:GO actually had cross-play with PS3 for a short time (or at least were supposed to have it) but Valve backed out of it quickly because it turned out that Sony's patch verification process was extremely slow and could take days or even weeks to be approved while the Steam version could be updated immediately whenever Valve felt like it. Obviously having a version mismatch between the PC and PS3 would have caused issues and they didn't want to make PC gamers wait for Sony just so they could patch their game, so the entire thing fell apart in the end.

 

[Topher]

Microsoft's no cross-play policy back during the 7th gen gen was well-known, but there is absolutely no proof anywhere whatsoever that Sony actually wanted to do cross-play with Xbox back then either, and looking at how much they despised and fought against it while having to be dragged kicking and screaming into it last generation I think it's safe to say that if MS had asked Sony to do cross-play between X360+PS3 they would still have refused.

That said, PSN during the PS3 era was such a fucking terrible, insecure, unstable and laggy mess of a service that MS would have had to be absolutely insane to even consider doing cross-play with PlayStation at the time as it would have directly hurt Xbox gamers experience in online multiplayer games.

And as I recall CS:GO actually had cross-play with PS3 for a short time (or at least were supposed to have it) but Valve backed out of it quickly because it turned out that Sony's patch verification process was extremely slow and could take days or even weeks to be approved while the Steam version could be updated immediately whenever Valve felt like it. Obviously having a version mismatch between the PC and PS3 would have caused issues and they didn't want to make PC gamers wait for Sony just so they could patch their game, so the entire thing fell apart in the end.

Not sure anyone suggested Sony was in favor of crossplay back then. I certainly didn't.

 

[DarkMage619]

And so will Microsoft if the deal falls through -- as ABK games will continue to release on both platforms, creating equal opportunities for both companies, consoles, and their userbase.

This deal will allow Nintendo to gain access to Activision games that they currently are not getting. There are more than two platforms no matter how many times we try to act like Nintendo isn't a player in this industry. This deal will benefit more gamers than if it fails. Everyone should want this to pass.

 

[pasterpl]

Another delay for MS's subpoena for Sony

https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ft...to-move-to-limit-or-quash-subpoena-public.pdf

Sony not too happy with the lawyers of MS's requests and their tactics.

Kind of expected a big corp lawyers to play this game. Flood them with discovery requests, for any data request that Sony failed to deliver, MS will be calling them out in court/in FTC. It is also funny Sony saying that it would cost 2 mln dollars to get it all, while flying Jim Ryan to meet with all of these control bodies for the last 1-2 years. It is all high paid lawyers mind games.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

SenjutsuSage Concessions are a'comin', my friend

 

[Stardust_Dragon]

Sony got to buy Bungie because they put the necessary structural remedies required for the acquisition up front, announced at the start of the acquisition. These included structuring Bungie within the organisational framework so that they sit outside of Playstation, allowing them to operate independently and platform agnostic. They said upfront that Bungie is remaining multiplatform, on all platforms they are currently on, with current and future projects.

Microsoft could have done this, instead they've tried to play it fast and loose because the acquisition was all about capturing exclusive content and IP.

I went back and looked at the timelines for the Sony-Bungie acquisition deal, and it looks like they announced that deal about a couple weeks or so after the Microsoft-ABK merger announcement in mid-January 2022. So basically, both of these deals were officially filed and announced around the same time about a year ago. And yet, the Sony-Bungie deal was officially closed back in July 2022, about 6 months or so ago, while the Microsoft-ABK merger is still ongoing, in phase 2 for both the European Commission and the CMA, while the FTC has already indicated their opposition to the Microsoft-ABK deal. So, shouldn't the fact that the Sony-Bungie deal has been closed for quite some time now despite the fact that deal was announced after Microsoft-ABK merger announcement, and that Bungie makes highly popular games in the Destiny series along with future unannounced games in development be a warning sign here?

To your point regarding the necessary structural remedies, I went ahead and looked up, and found this piece of info online from the original January 31, 2022 announcement:

Post-acquisition, Bungie will be an independent subsidiary of Sony Interactive Entertainment and run by its Board of Directors chaired by Pete Parsons and Bungie’s current management team. The transaction is subject to certain closing conditions, including regulatory approvals. (Source)

Not only did Sony commit to make structural remedies right away from day 1 of their acquisition attempt, but also that the regulators, including the FTC, did indeed have to review and eventually approve the deal for it to go through. Here's another article online that shows what the FTC were looking for in that Sony-Bungie deal:

The FTC is reportedly focused on concerns that Sony might be motivated to prevent competing companies and services, such as Xbox, from accessing Bungie's games such as Destiny 2. That means examining how popular Destiny is, and whether a possible restriction would meaningfully harm Sony's competitors and create antitrust violations. While Sony has publicly committed to keeping Bungie games cross-platform, its ability to restrict both current titles and future releases in the future is a point of antitrust concern. (Source)

So not only did the FTC look into potential antitrust concerns with 'just' Bungie, they went ahead and approved the Bungie deal about a half a year ago! No suing to block by FTC, no phase 2 from the CMA nor for the European Commission, just a straight up approval many months ago. So, that begs the (multi-billion dollar) question, just why isn't Microsoft also trying to copy Sony's strategy here and get their merger agreement through the finish line much sooner? Well, I think many of us know the real answer to that question, and I guess that's why we're all here waiting to see what happens with the CMA Provisional Findings next week.

 

[reksveks]

So not only did the FTC look into potential antitrust concerns with 'just' Bungie, they went ahead and approved the Bungie deal about a half a year ago! No suing to block by FTC, no phase 2 from the CMA nor for the European Commission, just a straight up approval many months ago. So, that begs the (multi-billion dollar) question, just why isn't Microsoft also trying to copy Sony's strategy here and get their merger agreement through the finish line much sooner? Well, I think many of us know the real answer to that question, and I guess that's why we're all here waiting to see what happens with the CMA Provisional Findings next week.

Do you have a link that the CMA actually looked at the Sony and Bungie deal?

Not sure if it actually fell into their remit.

Also imo you are mixing up cause and correlation.

 

[SenjutsuSage]

Sony got to buy Bungie because they put the necessary structural remedies required for the acquisition up front, announced at the start of the acquisition. These included structuring Bungie within the organisational framework so that they sit outside of Playstation, allowing them to operate independently and platform agnostic. They said upfront that Bungie is remaining multiplatform, on all platforms they are currently on, with current and future projects.

Microsoft could have done this, instead they've tried to play it fast and loose because the acquisition was all about capturing exclusive content and IP.

Okay. What will you say when fast and loose Microsoft gets their deal approved then? Sony has no structural remedy in place for Bungie. It's only their signed acquisition agreement with Bungie. There's nothing binding about anything that Bungie said about keeping games multi-platform. It's merely an empty promise without legal weight behind it. A promise that can change the moment Bungie were to decide, for whatever reason, not to release on Xbox. And nothing would come of it from a single regulator.

Quite different from Microsoft's legally binding offer to Sony and that they're also willing to make enforceable by regulators. Sony has no such thing in place with any regulator. They have no concession agreement with a single regulator, so let's not call it structural remedies when the deals were approved without restrictions.


I repeat: Sony has NO bunding agreement with Microsoft to release games on Xbox. Neither does Sony and Bungie's agreement require it. It is all up to Bungie (so they say). This could change in a new york minute.

 

[Heisenberg007]

Yes, Microsoft will be fine, but the gaming market will be a lot less competitive due to it being blocked successfully by Sony. Which is precisely what Sony wants.

It won't be less competitive. Xbox already has 4 more studios than PlayStation, almost 50% more developers, and infinitely more money than Sony. They can produce good games and create competition as much as they want to.

Between the two outcomes, the outcome that creates MORE competition is the one that's better for the industry and all consumers. The best decision for Sony's sake is the worst outcome here, which is why I don't see it happening that way.

It all comes down to the definition of "competition."

Your definition entails punishing Sony to reduce a 20x-smaller company's organically built market share in order to create a level-playing field for Microsoft. That's just not right.

ABK's acquisition will not improve Xbox's position (or give any new games to Xbox gamers). It'll only minimize PlayStation's library of games, just like Zenimax's acquisition did.

That's not creating competition. That's just unfairly punishing a company, just because another company couldn't utilize its resources properly or had poor business strategies.

 

[Heisenberg007]

So not only did the FTC look into potential antitrust concerns with 'just' Bungie, they went ahead and approved the Bungie deal about a half a year ago! No suing to block by FTC, no phase 2 from the CMA nor for the European Commission, just a straight up approval many months ago. So, that begs the (multi-billion dollar) question, just why isn't Microsoft also trying to copy Sony's strategy here and get their merger agreement through the finish line much sooner? Well, I think many of us know the real answer to that question, and I guess that's why we're all here waiting to see what happens with the CMA Provisional Findings next week.

FTC opens probe into Sony's acquisition of Bungie

The US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has opened a probe into Sony's recent acquisition of Bungie. In January, Sony ann…

www.eurogamer.net

Edited.

 

[SenjutsuSage]

I went back and looked at the timelines for the Sony-Bungie acquisition deal, and it looks like they announced that deal about a couple weeks or so after the Microsoft-ABK merger announcement in mid-January 2022. So basically, both of these deals were officially filed and announced around the same time about a year ago. And yet, the Sony-Bungie deal was officially closed back in July 2022, about 6 months or so ago, while the Microsoft-ABK merger is still ongoing, in phase 2 for both the European Commission and the CMA, while the FTC has already indicated their opposition to the Microsoft-ABK deal. So, shouldn't the fact that the Sony-Bungie deal has been closed for quite some time now despite the fact that deal was announced after Microsoft-ABK merger announcement, and that Bungie makes highly popular games in the Destiny series along with future unannounced games in development be a warning sign here?

To your point regarding the necessary structural remedies, I went ahead and looked up, and found this piece of info online from the original January 31, 2022 announcement:

Post-acquisition, Bungie will be an independent subsidiary of Sony Interactive Entertainment and run by its Board of Directors chaired by Pete Parsons and Bungie’s current management team. The transaction is subject to certain closing conditions, including regulatory approvals. (Source)

Not only did Sony commit to make structural remedies right away from day 1 of their acquisition attempt, but also that the regulators, including the FTC, did indeed have to review and eventually approve the deal for it to go through. Here's another article online that shows what the FTC were looking for in that Sony-Bungie deal:

The FTC is reportedly focused on concerns that Sony might be motivated to prevent competing companies and services, such as Xbox, from accessing Bungie's games such as Destiny 2. That means examining how popular Destiny is, and whether a possible restriction would meaningfully harm Sony's competitors and create antitrust violations. While Sony has publicly committed to keeping Bungie games cross-platform, its ability to restrict both current titles and future releases in the future is a point of antitrust concern. (Source)

So not only did the FTC look into potential antitrust concerns with 'just' Bungie, they went ahead and approved the Bungie deal about a half a year ago! No suing to block by FTC, no phase 2 from the CMA nor for the European Commission, just a straight up approval many months ago. So, that begs the (multi-billion dollar) question, just why isn't Microsoft also trying to copy Sony's strategy here and get their merger agreement through the finish line much sooner? Well, I think many of us know the real answer to that question, and I guess that's why we're all here waiting to see what happens with the CMA Provisional Findings next week.

Microsoft immediately committed to making COD multi-platform day one with a signed commitment to Sony. That renders everything you just said irrelevant. Maybe if Microsoft raised the kind of stink that Sony did, Bungie wouldn't have been approved as easily. Ever consider that? Microsoft didn't pull the same snakish move that Sony did lol. That's basically the only difference.

Had Microsoft raised the same kinds of alarms about Bungie, CMA automatically sends it phase 2. That's how these things work. If anybody makes a complaint to CMA raising alarms or potential harms, it automatically heads to phase 2. EU doesn't necessarily work that way, but it would have gone to phase 2 there as well. Sony's transaction for Bungie went as smoothly as it did not because it was so on the up and up, but because Microsoft chose to not make it a major issue with regulators, forcing them to do more in depth looks at the deal.

And also, it would have simply just been bad strategy by Microsoft to do so. So Sony is punching up at their bigger deal while getting their smaller deal through. However, it won't end the way Sony hopes is my assumption.

 

[Banjo64]

Having first party games that are critically well received doesn't always equal being successful or competitive in the industry.

No, but it often leads to success.

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.

As per with Nintendo it failed due to hardware decisions, not software. DVD player won.

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.

I’m posting them as an example of the studios’ pedigree. Not whether those games are exclusive to Xbox.

Do you really think they're moving the needle? Changing the narrative? Numbers that actually matter to a business in the end say otherwise.

Numbers wise Uncharted 1-3 sold 4-5m total copies per game. God of War 1-3 sold 3-5 million copies per game. Those games weren’t always 20m sellers. Far from it. You just have to sustain quality and people will come. But Fallout and TES are bigger franchises than anything that Sony has and will move the needle.

 

[reksveks]

I hope that squashes the conspiracy theory.

Sorry, being a bit slow at 7am, what conspiracy theory?

 

[Heisenberg007]

This deal will allow Nintendo to gain access to Activision games that they currently are not getting. There are more than two platforms no matter how many times we try to act like Nintendo isn't a player in this industry. This deal will benefit more gamers than if it fails. Everyone should want this to pass.

Activision does not need Microsoft's help to bring their games on Nintendo.

Here is a list of over 100 Activision games that Nintendo have had (with 0 help from Microsoft): https://nintendo.fandom.com/wiki/List_of_Activision_games

This list also includes Call of Duty, which came to Nintendo on Wii U.

The only reason newer CODs aren't releasing on Switch is because they lack the hardware power. As soon as they update the hardware to bring it to modern standards, Activision can resume bringing their games, including Call of Duty, to Nintendo Switch v2.

 

[Heisenberg007]

Sorry, being a bit slow at 7am, what conspiracy theory?

It seems like I misread that earlier comment. I thought Stardust_Dragon was saying that the FTC did not look into Sony/Bungie acquisition. My apologies, Stardust. Early morning for me too .

 

[X-Wing]

Microsoft immediately committed to making COD multi-platform day one with a signed commitment to Sony. That renders everything you just said irrelevant. Maybe if Microsoft raised the kind of stink that Sony did, Bungie wouldn't have been approved as easily. Ever consider that? Microsoft didn't pull the same snakish move that Sony did lol. That's basically the only difference.

Had Microsoft raised the same kinds of alarms about Bungie, CMA automatically sends it phase 2. That's how these things work. If anybody makes a complaint to CMA raising alarms or potential harms, it automatically heads to phase 2. EU doesn't necessarily work that way, but it would have gone to phase 2 there as well. Sony's transaction for Bungie went as smoothly as it did not because it was so on the up and up, but because Microsoft chose to not make it a major issue with regulators, forcing them to do more in depth looks at the deal.

And also, it would have simply just been bad strategy by Microsoft to do so. So Sony is punching up at their bigger deal while getting their smaller deal through. However, it won't end the way Sony hopes is my assumption.

That's not true and the first time they proposed a deal in which they committed to keep the game on PlayStation it wasn't acceptable on PlayStation's eyes (it was three years by the way). If Sony was right on refusing it or not we won't know since we don't know what was in there.

Microsoft could cry foul al they wanted with the Bungie acquisition, neither Bungie's nor Sony's dimension sets that in monopoly territory, in stark contrast with both Microsoft and Activision.

 

[Banjo64]

Wow, I have been following this Microsoft-ABK merger topic for quite some time here on NeoGaf, and reading a lot of comments on here, some of them calm, and others quite heated. Not that I blame you all for that, I can understand why a publisher acquisition of this scale by a platform owner of one of three console makers bring out such intense discussions, and this topic has already hit 400 pages, wow! As for me, I want to share what I think is going to happen, and again this is just my own prediction, but I wanted to share my thoughts now ahead of time since the CMA decision is likely to come sometime next week, and whenever their PF findings are published, this place will be going crazy no matter the results.

Anyhow, my prediction is that the CMA will come to a provisional finding of approval with divestment of Xbox console hardware, along with a ban on producing future video game hardware.
I think based on the internal confidential documents the CMA has received from Sony, as well as ABK, will have the CMA come to the conclusion that even a 10 year commitment of a behavioral remedy by Microsoft won't be enough for Sony to counter Microsoft with their own alternative to COD. Like, sometimes I'm not sure if people appreciate just how much time, money, and capital is required to make these COD games on an annual basis, because it is quite huge, to be frank. For the most recent Call of Duty game, the 2022 version of Modern Warfare 2, here's a list of all the studios that were needed to help ship this game out the door and into consumers hands in Fall 2022:



I don't think this list even includes Solid State Studios and Digital Legends Entertainment who work on the COD mobile games. Anyways, the point is, that's a whole lot of studios that were needed to pitch in and help contribute to getting the game up and running on release day in October 2022. And you know what else too, the game still wasn't bug-free and had some issues at launch! I know this because I preordered Modern Warfare 2 and I was playing the game on opening weekend and experienced some of the issues at the time, namely the campaign (primarily one mission, at least for me anyways) frequently crashing, the pinging system on enemies had to be temporarily disabled due to other player being able to make the ping be stuck onto an enemy player for the entire duration of a match, the tuning mechanic for guns had to be disabled, and there wasn't even any barracks nor leaderboard section for online players to view their K/D ratio and other cumulative stats!

So, from Sony's arguments that I'm sure they've been making to regulators, it would be very, very difficult and financially risky for them to scale up the amount of studios necessary to have the labor manpower necessary to provide roughly the same amount of content and a similar release schedule comparable to Activision studios' COD franchise output. And even if Sony put all that time, resources, capital, and money into buying about a dozen studios or so for making a potential COD competitor, there's still no guarantees that it won't just be a major flop on release, and when comparing Sony's theoretical efforts to counter COD to the proven, established production pipeline that Microsoft would have with all these Activision studios from acquiring ABK, I can see Sony's lawyers making a strong case to regulators using their own internal documents + ABK documents to make their case that COD is irreplacable, and indispensable to the PlayStation platform, and that even a 10 year behavioral commitment by Microsoft just simply isn't sufficient because of the sheer size and scale needed in investment to even think about countering the COD franchise, let alone actually see a first-party COD competitor come into fruition.

Lastly, for Microsoft, what would they, and by they I mean Satya Nadella and the board of directors (meaning not Phil Spencer), decide to do if my prediction is the result they got from the CMA, because the Provisional Finding I predicted would essentially force Microsoft to choose between the Xbox hardware division (alongside Xbox Live online infrastructure in all likelihood), or Activision-Blizzard-King. At the end of the day Microsoft wants to make money beyond all else, and the fact of the matter is that Xbox hardware is sold at a loss and is struggling to retain marketshare compared to Sony's PlayStation, if the leaked NPD results and the latest reveal of console hardware-related statistics by both Sony and Microsoft recent earning calls for the previous quarter are any indication.

Meanwhile, Activision-Blizzard-King offers a trove of valuable gaming IPs and productive studios that are both popular and capture people's attention worldwide in COD, Diablo, Overwatch, and of course King with Candy Crush IP in mobile among other ABK properties. When was the last time Xbox had some huge blockbuster game come out as a console exclusive that really grabbed the attention and produced high amount of buzz worldwide beyond just the hardcore Xbox fanbase, I'm thinking maybe Gears of War 3 back in September 2011, that's about a dozen years ago. I know the Forza Horizon series is beloved and well-received by the Xbox fanbase, but I don't think racing games have the ability to really grab worldwide buzz like shooting games and action-adventure games can. Maybe Starfield by Bethesda will be that mind-blowing game that once again directs attention to the Xbox brand. But you know what, I bet that Satya would take a close, sobering look at Starfield, along with the rest of the projects that Xbox first party studios are working on before making any decision if my prediction about the CMA comes true. Especially since, you know, Microsoft has $70 billion on the line here and they'll have to pay out a few billion dollars to ABK if they drop the deal, so yeah Satya and the board should absolutely evaluate Xbox and Phil Spencer's management prior to making a crucial decision if my prediction comes to fruition.

Anyways, that's just me trying my best to read the tea leaves and following the discussion here on NeoGaf about this huge, unprecedented merger attempt in the video games industry, so even if people on here strongly disagree with most/all of what I wrote, I hope I still contributed positively here to this discussion. So I guess right now we're in the calm before the shitstorm that likely arrives sometime next week, courtesy of the CMA. Well, I'll be on here looking forward to the incoming major news either way the CMA PF findings are.

A well thought out post, I agree that the only way the CMA approves this is with divestiture.

However, I can’t see it being Xbox hardware. That would remove options from the consumer and would lead to Sony being able to implement anti-consumer practices - which is counter to the CMA’s purpose.

I think they’d have to sell some/all of 343i, The Coalition, Blizzard Entertainment, id Software, MachineGames & Arkane. The CMA have noted in their phase 1 report how if this deal were to pass Xbox would own popular shooters like Halo, Gears, CoD, Overwatch and Doom.

But I don’t even know if they will offer divestiture. That’s probably best case scenario for MS.

 

[DavidGzz]

When people get perma'd their profile should no longer be private, I wanna see why he was banned. Why am I seeing this? "This member limits who may view their full profile." He shouldn't have any rights anymore.

 

[Heisenberg007]

A well thought out post, I agree that the only way the CMA approves this is with divestiture.

However, I can’t see it being Xbox hardware. That would remove options from the consumer and would lead to Sony being able to implement anti-consumer practices - which is counter to the CMA’s purpose.

I think they’d have to sell some/all of 343i, The Coalition, Blizzard Entertainment, id Software, MachineGames & Arkane. The CMA have noted in their phase 1 report how if this deal were to pass Xbox would own popular shooters like Halo, Gears, CoD, Overwatch and Doom.

But I don’t even know if they will offer divestiture. That’s probably best case scenario for MS.

In that case, would it be worth for Microsoft to have Call of Duty (and publish their games for 10 or so years on PlayStation)?

I doubt it. What do you think?

On the other hand, they also would not want to pay ~$1 billion or so just to back out of the deal at this point. Satya would be like:

 

[Edmund]

If MS deems Activion Blizzard games are nothing special, then why are they fighting so hard for this deal to go through. What pisses me off about this whole thing is the double speak of Spencer.

https://www.thegamer.com/microsoft-activision-blizzard-games-not-unique-monopoly-competition-merger/

1)We want games for everyone. Exclusives are bad - Proceeds to buy Zenimax and makes games exclusive.

2)Bobby Kotick is bad. ATVI is bad - Goes behind everyone's back and makes a deal with Kotick.

3) Sony and Nintendo are not our real competitors, its Google and Amazon - yeah right.

4) ATVI games are nothing special/unique - Fights tooth and nail to get the acquisition done.

 

[ToadMan]

First of all, tighten up. Business is business is business. Microsoft has every right to do what they're doing now with Bethesda. Even regulators agreed with it, every last one. Also, Bethesda was a private company that wasn't publicly traded, which helps, the price tag wasn't as out there, and their biggest games release very infrequently, and most don't do anywhere near the kinds of numbers Call of Duty does. Zenimax/Bethesda is nothing at all like the yearly cycle that is Call of Duty, and also their biggest properties aren't as heavily reliant on multiplayer. Bethesda's last mega release, Fallout 4, will have been nearly 8 years ago, if not over 8 years ago, depending on when Starfield releases this year.

This is Microsoft doing business. The buyer doesn't get forced to sell. Microsoft made a convincing case, just like Sony did to buy Bungie, Naughty Dog, Guerilla, Insomniac (immediately after their biggest hit game ever), Sucker Punch, and all the other studios they bought over the years and just in the last two years alone. Housemarque, Bluepoint, Valkyrie, Nixxes, Jade Raymond's new studio. Simply because they don't all have IP as valuable as what Microsoft is picking up doesn't change the end result of Sony buying and acquiring to improve themselves.

Sony just bought something pretty fucking big. And they did it as the market leader no less. How does the market leader get to buy the #2 best-selling FPS behind Call of Duty for that many years and also the 7th best-selling franchise in that same period? I don't really care. I don't complain about these things. I accept that business will take place and I make adjustments as needed to those realities. Market leader can buy the #2 FPS in the biggest gaming market in the world, but dead last can't buy #1. Yea. That holds no water in my eyes. This Activision deal is on the up and up. Everybody knows it. Now will we get a legal decision, or a political one? If it's a legal one, the deal will be approved with whatever remedies are needed, or possibly zero concessions at all.

Sony bought bungie and confirmed it’s games remain multiplat.

I think if MS committed to the same arrangement with ABK IPs, this deal is done already.

But MS are clearly trying to create a walled off gaming platform and trying to purchase a major part of the existing functional gaming market to force consumers through their doors.

The regulators are rightly concerned about the impact on consumers of this move.

Bungie - that was a change of the sign over the door and continue business as usual. ABK definitely isn’t that.

 

[Banjo64]

In that case, would it be worth for Microsoft to have Call of Duty (and publish their games for 10 or so years on PlayStation)?

I doubt it. What do you think?

Not worth it IMO but I’ve not thought this deal was worth it from the get go. I thought Bungie was better suited to the Game Pass model with their regular paid expansions for Destiny.