Support NeoGAF

[ReBurn]

Who is willing to give me their mortgage/rent payment? Utilities, car/vehicle payment and other expenses. Add to that all of your disposable income for the month. I promise to give it all back an hour after you give it to me...

Nobody of sound mind would do that right? Because a promise is not legally binding. Once a person puts that money in my bank account, they have Zero legal recourse. That's how illegal scams work.

But we're 11 months into this deal being announced and people are still suggesting that because Phil Spencer "promised" to keep COD on PS that there should be no regulatory input. And that the deal should go through based on the strength of one man's word. I find that astonishing. I mean, a person can love their preferred platform. But adulation of a platform's CEO to the point where people actually believe his PR has legal merit, speaks more to a persons mental state.

You can love/hate Nintendo/PS/XBOX but dismissing the legal framework and international laws these companies operate under is nonsensical and plain stupid.

As officers of the company, Nadella and Spencer can be held legally accountable for what they say in public about Microsoft and Xbox business. Their statements can affect stock price and trading patterns, which ultimately affects shareholder value and executives' wealth if they have equity in the company. US executives have gone to prison for propping up their businesses with lies.

What Nadella and Spencer say in public about the business is a crafted PR message. But there's no reason to believe that it's an outright lie. What we, the public, lack is the specifics. "COD will remain on PlayStation" could mean many things. Hopefully regulators can get us a definition.

 

[feynoob]

The irony.

Most of us have left you and feynoob to your own devices some time ago.

If you had any sense of critical thinking, you would have come with conclusion, that this would be discussed between regulators and MS.

People who have no idea about how this works, would just come to your conclusion just like that.

 

[adamsapple]

As officers of the company, Nadella and Spencer can be held legally accountable for what they say in public about Microsoft and Xbox business. Their statements can affect stock price and trading patterns, which ultimately affects shareholder value and executives' wealth if they have equity in the company. US executives have gone to prison for propping up their businesses with lies.

What Nadella and Spencer say in public about the business is a crafted PR message. But there's no reason to believe that it's an outright lie. What we, the public, lack is the specifics. "COD will remain on PlayStation" could mean many things. Hopefully regulators can get us a definition.

None of the regulatory bodies have, publicly at least, asked for any specific concessions to be made, so Pelta88 's dumb points are even more irrelevant, no one at MS can pre-emptively put pen on paper to write down something that hasn't been asked as part of official negotiations. The only thing they do is make verbal commitments when asked about it.

If regulators are asking MS for concessions internally without disclosing it on public forums, that is between them. We will know whenever the results of those findings are made public.

 

[Pelta88]

As officers of the company, Nadella and Spencer can be held legally accountable for what they say in public about Microsoft and Xbox business. Their statements can affect stock price and trading patterns, which ultimately affects shareholder value and executives' wealth if they have equity in the company. US executives have gone to prison for propping up their businesses with lies.

What Nadella and Spencer say in public about the business is a crafted PR message. But there's no reason to believe that it's an outright lie. What we, the public, lack is the specifics. "COD will remain on PlayStation" could mean many things. Hopefully regulators can get us a definition.

This is all true but they as yet, don't actually own ATVI. Which means everything they say up and until the minute of signing isn't legally binding. The stock price can move on bad/good PR. The announcement moved the price from $65 - $86 or there abouts.

They've been on a relative decline since then. Price is currently $74. Additional regulatory announcements seem to be driving the stock down. Despite incredible sales for COD which would usually make the price spike.

 

[feynoob]

This is all true but they as yet, don't actually own ATVI. Which means everything they say up and until the minute of signing isn't legally binding. The stock price can move on bad/good PR. The announcement moved the price from $65 - $86 or there abouts.

They've been on a relative decline since then. Price is currently $74. Additional regulatory announcements seem to be driving the stock down. Despite incredible sales for COD which would usually make the price spike.

The deal has until june 2023.
I dont get what you are trying to say here.

 

[Pelta88]

The deal has until june 2023.
I dont get what you are trying to say here.

Truthfully. Nobody expects you to.

None of the regulatory bodies have, publicly at least, asked for any specific concessions to be made, so Pelta88 's dumb points are even more irrelevant,

We're talking about ATVI's stock price. The announcement of additional regulatory steps can affect the stock price. Concessions don't need to be announced for investors to turn bearish and drive the price down.

 

[DarkMage619]

No because you made a broad statement claiming MS are giving people options to play games on other devices and there are more people without PS devices than there are with. Which means fuck all without context or stats. 8 billion people in the world. That doesn't mean all 8 billion are gonna have access to Xbox games or will even play them.

It means people who don't have game consoles at all could still be potential customers for Xbox games. Whether or not they all choose to access those games doesn't change the fact that it becomes an option for those people. It is a fact that more people with those devices exist than people who have PlayStations and if even a fraction of those people get Game pass its a win to MS. Protecting Sony customers is not MS' responsibility any more than it was Sony's responsibility to protect Xbox gamers when they money hat exclusivtivity for 3rd party games. At least you aren't forced to buy Xbox hardware to play those games.

 

[ReBurn]

This is all true but they as yet, don't actually own ATVI. Which means everything they say up and until the minute of signing isn't legally binding. The stock price can move on bad/good PR. The announcement moved the price from $65 - $86 or there abouts.

They've been on a relative decline since then. Price is currently $74. Additional regulatory announcements seem to be driving the stock down. Despite incredible sales for COD which would usually make the price spike.

That's not necessarily true. They could be held accountable for things they say before the deal closes. Depends on what they say and what the result is. There is no such thing as "my views are my own" as it relates to Nadella's or Spencer's words on any topic related to Microsoft.

As it relates to the ATVI stock price there's more going on than just the release of CoD. It's not as simple as a "release game, stock price goes up" paradigm. The market expected CoD to do well so it want going to move the needle much on its own. Regulators examining the deal will keep stock prices down until the uncertainty relaxes. Activision also reaffirmed Kotick as CEO during this time, resurfacing the company's image problem, leading to negative reactions. ATVI stock price isn't really an indicator of anything.

 

[kevm3]

Why is Microsoft so bad at managing their gaming studios? I like the Series X in terms of hardware, but we have to be real here and admit the exclusive lineup sucks. Are there even any exclusives coming out any time soon? The strategy Microsoft is pursuing doesn't make any sense in terms of moving hardware. I guess game pass is their cash cow and that's what they care about the most?

 

[feynoob]

Truthfully. Nobody expects you to.



We're talking about ATVI's stock price. The announcement of additional regulatory steps can affect the stock price. Concessions don't need to be announced for investors to turn bearish and drive the price down.

You are the one who have no clue what you are talking about.

MS expects this deal to finish by time, because of these stuff. They know COD would be the center talking point. It's why they said it would be on PS day1.

As for the stock market, look at the current economy first, and Activision lawsuits. These have more impact, than these PR words.

You are making this like this deal is going to fail, when there is really no reason for regulators to stop it.

 

[feynoob]

Why is Microsoft so bad at managing their gaming studios? I like the Series X in terms of hardware, but we have to be real here and admit the exclusive lineup sucks. Are there even any exclusives coming out any time soon? The strategy Microsoft is pursuing doesn't make any sense in terms of moving hardware. I guess game pass is their cash cow and that's what they care about the most?

Not enough 1st party studio during xbox one.
Their purchased studios started 2018. So everything was in transition period.

 

[Pelta88]

That's not necessarily true. They could be held accountable for things they say before the deal closes. Depends on what they say and what the result is. There is no such thing as "my views are my own" as it relates to Nadella's or Spencer's words on any topic related to Microsoft.

As it relates to the ATVI stock price there's more going on than just the release of CoD. It's not as simple as a "release game, stock price goes up" paradigm. The market expected CoD to do well so it want going to move the needle much on its own. Regulators examining the deal will keep stock prices down until the uncertainty relaxes. Activision also reaffirmed Kotick as CEO during this time, resurfacing the company's image problem, leading to negative reactions. ATVI stock price isn't really an indicator of anything.

I disagree. But we run the risk of comparing how we do due diligence on stocks and I'm not sure that we should take that road.

I haven't seen any PR from Phil and co that has moved the price. But I got in the short once CMA announced Microsoft offered no remedies and Phase 2 kicked in.

 

[feynoob]

I disagree. But we run the risk of comparing how we do due diligence on stocks and I'm not sure that we should take that road.

I haven't seen any PR from Phil and co that has moved the price. But I got in the short once CMA announced Microsoft offered no remedies and Phase 2 kicked in.

Because companies offer no remedies on that phase.
Phase 2 can change alot of outcome.

 

[Three]

For obvious reasons, you’re uninterested in including Apex, Fortnite and PUBG in this list.

Oh sure Fortnite, and PubG might aswell incude Socom on the list too then.

 

[ReBurn]

I disagree. But we run the risk of comparing how we do due diligence on stocks and I'm not sure that we should take that road.

I haven't seen any PR from Phil and co that has moved the price. But I got in the short once CMA announced Microsoft offered no remedies and Phase 2 kicked in.

The price isn't going to move upward that much considering the terms of the proposed buyout and the overvalued status of the company even at its current market cap. There's also probably no benefit to Microsoft to try to influence ATVI stock price since their offer has already been accepted. So yeah, no sense in spending much time on stock price.

Microsoft didn't need to offer any remedies for phase 1 of CMA review because CMA didn't ask for anything specific to be remedied. Their findings were general. Through the next phase the CMA will need show what the specific issues are so that Microsoft can offer specific remedies.

 

[Ozriel]

Oh sure Fortnite, and PubG might aswell incude Socom on the list too then.

Way more apt to include ongoing shooters like Fortnite and PUBG than you throwing in ancient shit like Haze.

 

[Three]

Way more apt to include ongoing shooters like Fortnite and PUBG than you throwing in ancient shit like Haze.

Fortnite is not even the same type of game and f2p. Those named were meant to be Sonys competitive shooters.
Go back and read what I replied to

If it's unavailable on Playstation then Sony will be inclined to develop this much needed competition in order to serve their players, and all players the world overwill be rewarded with the power of even more choice

they have tried several times with FPS, Haze, MAG, Killzone, and Resistance. It's more difficult naming a FPS that's worked for them than it is naming the several that have failed. Even Halo and BF are failing against it.

 

[feynoob]

O Ozriel and T Three
What are you guys even arguing about?
COD aint leaving PS. There is too much money on the line. Especially, when mw2 made $1b in just 10 days.
Only a moron company would remove that game.

 

[Three]

O Ozriel and T Three
What are you guys even arguing about?
COD aint leaving PS. There is too much money on the line. Especially, when mw2 made $1b in just 10 days.
Only a moron company would remove that game.

I'm not the one arguing for it to be removed. Only replying to the silly idea that it being removed improves competition by giving more, especially when there is a list of failed FPS that didn't compete.

 

[feynoob]

I'm not the one arguing for it to be removed. Only replying to the silly idea that it being removed improves competition by giving more, especially when there is a list of failed FPS that didn't compete.

It honestly doesnt. Both company would suffer from this decision.
MS would lose revenue from COD, While Sony wouldnt be able to counter it.

 

[John Wick]

I’ll take this as confirmation that you’ve got nothing to cite as an ongoing monopolistic practice.

As expected.

Microsoft have a history of it. I'm sure you can Google it, MS won't be offended you used Google instead of Bing.

 

[John Wick]

I already mentioned them, don't act like a dumbass about it.

Mobile, streaming, TVs etc all that nonsense already exists.

 

[John Wick]

Lol have xbox fans really changed their stance on cod going exclusive? You guys were pretty sure cod would be exclusive when the deal was first announced. Don't deny it. Now it's "Microsoft never wanted cod to be exclusive!"

You really think Microsoft wouldn't make it exclusive if they could? They only changed their stance because of the regulators. So did you guys.

The reason MS bought Zenimax and ABK was to remove those 3rd party games from Sony. If MS had a guarantee the deals would go through without a hitch COD would be exclusive day one.

 

[Eddie-Griffin]

The reason MS bought Zenimax and ABK was to remove those 3rd party games from Sony.

Which you got from what?

 

[Yoboman]

Makes sense to me

The most ideal situation is of MS buy ActiBlizz and then buy EA, Take2, Ubisoft, WB, Capcom and Square Enix so they can ensure competition exists in this industry and that gamers can access games via Xbox Gamepass or Xcloud for the low price of $14.95 a month (affiliate links in my bio)

As it stands now, competition wont exist without Microsoft

 

[Eddie-Griffin]

As officers of the company, Nadella and Spencer can be held legally accountable for what they say in public about Microsoft and Xbox business. Their statements can affect stock price and trading patterns, which ultimately affects shareholder value and executives' wealth if they have equity in the company. US executives have gone to prison for propping up their businesses with lies.

The video game field also doesn't really get much attention even if they did lie. But they didn't, and really people are taking it over board with some of the spin on statements.

 

[oldergamer]

Mobile, streaming, TVs etc all that nonsense already exists.

It doesn't matter if it exists and they don't currently reach those platforms in the same manner. You also ignored nintendo which makes your argument weak.

 

[Panajev2001a]

Microsoft have a history of it. I'm sure you can Google it, MS won't be offended you used Google instead of Bing.

But but this time they “gave peace a chance” . Like cartoon villains.

 

[Neofire]

Which you got from what?

Which he got it from the horses mouth themselves because they've removed the once announced Starfield and the Next Elders Scrolls from the Playstation and that's just the ones they've been open about. I think they are only telling people that much is because of the FTC lawsuit.

 

[kainslayer]

nadella you and spencer have more studios than ps...bring the games first talk mfn later im sick of xbox pr it became ridicullus .Let the games talk dont copy jim ryan .Instead of arguing about games we ended up talking about presidents ,acquisitions and pr bullshit

 

[Eddie-Griffin]

Which he got it from the horses mouth themselves because they've removed the once announced Starfield and the Next Elders Scrolls from the Playstation and that's just the ones they've been open about. I think they are only telling people that much is because of the FTC lawsuit.

No, the claim was the REASON they brought Bethesda was SPECIFICALLY to take away certain games from Sony, and no evidence is there to support that.