Support NeoGAF

[ChorizoPicozo]

Microsoft is a monopoly? Of what?

bad taste.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

I'm expecting something aggresive from Microsoft after the starfield exclusive to Xbox anyway its good for players and an opportunity for both companies to take COD to new heights

or unprecedented lows.

 

[Killjoy-NL]

I am actually surprised MS extended an olive branch to Sony after dragging this on as there was no need for them to do this as no one considered exclusivity a deal breaker not the EC, CMA, or the Judge in the USA in the PI.

MS must have squeezed Sony quite hard into agreeing a deal which isn't favorable towards Sony what so ever. I wouldn't be surprised if MS leverage their imminent acquisition of Activision and got Sony to drop their marketing deal and also allowing MS to put CoD on GamePass this year when it releases.

I doubt it.

"COD" needs Playstation more than the other way round.

 

[StueyDuck]

Microsoft is a monopoly? Of what?

Lol so we can't possibly prevent a monopoly until it becomes one then it's too late and all the competition is dead, whoopsie poopsie "But ThEy WeReN't a MoNopOlY BeFore"

It's like saying climate change doesn't affect the world because your in your house with the AC on and it's not too hot for you.

I'd argue that the lesson is negotiation > litigation

So you don't believe anyone should try stand up to Microsoft, also Sony didn't sue or take them to court just to clear that up, the FTC did.

Jim has to stand up against them because they are planning on ending Sony in the console space, there's actual documentation of Microsoft execs saying that is their plan . Negotiating may give them 3 more years alive but as the head of Sony gaming Jim needs to ensure they get more than 3 or 4 more years, negotiating doesn't get that. I doubt shareholders want that either, they wanna keep earning

 

[Robb]

Lol so we can't possibly prevent a monopoly until it becomes one then it's too late and all the competition is dead, whoopsie poopsie "But ThEy WeReN't a MoNopOlY BeFore"

Is it even remotely close yet though? Nintendo, Sony, Steam, Apple, Meta, Amazon, Google, Netflix etc. etc. are all out there with investments in gaming. Not to mention every publisher having their own platform/launcher these days. Or the odd gaming console getting released here and there.

Claiming we’re close to having only one company controlling everything is ridiculous imo.

 

[StueyDuck]

Is it even remotely close yet though? Nintendo, Sony, Steam, Apple, Meta, Amazon, Google, Netflix etc. etc. are all out there with investments in gaming. Not to mention every publisher having their own platform/launcher these days. Or the odd gaming console getting released here and there.

Claiming we’re close to having only one company controlling everything is ridiculous imo.

It's not about being close. It's about nothing being as expensive or more than 70billion dollars with the same number of top selling IP like actiblizz. You literally can't do more damage other than buying the competition outright.

As I've said before precedent is now set. Anytime any case gets brought to a judge now they are just gonna scoff, stuff their face with a cheeseburger, fart and say well EA aren't as big as actibliz so it's chill just buy them why are we even here.

 

[Godot25]

Lol so we can't possibly prevent a monopoly until it becomes one then it's too late and all the competition is dead, whoopsie poopsie "But ThEy WeReN't a MoNopOlY BeFore"

Can't wait to see how company that has 6% of revenue in game industry after merger will become monopoly. While your competitors are either entrenched like Sony or Nintendo or are established publishers like EA and Take-Two or are huge corps that have their investment spread around the world like Tencent and NetEase.

It's just funny to claim that Microsoft post-merger will be anything close to monopoly. It just show sheer lack of understanding for gaming business and gaming landscape.
But I get that if you are only watching game industry with "Sony googles" then it is maybe worrisome.

 

[StueyDuck]

Can't wait to see how company that has 6% of revenue in game industry after merger will become monopoly. While your competitors are either entrenched like Sony or Nintendo or are established publishers like EA and Take-Two or are huge corps that have their investment spread around the world like Tencent and NetEase.

Foresight... what does it mean

But you are right they aren't a monopoly now so we should put absolutely 0 legal precedent going forward to prevent it or anyone else becomong so. I mean why should we, we should only solve problems when they become problems right?

 

[Godot25]

Foresight... what does it mean

But you are right they aren't a monopoly now so we should put absolutely 0 legal precedent going forward to prevent it. I mean why should we, we should only solve problems when they become problems right?

But deal was heavily scrutinised. You sound like it passed with flying colours. Which is not true. Outside the fact that we are 1,5 years after announcement and it's still not done, it needed extension to merger agreement.

Every regulator tried with "console business" base in their evaluation of the deal and nobody could find any harm in console industry. They basically either said that it makes no financial sense to make COD exclusive or that even if Microsoft made COD exclusive, Sony would be fine. Don't you find it strange, that no regulatory body around the world made this deal unlawful based on console/PC games industry and only way even CMA was trying to block it was cloud?

But yeah. I'm used to flip-flopping between "Xbox has no games" and "Xbox will be monopoly."

If someone actually thinks that even if Microsoft made COD and every ABK game exclusive PlayStation would somehow stop selling, they should go to doctor.

 

[StueyDuck]

But deal was heavily scrutinised. You sound like it passed with flying colours. Which is not true. Outside the fact that we are 1,5 years after announcement and it's still not done, it needed extension to merger agreement.

Every regulator tried with "console business" base in their evaluation of the deal and nobody could find any harm in console industry. They basically either said that it makes no financial sense to make COD exclusive or that even if Microsoft made COD exclusive, Sony would be fine. Don't you find it strange, that no regulatory body around the world made this deal unlawful based on console/PC games industry and only way even CMA was trying to block it was cloud?

But yeah. I'm used to flip-flopping between "Xbox has no games" and "Xbox will be monopoly"

First of all I've never said xbox has no games, that is precisely why I am calling out the consolidation/monopolistic behavior and have been since the beginning.

And I'd hardly say it was heavily scrutinized, they had to go to court for a day where the judge basically just laughed at the FTC (who did also do a shit job) and then happily favored Microsoft (where her son works). The CMA caved instantly and Microsoft had to wait a couple of months if that is being heavily scrutinized for the biggest consolidation in tech history especially gaming then we are royally fucked.

The fact is that the legal system. Was not designed or built around modern big tech and consolidation. When you have literal documented emails of executives laying out their plans to monopolise and destroy (outspend) their competition and then they still get given the golden ticket to make the biggest 70bil acquisition then you know where things are going.

We can't all really be this blind on what is coming and where it's all heading

 

[Robb]

It's not about being close. It's about nothing being as expensive or more than 70billion dollars with the same number of top selling IP like actiblizz. You literally can't do more damage other than buying the competition outright.

As I've said before precedent is now set. Anytime any case gets brought to a judge now they are just gonna scoff, stuff their face with a cheeseburger, fart and say well EA aren't as big as actibliz so it's chill just buy them why are we even here.

Ah, yeah I definitely agree with that. Pandora’s box has been opened.

 

[Godot25]

First of all I've never said xbox has no games, that is precisely why I am calling out the consolidation/monopolistic behavior and have been since the beginning.

And I'd hardly say it was heavily scrutinized, they had to go to court for a day where the judge basically just laughed at the FTC (who did also do a shit job) and then happily favored Microsoft (where her son works). The CMA caved instantly and Microsoft had to wait a couple of months if that is being heavily scrutinized for the biggest consolidation in tech history especially gaming then we are royally fucked.

The fact is that the legal system. Was not designed or built around modern big tech and consolidation. When you have literal documented emails of executives laying out their plans to monopolise and destroy (outspend) their competition and then they still get given the golden ticket to make the biggest 70bil acquisition then you know where things are going.

We can't all really be this blind on what is coming and where it's all heading

But you kinda need facts on your side when want to block a merger...
...otherwise you are just Lina Khan and her "big tech bad."

Congratulations. You have opinion of a woman who once said that every company that exceeds 1 trillion market cap should be broken to pieces...just because.

I don't even need to address "judge's son works for Microsoft." Because outside of fact that Microsoft did not wanted trial in California, so it was FTC's choice, she even stated this fact during hearing and FTC could object...

 

[Mr Reasonable]

I doubt it.

"COD" needs Playstation more than the other way round.

Not really, I think it's pretty obvious that both of them need one another and while it may be up for debate how much one needs the other, it's pretty obvious that Sony think having COD on their platform is extremely beneficial, if they didn't, they wouldn't have fought this acquisition, fearing that Microsoft might consider taking the game from their platform.

 

[StueyDuck]

But you kinda need facts on your side when want to block a merger...
...otherwise you are just Lina Khan and her "big tech bad."

Congratulations. You have opinion of a woman who once said that every company that exceeds 1 trillion market cap should be broken to pieces...just because.

I don't even need to address "judge's son works for Microsoft." Because outside of fact that Microsoft did not wanted trial in California, so it was FTC's choice, she even stated this fact during hearing and FTC could object...

Lol big tech is bad though. It's not an opinion held by a woman. It's an ancient legal system that "needs proof" ... well how do you prove a monopoly unless they are already one.

Should courts not sentence premeditated murder? Nothing more premeditated then Microsoft executives literally saying their goal is to outspend the competition to destroy them.

The judges son working Microsoft will never not be a factor. We can't just sweep it under the rug . Just because they mentioned it in court doesn't mean it isn't absolutely a massive conflict of interest. The judge should have had 0 ties to Microsoft or to anything in gaming. I'd even argue anything in tech. Pretending the legal system isn't broken/corrupt and abused to me is ridiculous.

You have notorious hackers who almost destroyed companies, stole private data and leaked private Data getting off because of ouchy brain.

You have women murdering their own babies, crushing their skulls and only getting a slap on the wrist or a couple of months in prison (this is the UK)

You have Facebook stealing private information and tiktok being a literal Trojan horse and the courts still just stick their fingers up their arses.

So yes I'm not going to take legalese at face value here because it's broken (clearly when you can consolidate the biggest publisher in the world at 70billion dollars it is broken)

 

[Godot25]

Lol big tech is bad though. It's not an opinion held by a woman. It's an ancient legal system that "needs proof" ... well how do you prove a monopoly unless they are already one.

Should courts not sentence premeditated murder? Nothing more premeditated then Microsoft executives literally saying their goal is to outspend the competition to destroy them.

The judges son working Microsoft will never not be a factor. We can't just sweep it under the rug . Just because they mentioned it in court doesn't mean it isn't absolutely a massive conflict of interest. The judge should have had 0 ties to Microsoft or to anything in gaming. I'd even argue anything in tech. Pretending the legal system isn't broken/corrupt and abused to me is ridiculous.

You have notorious hackers who almost destroyed companies, stole private data and leaked private Data getting off because of ouchy brain.

You have women murdering their own babies, crushing their skulls and only getting a slap on the wrist or a couple of months in prison (this is the UK)

You have Facebook stealing private information and tiktok being a literal Trojan horse and the courts still just stick their fingers up their arses.

So yes I'm not going to take legalese at face value here because it's broken (clearly when you can consolidate the biggest publisher in the world at 70billion dollars it is broken)

And who is "sweeping under the rug?" All I said was that Corley was not Microsoft's choice to judge this case, since they did not even wanted to go to California. So it's not like Microsoft targeted this exact judge so they will get favourable judgement. And that's true.

And I'm sorry, but if you think that you can judge 69 billion merger based on one email communication, while I have no doubts that same language is used by other gaming execs communication, then good luck with that. Because you are arguing that if you write in WhatsApp "I have ability to kill someone" judge should sentence you to prison based on that message alone...then I'm glad you are not the one writing laws...

Not to mention that every jurisdiction have means to investigate monopolies. Even currently EU is investigating Microsoft for bundling Microsoft Teams with Office 365 subs. Even FTC can visit mergers after they happen to address future concerns.

 

[StueyDuck]

And who is "sweeping under the rug?" All I said was that Corley was not Microsoft's choice to judge this case, since they did not even wanted to go to California. So it's not like Microsoft targeted this exact judge so they will get favourable judgement. And that's true.

And I'm sorry, but if you think that you can judge 69 billion merger based on one email communication, while I have no doubts that same language is used by other gaming execs communication, then good luck with that. Because you are arguing that if you write in WhatsApp "I have ability to kill someone" judge should sentence you to prison based on that message alone...then I'm glad you are not the one writing laws...

Not to mention that every jurisdiction have means to investigate monopolies. Even currently EU is investigating Microsoft for bundling Microsoft Teams with Office 365 subs. Even FTC can visit mergers after they happen to address future concerns.

again acting like law isn't corrupt/abused to me is just hilarious, it just worked out great for MS that their judge presiding over the case happened to have a son at MS, what luck hey

no you don't judge off one piece of information, but with a 70 billion dollar purchase how do you ever prove anything? how do you, you know all the answers how not to, but how do you legally prove microsofts intentions to monopolise and consolidate the entire industry(which is their plan) they can say they want to do exactly that and that's not evidence to you or the law, so what is the other options? them actually being a monopoly already, well shucks good job courts .

again yes they do, but most jurisdiction are built upon the same ancient legal system that essentially stems from British law. Putting aside again just how corrupt the legal system can be with how much money you have, the fact is basically no one pushed back against MS because the legal system is outdated, how can you officially prove the end goal if they haven't reached it yet. We keep using "market share" which is the dumbest value on earth to be using, MS has a small market share but can drop almost 100 bil in a couple of years to consolidate major publishers? you can't see how that's a stupid system? So Microsoft will keep buying until they have the market share, so what do you do if you are MS, well since the law wont stand in your way you buy everything as quick as possible because the market share isn't going to shift over night. It's not like we are going to wake up tomorrow and Xbox now has the lead, but next generation 3-4 years from now? oh wait though, we aren't allowed to think about the future, not without proof from literal time travelers

 

[Killjoy-NL]

Not really, I think it's pretty obvious that both of them need one another and while it may be up for debate how much one needs the other, it's pretty obvious that Sony think having COD on their platform is extremely beneficial, if they didn't, they wouldn't have fought this acquisition, fearing that Microsoft might consider taking the game from their platform.

Beneficial, sure. But Playstation doesn't need COD, at the end of the day.

MS is a different story, as they have to outright buy Activision/Blizzard to be able to stay relevant.

 

[Godot25]

how do you, you know all the answers how not to, but how do you legally prove microsofts intentions to monopolise and consolidate the entire industry(which is their plan)

Because there is not possibility to "monopolise" games industry. And everybody who is saying that is just lying to themselves.
Nintendo did not have ABK games and they have best selling consoles currently
PC is open platform which can't be monopolise and even if Microsoft attempted such thing Valve is major force and guess where would players side in that case
Tencent and NetEase are major forces within industry with claws all over different studios in different parts of world
Sony is biggest gaming company currently in terms of revenue and they are successfully publishing multimillion seller after multimillion seller and they are outselling Xbox almost 2:1 this gen
Gaming is in unique position that you can create hit even without big publisher backing like Valheim, Terraria, Rust etc. No other entertainment industry are capable of such a thing especially not in movies industry.
For all the cries about consolidation I noticed 20-30 new AAA studios that were created in last few years by people who cashed on fact that they sold their previous studios and created new which is further diversify the industry. Again. No such thing is possible in film industry for example.

I get that when people are watching ABK merger through lenses of "will Sony be harmed" then yes. And since people are seeing Sony as some kind of vanguard of quality gaming, they are worried. But it's also laughable. Because every regulator who attempted to challenge this deal in current gaming landscape (ie. not cloud gaming) did it with "but it will hurt Sony" mantra. Which is hilarious.

 

[GreatnessRD]

Beneficial, sure. But Playstation doesn't need COD, at the end of the day.

Yeah ard. What other game giving them 800+ million a year? Sony for sure needs COD at the end of the day. Jim Ryan would've had a stroke had Call of Casual ended up an Xbox exclusive.

 

[StueyDuck]

Because there is not possibility to "monopolise" games industry. And everybody who is saying that is just lying to themselves.
Nintendo did not have ABK games and they have best selling consoles currently
PC is open platform which can't be monopolise and even if Microsoft attempted such thing Valve is major force and guess where would players side in that case
Tencent and NetEase are major forces within industry with claws all over different studios in different parts of world
Sony is biggest gaming company currently in terms of revenue and they are successfully publishing multimillion seller after multimillion seller and they are outselling Xbox almost 2:1 this gen
Gaming is in unique position that you can create hit even without big publisher backing like Valheim, Terraria, Rust etc. No other entertainment industry are capable of such a thing especially not in movies industry.
For all the cries about consolidation I noticed 20-30 new AAA studios that were created in last few years by people who cashed on fact that they sold their previous studios and created new which is further diversify the industry. Again. No such thing is possible in film industry for example.

I get that when people are watching ABK merger through lenses of "will Sony be harmed" then yes. And since people are seeing Sony as some kind of vanguard of quality gaming, they are worried. But it's also laughable. Because every regulator who attempted to challenge this deal in current gaming landscape (ie. not cloud gaming) did it with "but it will hurt Sony" mantra. Which is hilarious.

the problem is that Tech "monopolies" do not fall into a nice neat description the same way as say a pharmaceutical company could, Microsoft can and will essentially lock users into their ecosystem, so while yes there is "competition" they will essentially have a monopoly. this issue has been going on for years with big tech, this isn't some new phenomenon, It's Essentially what Epic tried to solve with Apple. Again I keep saying this but you never want to talk these points, the law is ancient, it wasn't designed to tackle these problems.

again you keep talking "market share" but again if Microsoft just buys all the publishers (which they are doing) then only in a good few years are we going to start seeing the problems, why would i buy a Nintendo florpy (switch 2-4K-Plus) or a PS6 when literally all games being made besides Sony and Nintendo First Party are locked to the MS platform?

you seem to think i am discussing the legal authenticity, i am discussing how ancient and how pathetically and uselessly equipped the law is to handle these issues, as relevant by the biggest most expensive A&M done in both gaming and tech that was essentially semi-glossed over and soared through the legal system with ease. The System is broken and MS know this (known Antitrust offender), and hence will be the destruction of all platforms except MS going forward, sure they'll exist, but they'll barely exist and they will overtime die out.

it's also absolutely important to mention the fact that "Sony will be harmed" I like Sony as a competitor in this space, gaming WILL be worse without them, the same goes for Nintendo and Microsoft themselves. Why you or anyone is super excited that we are inevitably going to be losing even one of those players in this market is strange to me, and that market is disgustingly healthy right now, we are not in any situation where any of them will be dying out soon without consolidation.

 

[Godot25]

the problem is that Tech "monopolies" do not fall into a nice neat description the same way as say a pharmaceutical company could, Microsoft can and will essentially lock users into their ecosystem, so while yes there is "competition" they will essentially have a monopoly. this issue has been going on for years with big tech, this isn't some new phenomenon, It's Essentially what Epic tried to solve with Apple. Again I keep saying this but you never want to talk these points, the law is ancient, it wasn't designed to tackle these problems.

again you keep talking "market share" but again if Microsoft just buys all the publishers (which they are doing) then only in a good few years are we going to start seeing the problems, why would i buy a Nintendo florpy (switch 2-4K-Plus) or a PS6 when literally all games being made besides Sony and Nintendo First Party are locked to the MS platform?

you seem to think i am discussing the legal authenticity, i am discussing how ancient and how pathetically and uselessly equipped the law is to handle these issues, as relevant by the biggest most expensive A&M done in both gaming and tech that was essentially semi-glossed over and soared through the legal system with ease. The System is broken and MS know this (known Antitrust offender), and hence will be the destruction of all platforms except MS going forward, sure they'll exist, but they'll barely exist and they will overtime die out.

it's also absolutely important to mention the fact that "Sony will be harmed" I like Sony as a competitor in this space, gaming WILL be worse without them, the same goes for Nintendo and Microsoft themselves. Why you or anyone is super excited that we are inevitably going to be losing even one of those players in this market is strange to me, and that market is disgustingly healthy right now, we are not in any situation where any of them will be dying out soon without consolidation.

Let's stop pretending that Microsoft would be allowed to buy another publisher or company like Nintendo or Sony. They used leverage of "only third/fourth" in terms of revenue on gaming market and they still barely pulled this through.
There is no chance in hell that they will be able to buy companies like EA or Take-Two. They also won't be able to buy Tencent or NetEase and they also won't be able to buy Nintendo or Sony. Or monopolise PC gaming. It's just hyperbole to fuel argument "why we shouldn't let Microsoft buy ABK" despite the fact that even a in good year ABK is not able to churn out more than 2-3 games and one of them is Call of Duty which is releasing not only on PlayStation until at least 2033, but also on Nintendo platforms.
So much for creating monopoly. It's just boogeymen with no basis in reality of gaming market.

 

[adamsapple]

Beneficial, sure. But Playstation doesn't need COD, at the end of the day

That's not what Sony said.

Sony claims it ‘can’t survive’ without Call of Duty on PlayStation

Sony really wants to get Call of Duty access on the cheap, as the gaming giant claims it can't survive without the shooter series on PlayStation.

www.ggrecon.com

 

[M1987]

Let's stop pretending that Microsoft would be allowed to buy another publisher or company like Nintendo or Sony. They used leverage of "only third/fourth" in terms of revenue on gaming market and they still barely pulled this through.
There is no chance in hell that they will be able to buy companies like EA or Take-Two. They also won't be able to buy Tencent or NetEase and they also won't be able to buy Nintendo or Sony. Or monopolise PC gaming. It's just hyperbole to fuel argument "why we shouldn't let Microsoft buy ABK" despite the fact that even a in good year ABK is not able to churn out more than 2-3 games and one of them is Call of Duty which is releasing not only on PlayStation until at least 2033, but also on Nintendo platforms.
So much for creating monopoly. It's just boogeymen with no basis in reality of gaming market.

They absolutely will be able to buy someone like Take-Two,and that's exactly what they will be doing in the next few years

 

[Kenneth Haight]

That's not what Sony said.

Sony claims it ‘can’t survive’ without Call of Duty on PlayStation

Sony really wants to get Call of Duty access on the cheap, as the gaming giant claims it can't survive without the shooter series on PlayStation.

www.ggrecon.com

 

[Godot25]

They absolutely will be able to buy someone like Take-Two,and that's exactly what they will be doing in the next few years

In terms of money? Absolutely.
In terms of if regulatory bodies would allow it? Nope.
Microsoft will not attempt any other purchase on level of ABK. Not Take-Two, not EA. If yes, they would be eaten alive not only in UK, but also in EU. Because if you noticed EU wants to weigh in purchases in gaming space with consideration of gaming genre. So stuff like "only relevant soccer game on market" are clearly off the table.

But I guess people can use it to doom and gloom in future. That Microsoft will somehow buy every big third-party publisher and will destroy the competition by starving PlayStation out of content. If that helps you, be my guest.
I think that Microsoft won't have a chance in buying another big publisher (middle tier like SEGA or Focus? maybe). They will focus on buying small studios like IO Interactive, Certain Affinity in future.

 

[StueyDuck]

Let's stop pretending that Microsoft would be allowed to buy another publisher or company like Nintendo or Sony. They used leverage of "only third/fourth" in terms of revenue on gaming market and they still barely pulled this through.
There is no chance in hell that they will be able to buy companies like EA or Take-Two. They also won't be able to buy Tencent or NetEase and they also won't be able to buy Nintendo or Sony. Or monopolise PC gaming. It's just hyperbole to fuel argument "why we shouldn't let Microsoft buy ABK" despite the fact that even a in good year ABK is not able to churn out more than 2-3 games and one of them is Call of Duty which is releasing not only on PlayStation until at least 2033, but also on Nintendo platforms.
So much for creating monopoly. It's just boogeymen with no basis in reality of gaming market.

And then after 2033? What happens? (That agreement by the way is literally an ultimatum from MS, they just pulled all Actibliz games from Sony other than CoD, a monopoly would never do that would they )

Oh wait. We are only allowed to talk about right now I forgot.

They are going to absolutely buy another major publisher and very soon, they didn't "barely" get this through, it just took a few extra steps.
We'll check back a year from now when they've announced take 2 or Sega merger.

Then we'll still use the "market share" excuse. Then they'll buy ubisoft and we'll use the "market share" excuse and it'll go on and on and on.

And what's worst is the only way for anyone to "compete" is to do the same thing, Sony and Nintendo are never going to outbid MS so I hope you are excited for your tencent/MS owned gaming future.

 

[ArtHands]

And then after 2033? What happens? (That agreement by the way is literally an ultimatum from MS, they just pulled all Actibliz games from Sony other than CoD, a monopoly would never do that would they )

Oh wait. We are only allowed to talk about right now I forgot.

They are going to absolutely buy another major publisher and very soon, they didn't "barely" get this through, it just took a few extra steps.
We'll check back a year from now when they've announced take 2 or Sega merger.

Then we'll still use the "market share" excuse. Then they'll buy ubisoft and we'll use the "market share" excuse and it'll go on and on and on.

And what's worst is the only way for anyone to "compete" is to do the same thing, Sony and Nintendo are never going to outbid MS so I hope you are excited for your tencent/MS owned gaming future.

They will negotiate after 2033. Its that simple. Pulling their games from Sony doesn't mean anything either, since they ain't monopoly.

 

[StueyDuck]

They will negotiate after 2033. Its that simple. Pulling their games from Sony doesn't mean anything either, since they ain't monopoly.

They'll never be a monopoly. Even when they are they still won't be, it's only a win win for big tech and shareholders, we should all bootlick

Gaming will only get better with one company owning most to all the IP. I mean if you don't Have to put much effort because you are the only one. Why would you , been working great for Disney lately

 

[ArtHands]

They'll never be a monopoly. Even when they are they still won't be, it's only a win win for big tech and shareholders, we should all bootlick

Gaming will only get better with one company owning most to all the IP. I mean if you don't Have to put much effort because you are the only one. Why would you , been working great for Disney lately

Well you're wrong. Its also a win for consumers regarding the acquisition.

I wouldn't worry with one company owning most to all the IP since there's far unlikely to happen, considering the numerous studios everywhere.

 

[Killjoy-NL]

Yeah ard. What other game giving them 800+ million a year? Sony for sure needs COD at the end of the day. Jim Ryan would've had a stroke had Call of Casual ended up an Xbox exclusive.

The biggest part of the COD-community is on PlayStation and they won't collectively jump onto Xbox or PC if COD doesn't see a PS-release.

That's not what Sony said.

Sony claims it ‘can’t survive’ without Call of Duty on PlayStation

Sony really wants to get Call of Duty access on the cheap, as the gaming giant claims it can't survive without the shooter series on PlayStation.

www.ggrecon.com

Obviously, Sony would say that in court.
Anything other than that would support their main competitor, which would be a dumb way of doing business.

 

[adamsapple]

Obviously, Sony would say that in court.
Anything other than that would support their main competitor, which would be a dumb way of doing business.

 

[Killjoy-NL]

So, you would just let your main competitor buy one of the biggest publishers in the industry?

 

[adamsapple]

So, you would just let your main competitor buy one of the biggest publishers in the industry?

That's not the point. Sony, in sworn statements, have said they can't exist without CoD. We know from recent documents that they earn a crap ton of revenue from CoD sales and finally, they have agreed to the 10 year agreement for CoD. If they really didn't need CoD, they would not have taken the agreement.

 

[the_master]

Because there is not possibility to "monopolise" games industry. And everybody who is saying that is just lying to themselves.
Nintendo did not have ABK games and they have best selling consoles currently
PC is open platform which can't be monopolise and even if Microsoft attempted such thing Valve is major force and guess where would players side in that case
Tencent and NetEase are major forces within industry with claws all over different studios in different parts of world
Sony is biggest gaming company currently in terms of revenue and they are successfully publishing multimillion seller after multimillion seller and they are outselling Xbox almost 2:1 this gen
Gaming is in unique position that you can create hit even without big publisher backing like Valheim, Terraria, Rust etc. No other entertainment industry are capable of such a thing especially not in movies industry.
For all the cries about consolidation I noticed 20-30 new AAA studios that were created in last few years by people who cashed on fact that they sold their previous studios and created new which is further diversify the industry. Again. No such thing is possible in film industry for example.

I get that when people are watching ABK merger through lenses of "will Sony be harmed" then yes. And since people are seeing Sony as some kind of vanguard of quality gaming, they are worried. But it's also laughable. Because every regulator who attempted to challenge this deal in current gaming landscape (ie. not cloud gaming) did it with "but it will hurt Sony" mantra. Which is hilarious.

Steam is a monopoly. The other PC alternatives are almost insignificant in front of Steam.

Sony, Nintendo or Microsoft could each end up being a monopoly ar some point.
Monooly does not mean “only ones” it means great majority

 

[Killjoy-NL]

That's not the point. Sony, in sworn statements, have said they can't exist without CoD. We know from recent documents that they earn a crap ton of revenue from CoD sales and finally, they have agreed to the 10 year agreement for CoD. If they really didn't need CoD, they would not have taken the agreement.

Ofcourse they say that. What else are they gonna say?

If they can use statistics to back-up the claim that they need COD to survive so they can undermine Microsoft's plans, obviously this is the result.

And if you can't prevent the take-over, you go for a settlement that is best given the circumstances.

Doesn't mean Playstation would suddenly be on life-support without COD.
It wouldn't.

Playstation is more important to COD than vice versa.

 

[the_master]

Stop it!

The problem is that MS only had to fucking buy Sega that damn Wednesday… But they are instead buying a lot of expensive crap, and not Sega.
It will end up being too late to make it cool

 

[Barakov]

or unprecedented lows.

That's the biggest problem with this whole thing. Yes, Microsoft/Xbox has a lot of money but they've shown on multiple occasions(halo, Rare etc.) that they're extremely incompetent with the franchises they own. Outside of Forza and maybe Gears their track record is spotty at best. I guess the best people can hope for is COD to be immune to MS's crappy mismanagement problems.

 

[GreatnessRD]

The biggest part of the COD-community is on PlayStation and they won't collectively jump onto Xbox or PC if COD doesn't see a PS-release.

I think you're underestimating the power that Call of Casual has on the people. With that said, we'll just agree to disagree.

 

[ArtHands]

The biggest part of the COD-community is on PlayStation and they won't collectively jump onto Xbox or PC if COD doesn't see a PS-release.


Obviously, Sony would say that in court.
Anything other than that would support their main competitor, which would be a dumb way of doing business.

No. Not even the 2nd biggest

PC is currently more profitable to Activision Blizzard than consoles

During its Second Quarter 2023 Financial Report, Activision Blizzard stated that PC is a more profitable platform than next-gen consoles.

www.dsogaming.com

 

[Killjoy-NL]

No. Not even the 2nd biggest

PC is currently more profitable to Activision Blizzard than consoles

During its Second Quarter 2023 Financial Report, Activision Blizzard stated that PC is a more profitable platform than next-gen consoles.

www.dsogaming.com

Fair enough, I was going by this:

About 70% of CoD: Warzone Players are from Consoles

• PlayStation. 42.1%
• Xbox. 25.6%
• PC. 28.4%
• Mobil. 3.9%

Which platform has the most CoD players?

About 70% of CoD: Warzone Players are from ConsolesPlayStation. 42.1%Xbox. 25.6%PC. 28.4%Mobil. 3.9%

osgamers.com

I think you're underestimating the power that Call of Casual has on the people. With that said, we'll just agree to disagree.

Sure, but the same could be said about Playstation as a brand.

 

[Dolomite]

Lol so we can't possibly prevent a monopoly until it becomes one then it's too late and all the competition is dead, whoopsie poopsie "But ThEy WeReN't a MoNopOlY BeFore"

It's like saying climate change doesn't affect the world because your in your house with the AC on and it's not too hot for you.

So you don't believe anyone should try stand up to Microsoft, also Sony didn't sue or take them to court just to clear that up, the FTC did.

Jim has to stand up against them because they are planning on ending Sony in the console space, there's actual documentation of Microsoft execs saying that is their plan . Negotiating may give them 3 more years alive but as the head of Sony gaming Jim needs to ensure they get more than 3 or 4 more years, negotiating doesn't get that. I doubt shareholders want that either, they wanna keep earning

If I'm the CEO of Sony, I'm doing everything I can to stop this deal. However I'd never embarrass myself or my brand. MS played the game like fox. Olive branch in hand, willing to make concessions. Sony should have came prepared. Sony has the mind share, market share and Media sentiment to condemn the deal without clinging to the FTC's coat tails. Rejecting the 10 yr COD as inadequate without rendering a reasonable counter offer seems pompous. The emails exposing Jim's "IDC about COD I want the deal dead" angst is just as damning as MS's "let's outspend Sony" admission. On a world stage where you're the market leader, I just feel like they went out sad.

 

[StueyDuck]

If I'm the CEO of Sony, I'm doing everything I can to stop this deal. However I'd never embarrass myself or my brand. MS played the game like fox. Olive branch in hand, willing to make concessions. Sony should have came prepared. Sony has the mind share, market share and Media sentiment to condemn the deal without clinging to the FTC's coat tails. Rejecting the 10 yr COD as inadequate without rendering a reasonable counter offer seems pompous. The emails exposing Jim's "IDC about COD I want the deal dead" angst is just as damning as MS's "let's outspend Sony" admission. On a world stage where you're the market leader, I just feel like they went out sad.

eh they both showed their arses here overall, a lot of dumb MS emails got leaked also. The thing is Microsoft has waaaaaaaay more money and will always beat anything legally. But again Jim just had opinions and decisions on MS concessions (which we only got because Jim or Sony rather was so vocal, we very easily could have been here with everything going exclusive and nothing going anywhere, switch and Nvidia users can thank Jim for that one at least), he wasn't the one taking MS to court, that was the FTC.

 

[Badlucktroll]

I for one don’t want a stagnant, rotten Microsoft monopoly in the games industry

 

[OverHeat]

I for one don’t want a stagnant, rotten Microsoft monopoly in the games industry

Better bailout will you can then

 

[phil_t98]

Jimbo played this perfectly, forced them to make a 10- year deals after initially being offered nothing, then a 3 year deal, and now 10.

The future will be interesting, i have little hope it will be positive

How? He lost the other Activision games that were offered in a 10 year deal a while ago. He got a worse deal only getting COD were Nintendo got all games

 

[Hendrick's]

10 years of letting the smaller guy reap the benefits of your user base has to sting a little bit. Every copy sold is money in Microsoft’s pocket to money hat third party titles.

Not to mention the fact that MS is now PlayStation's largest and most important 3rd party publisher.