The Alchemist Posted February 8, 2023 Share Posted February 8, 2023 It's been a while since I've kept up with the news surrounding this, quite frankly because I was getting bored with the whole thing. It's probably for the best because some of the responses and arguments I'm seeing from AB and Microsoft executives is fucking unhinged. Like seriously I'm convinced they all have a mental illness. Some of the arguments from Sony have been dumb as shit as well but these other people are on another level. I'm still hoping the deal falls through spectacularly but I guess it's all still up in the air for the time being. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Rozalia1 Posted February 8, 2023 Popular Post Share Posted February 8, 2023 Apologies for those who want a small post on the information from the document. As I said in the previous comments, the short of it is the CMA has presented Microsoft with what is largely thought to be unacceptable structural remedies (unless Microsoft was telling the truth about just wanting King, which is a nice bluff call). For those who want some extracts from the document above there is the below. The document itself is once again at https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/63e2589a8fa8f50e85820fb0/Microsoft-Activision_PFs_Summary_2.pdf. Actually short as far as these things go but still takes a while to get through. Quote In relation to gaming consoles, we provisionally found that Xbox and PlayStation compete closely with each other, and that Activision’s Call of Duty (CoD) is important to the competitive offering of each. The evidence suggests that, after the Merger, Microsoft would find it commercially beneficial to make CoD exclusive to Xbox or available on Xbox on materially better terms than on PlayStation. We provisionally found that this would substantially reduce competition in gaming consoles to the detriment of gamers—Xbox and PlayStation gamers alike—which could result in higher prices, reduced range, lower quality, worse service, and/or reduced innovation. The CMA refuses to believe Microsoft's lies that it wouldn't be commercially beneficial for them to restrict Sony from CoD. Quote In relation to cloud gaming services, we provisionally found that Activision’s titles (including CoD and certain PC titles such as World of Warcraft) will be important for the competitive offering of cloud gaming services as the market continues to grow and develop. We provisionally found that, after the Merger, Microsoft would find it commercially beneficial to make Activision’s titles exclusive to its own cloud gaming service or available there on materially better terms than on rival cloud gaming services. Given we have provisionally found that Microsoft already has a strong position in this market through its ownership of Xbox, a global cloud computing service, and the leading PC operating system (OS), we are concerned that even a moderate increment to its strength may be expected to substantially reduce competition in this developing market to the detriment of current and future cloud gaming users. Microsoft is already strong in Cloud gaming and that even a small boost would make it very difficult for others to try and compete. Quote The evidence we have seen suggests that cloud gaming may be an important disruptive force in the gaming industry. Since games are executed remotely, gamers can play using devices that can be less powerful, and are often cheaper, than consoles or gaming PCs (such as mobile phones, smart TVs, less powerful PCs, or tablets). This widens the pool of potential customers— including those not willing or able to buy a gaming console or PC—and introduces new ways to compete that could facilitate new entry. Besides Microsoft, recent new entrants into cloud gaming include Amazon Luna, NVIDIA GeForce Now, Shadow, Google Stadia (now shut down), as well as publishers like Ubisoft. Several industry experts predict that cloud gaming will continue to grow significantly in the coming years. Previous paragraphs laid out how tough it was for a new competitor to put forward a new gaming market be it on consoles or otherwise. This here puts forward that Cloud gaming is the best avenue for new competition, which Microsoft swallowing up and dominating in by buying up vital third party stuff for any new competitor, closes the door to. So you could say that even though Sony is the market leader, it would be Microsoft who hurts the rise of new competition more. Quote We have gathered substantial evidence from Microsoft, Activision, and third parties to assess the significance of Activision’s gaming portfolio. This evidence consistently points towards Activision’s content, especially CoD, as being important and capable of making a material difference to the competitiveness of rivals’ gaming platforms. Activision invests significant time and capital in creating regular CoD releases, which consistently rank as some of the most popular games. These titles require thousands of game developers and several years to complete, and there are very few other games of similar popularity. Moreover, CoD’s popularity has been consistent over time and is continuing. For example, Activision reported that the release of CoD Modern Warfare II on October 28, 2022 was the franchise’s best-ever opening weekend, delivering more than $800 million worldwide in the first three days from its release. Activision also offers PC games and mobile games. Through its Blizzard division, its most popular release is World of Warcraft, a massively multiplayer online role-playing PC game. Through its King division, it offers Candy Crush, a free-to-play casual game available on mobile and PC. Although these games are not relevant to our assessment of the impact of the transaction on gaming consoles, we have provisionally found that some Activision PC titles, such as World of Warcraft, are popular PC games that may be important for cloud gaming services, thereby adding to Activision’s already strong catalogue in this market. Microsoft with this deal would be getting some of the top console/PC/Mobile games all in one which would give massive value to their games catalogue service that others, especially any aspiring new entrant, would not be able to compete with. Quote CoD is currently available on two gaming consoles – Xbox and PlayStation. We have provisionally found that these consoles compete closely with each other in terms of content, target audience, and console technology. We have provisionally found that Nintendo’s consoles compete less closely with either of Xbox or PlayStation, generally offering consoles with different technical specifications, and with its most popular titles tending to be more family- and child-friendly. Nintendo does not currently offer CoD, and we have seen no evidence to suggest that its consoles would be technically capable of doing so with a similar quality of gameplay as Xbox or PlayStation in the near future. CMA doesn't buy Microsoft's talk of putting CoD on the Switch. Quote First, Microsoft’s commercial strategy to date suggests that there are strategic benefits in limiting the availability of acquired gaming content. Microsoft has acquired a range of gaming studios over the past few years and, with very few exceptions, has made their future releases of games exclusive or redirected the efforts of those studios to produce exclusive Xbox games. Although we recognise that Activision is a bigger studio than any acquired by Microsoft before, this pattern of behaviour seems to be consistent with Microsoft’s commercial strategy. Second, the evidence suggests that making CoD partially or totally exclusive could bring Microsoft longer-term strategic benefits. These would include acquiring new loyal customers, growing the number of Game Pass subscribers, and strengthening Microsoft’s reputation as having a console with attractive exclusive content. We recognise that Microsoft could face backlash from some gamers for adopting this approach, but we believe that this would not be enough to make these strategies commercially disadvantageous in the long run. Third, we provisionally believe that making CoD exclusive to Xbox could be profitable for Microsoft. Although it is difficult to quantify Microsoft’s financial gains and losses from making CoD partially or totally exclusive to Xbox, we have tried to approximate these by using two different financial models. One model measured the direct financial gains over the course of one year of making CoD exclusive to Xbox. It is a straightforward comparison of the income that Microsoft would lose from not selling CoD on PlayStation against the additional income that it would earn from selling CoD, additional Xbox consoles, and other games to new customers who would switch—as estimated from our survey results—from PlayStation to Xbox. We provisionally found that this calculation on its own was broadly neutral in terms of profitability. The other model considered data used by Xbox in the ordinary course of business on the ‘lifetime value’ of new customers. This has the benefit of accounting for five years of spend on the Xbox platform and on CoD. This model, which we currently believe is a better way to estimate long-term financial incentives, suggests that making CoD exclusive to Xbox would be profitable for Microsoft. Microsoft's previous behaviour of buying (while lying that they don't want to limit choice for gamers) and then making things exclusive catching up with. The CMA also puts forward that Microsoft could certainly benefit in the long term by having CoD as an exclusive. Quote In relation to cloud gaming services, Microsoft has a combination of assets that we provisionally consider is difficult for other cloud gaming service providers to match. By owning Windows, the OS on which the vast majority of PC games are played, Microsoft could stream games from Windows servers without having to pay a Windows licensing fee or adapt games designed for Windows to an alternative OS. By having Xbox Cloud Gaming and Azure, Microsoft has both a short-term and a longer-term solution to host cloud gaming, leveraging its large and well distributed global cloud infrastructure to stream its games without having to pay a fee to third-party cloud platforms. And by having an existing console ecosystem, Microsoft has a range of popular games that it can offer. As such, we provisionally consider that Microsoft has a strong position in cloud gaming services and will remain an important competitor as the market expands and evolves. This was something I mentioned here a month ago or whenever it was. That Microsoft has certain aspects relating to Cloud gaming that makes them impossible to compete against if allowed to buy up these companies. There are companies that can compete and even be better than them in certain aspects, but no company exists that can overall compete with Microsoft with all aspects at once. Quote Cloud gaming is a relatively new market characterised by some elements of direct and/or indirect network effects. In this type of market, success is highly uncertain, and there’s an opportunity (and strong incentive) for incumbents to develop a unique offering in a bid to gain market power. One way for Microsoft to achieve this would be to offer exclusive games on its cloud gaming service. The evidence suggests that this is already part of Microsoft’s cloud gaming strategy – except for a few Bethesda titles, most of which were old or already available on rival cloud gaming services before Microsoft acquired Zenimax, Microsoft has not made its games available on rival cloud gaming platforms. We are concerned that making Activision’s titles exclusive to Microsoft’s cloud gaming service would harm competition, particularly since our provisional view is that Microsoft already holds a strong position in this market by virtue of its unparalleled advantages through its ownership of Windows, its cloud infrastructure, and its catalogue of first party titles. There are a few emerging rivals with their own respective strengths, such as Amazon, Sony, and NVIDIA, but none seem to be as well positioned as Microsoft in this market. We consider that Google’s recent decision to shut down its own cloud gaming service, Stadia, shows that merely having some strengths relevant to cloud gaming is not enough to guarantee a platform’s success. The evidence also suggests that there are significant barriers to entry and expansion, including the cost of cloud infrastructure, the cost of acquiring content, and the need for economies of scale in order to drive down costs. Since Microsoft already appears to face limited competitive constraints from current and potential rivals, we are concerned that making Activision’s content exclusive to its cloud gaming platform is particularly likely to harm competition. On this basis, we provisionally conclude that the Merger may be expected to result in an SLC in cloud gaming services in the UK, as a result of vertical effects in the form of input foreclosure. Microsoft's obvious strategy is brought up and that the examples that go counter to it have reasons for why they're not exclusive to Microsoft. What I referred above about no company being able to match Microsoft on all levels of cloud gaming laid out here. Additionally as I thought when it happened, Google by closing Stadia has helped in opposing this deal. For those unaware there has been some talk that in addition to the closing itself being a point against the deal, Google has also likely told regulators that Bethesda games (which Microsoft snapped up with a buyout) was key to Google competing so once that happened Stadia was finished. Snapping up Activision would only further make it impossible for new competitors. Quote We recognise that having Activision’s content available on Game Pass is an attractive prospect to some Xbox customers and something that, based on the emails that we received from the public during this investigation, seems to explain much of the support for this Merger by those in favour of it. We also recognise that this could prompt other providers to make more content available on their own multi-game subscription services. But, on balance, we are provisionally of the view that having this new option to pay for content that is already available on a buy-to-play basis on Xbox, in circumstances where the content would no longer be available (or not available on equal terms) on rival consoles, would not outweigh the overall harm to competition (and, ultimately, consumers) arising from this Merger. Gamepass zealots all talking it up in their emails to the CMA backfired and has only given support to the CMA being against the deal. This is hilarious. --------------------------------- Microsoft has responded to all of this with: Quote We are committed to offering effective and easily enforceable solutions that address the CMA's concerns. Our commitment to grant long term 100% equal access to Call of Duty to Sony, Nintendo, Steam and others preserves the deal’s benefits to gamers and developers and increases competition in the market. When we say equal, we mean equal. 10 years of parity. On content. On pricing. On features. On quality. On playability. A repeat of their 10 year deal crap. Seems they have absolutely nothing if this is all they can come out with. Now to be clear this is provisional so technically there is still a chance that Microsoft is able to turn things around, but such things are unlikely. The timeframe they have to work out accepting the heavy structural remedies is also short (ironic considering what they tried to pull on Sony) which hurts trying to get it through. Overall I'm very happy with this report. Microsoft's lies appear to be catching up with them and with that their attempt to dominate gaming through sheer financial power appears to collapsing. Contrary to Microsoft's claims of being the good little guy fighting for good and fair competition against the evil Sony empire, they are anything but. If anyone is the "evil empire" it would be them. 10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Rozalia1 Posted February 8, 2023 Popular Post Share Posted February 8, 2023 3 minutes ago, The Alchemist said: It's been a while since I've kept up with the news surrounding this, quite frankly because I was getting bored with the whole thing. It's probably for the best because some of the responses and arguments I'm seeing from AB and Microsoft executives is fucking unhinged. Like seriously I'm convinced they all have a mental illness. Some of the arguments from Sony have been dumb as shit as well but these other people are on another level. I'm still hoping the deal falls through spectacularly but I guess it's all still up in the air for the time being. I agree. It is shocking that multinational Activision & Microsoft are openly putting out nationalist us vs them statements. To not even get into the rest. It seems possible that the age of fake niceties from Xbox might end after this and they'll start badmouthing Sony often, who being number 1 won't care about whatever number 2 is saying. Microsoft is and has been furious with Sony getting in their way on this. As for Sony. Jim Ryan might not be polished on PR and so comes out with gaffes now and then, but the business effectiveness can't be denied. If this deal falls (which looks likely) then he'll have punched Microsoft in the mouth and humiliated them. Amazing what happens when you have a person who knows business in charge and not a PR guy. I'm also very interested in what'll happen regarding Activision. It wouldn't surprise me if right now they're trying to contact Sony and tell them that all of this is just business and they didn't mean any of the stuff they've said about Sony, that Microsoft put them up to it. 9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zephrese Posted February 8, 2023 Share Posted February 8, 2023 (edited) Spoiler Fingers crossed that the final nail in this whole fiasco's coffin is coming soon enough. Edited February 8, 2023 by Zephrese 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cryogenicide_X Posted February 8, 2023 Share Posted February 8, 2023 Does anyone think that Microsoft in the end will just pull out of this deal and move on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deadvember Posted February 8, 2023 Share Posted February 8, 2023 I'm glad it's been stopped, the more multi platform games the better. Microsoft owning them has no positive effects, only negatives for the consumer. MS have almost 200 studios, about time they spent the $70 billion and made some AAA games worth playing. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaivRules Posted February 8, 2023 Share Posted February 8, 2023 11 minutes ago, Deadvember said: I'm glad it's been stopped, the more multi platform games the better. Microsoft owning them has no positive effects, only negatives for the consumer. MS have almost 200 studios, about time they spent the $70 billion and made some AAA games worth playing. It hasn't been stopped yet. The FTC's case against Microsoft for violating the Clayton Act starts in August, so while the FTC is seeking to block the merger, the companies are given their day in court to make their case. The CMA also hasn't stopped anything yet according to their preliminary findings. They're going to make one of three suggestions: Prohibit the merger, allow the merger but force part of Activisions business to be separated as a separate entity than Microsoft, or define promises the merged company has to agree to. The CMA is taking responses for one part of their findings until the end of February, and another part until the end of March. They'll reach their ultimate conclusion some time after that. Far from definitively stopped so far. 35 minutes ago, Cryogenicide_X said: Does anyone think that Microsoft in the end will just pull out of this deal and move on? Nope. MS is going to ride this out as long as possible. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Rozalia1 Posted February 8, 2023 Popular Post Share Posted February 8, 2023 (edited) Thank you for adding the update to the thread name. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/63e3e9aee90e0762692b970a/M_A_Provisional_Findings_Report.pdf The full report is out and its far too long for me to be extracting for it here without spending some hours on it so I won't bother. The short of it is many of Microsoft's boasts and lies have come back to haunt them, some of which I'll mention now. 1: Microsoft and its supporters whined extensively about Nintendo not being included by the regulators. CMA cite their public comments, including those in court (Apple vs Epic case) where Microsoft states that they don't closely compete with Nintendo. 2: Microsoft recently championed their MAU (Monthly Active Users) numbers (what the swapped to when their hardware numbers collapsed against Sony) and putting them above PlayStation? According to the real numbers that the CMA has seen PlayStation has double of Microsoft's. Now yes, you could include some extra things in there to uplift Microsoft's MAU but the biggest of those is Minecraft... which is too large for Microsoft's recently stated number to be correct. Additionally if Microsoft is including all of that extra stuff in their MAU then you naturally have to include Sony's extra stuff which they didn't. I doubt anything happens from this but this appears to be them straight up lying to shareholders which can certainly have consequences. On top of that the CMA also uses Microsoft's precious MAU (Microsoft is the only one that really champions this stat) against them when it comes to getting an exclusive CoD, which Microsoft says would stupid for them to do, to be profitable. 3: From Microsoft's own chicken lips they have admitted that Gamepass cannibalises Buy to Play sales. For those who haven't had the displeasure of dealing with the Gamepass zealots, this was a thing that is blindingly obvious to anyone with any sense but they simply would refuse to accept, heck they'd go further and shameless state that Gamepass increased sales. Naturally Microsoft, through Spencer, was involved in this as they lied about all of this constantly. "Gamepass users buy more games" they'd say when asked about the cannibalisation of sales... well you don't say, the most hardcore of your consumers, who are the most likely to get on Gamepass are also the ones who buy the most games. 4: This bit I'm most happy with as I've brought up here many times because I felt it was very relevant. The CMA cited Microsoft's 2020 comments about Sony/Nintendo being beneath them and that Google/Amazon/Apple were their actual competitors as eventually the model they've gotten behind (Subscriptions & Cloud) will swallow everything up. Speaking of the Cloud Microsoft are said in this to have 60-70% of the market. So Microsoft who has said that the Cloud is destroy the traditional model so Microsoft rather than being behind Sony is actually ahead by miles, now wants CoD and everything else to further dominant in this area. This is why there was talk of monopoly, why the talk from regulators has been what this deal means for the future and not the short term. If subscriptions/Cloud will actually dominate in the future is as such not something regulators really have to prove as it is something Microsoft claims and so they can work off that basis. 5: Another one I'm very happy with is they brought up the statements made to the EU by Microsoft regarding Bethesda. Microsoft stated it had no incentive to make Bethesda's games exclusives and then the moment the deal passed they made them exclusive (outside already released games as that would likely cause a backlash). Microsoft is an untrustworthy party on the matter of exclusives due to how they acted with Bethesda. Now some might think that well, that was verbal, what about Microsoft's fabled 10 year contract, surely that is ironclad. The CMA addressed that ages back by stating that these contracts Microsoft wants to hand out can be gotten around and as such are functionally worthless. --- I've been calling out so many of these lies from Microsoft and it is vindicating to see them revealed. Once again I find it hilarious that the 2020 boast and related stuff they've said internally is what is really killing them here, all because trillion dollar Microsoft couldn't simply admit and accept that Sony was ahead of them and so they had to bring up subscriptions/cloud for why they were actually so far ahead of Sony that they aren't even competitors anymore. Microsoft management has really acted like a common Xbox fan on the internet coming up with all manner of nonsense to talk up Xbox and are now shocked that it is coming back to bite them. They say companies don't involve themselves in the "Console Wars" like they used to but well, I'd say that is very much Microsoft getting itself high off the console wars. A normal business just accepts that the competition is doing better and states that they got good things in the work and they'll be fighting ever harder to get a bigger piece of the pie. 1 hour ago, Cryogenicide_X said: Does anyone think that Microsoft in the end will just pull out of this deal and move on? They have two weeks regarding remedies with the CMA so they are unlikely to quit before that. If they can't convince the CMA to let it through then the deal is dead but they could attempt to keep going. They can appeal the decision though in the case of the CMA it would be pointless. They could try and get the EU to pass the deal (no chance as the EU would come off looking weak) to use in an effort to convince the CMA to reconsider. They can also keep going to fight the FTC and win in court against them which... wouldn't change the CMA killing the deal and the FTC would be laughing at them all the while as they don't care at all about losing court cases, especially when they've already won anyway. The correct move ultimately would be to quit if the CMA kills it, but all of the lawyers Microsoft has certainly wouldn't give any push back if management at Microsoft wanted to keep trying. Management might get in sunk cost mode where they've already wasted loads of time, money, and opportunities to buy other companies (Bungie is one of them) over this deal so they have to go to the very last second on this. 1 hour ago, Deadvember said: I'm glad it's been stopped, the more multi platform games the better. Microsoft owning them has no positive effects, only negatives for the consumer. MS have almost 200 studios, about time they spent the $70 billion and made some AAA games worth playing. It would certainly be nice for Microsoft to add value to gaming rather than trying to simply buy third parties yes. The problem is that it takes time which unlike money they're short on. Gamepass is failing and if it keeps failing then there will come the point where the money men will question why so much is being poured down a money pit, hence why Microsoft are on a buying spree of which this has merely been the biggest piece. Also, you know, you need good management in place which Microsoft is apparently incapable of establishing at Xbox. Edited February 8, 2023 by Rozalia1 9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VenlafaxineHead Posted February 8, 2023 Share Posted February 8, 2023 On 1/18/2022 at 8:05 AM, StingX2 said: Microsoft essentially acquired Call of Duty Crash Bandicoot Diablo Gabriel Knight Guitar Hero Interstate 76 Jawbreaker King’s Quest Laser Blast Lost Vikings Overwatch Pitfall Police Quest Quest for Glory Rock N’ Roll Racing Skylanders Soldier of Fortune Space Quest Spyro Stampede Starcraft Tony Hawk's Pro Skater Warcraft World of Warcraft Zork Literally zero interest in any of those games.... I mean, Starcraft potentially...but yeah, all the rest.... Yawn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaivRules Posted February 8, 2023 Share Posted February 8, 2023 12 minutes ago, Rozalia1 said: If they can't convince the CMA to let it through then the deal is dead Are you able to provide a clear explanation as to why specifically the CMA is singularly able to stop two US companies from merging? I'm not able to find any historical examples, if you know of any, where they have stopped or unwound two US companies from a merger? I was looking for precedent for your claims, but I have only found EU companies or UK companies and very, very few examples, some are still tied up in courts. And it looks like companies can ignore the CMA and just pay financial penalties if they choose so I'm looking for clarity on your descriptions of what they can do or have done with specific cases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJ_Solo Posted February 9, 2023 Share Posted February 9, 2023 2 hours ago, DaivRules said: Are you able to provide a clear explanation as to why specifically the CMA is singularly able to stop two US companies from merging? I'm not able to find any historical examples, if you know of any, where they have stopped or unwound two US companies from a merger? I was looking for precedent for your claims, but I have only found EU companies or UK companies and very, very few examples, some are still tied up in courts. And it looks like companies can ignore the CMA and just pay financial penalties if they choose so I'm looking for clarity on your descriptions of what they can do or have done with specific cases. Well if ignored the CMA would go the pentalty route. The CMA fined Meta £1.5m for not giving the CMA notice of some change in staff for key members. The penalities can also be ongoing, repeated, and proportionate to the offence. This record breaking merger by MS could also lead to some record breaking penalties. MS's dog and pony show is the gift that keeps on giving. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaivRules Posted February 9, 2023 Share Posted February 9, 2023 23 minutes ago, TJ_Solo said: Well if ignored the CMA would go the pentalty route. The CMA fined Meta £1.5m for not giving the CMA notice of some change in staff for key members. The penalities can also be ongoing, repeated, and proportionate to the offence. This record breaking merger by MS could also lead to some record breaking penalties. MS's dog and pony show is the gift that keeps on giving. I did notice that one case of penalizing a U.S. company, thanks for that example. I don’t see how that’s much different than the FTCs ability in regards to penalties, so I still don’t have the information that makes the CMA the singular entity that can stop two US companies from merging. It also looks like Meta ignored the CMA orders on multiple occasions over the years, again making me question their alleged inescapable authority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJ_Solo Posted February 9, 2023 Share Posted February 9, 2023 I am not part of the crowd that declares this deal dead based on any of these regulators or claim this deal will pass and can't be stopped. Since I am not from the UK or in the EU, the CMA is also new to me. I've never paid any attention to that group or any of their rulings. The FTC? Sure. I've seen their rulings and decisions in the past. The EC? They've been around a lot longer than the CMA and I've seen their name in news more often. I am more interested in what those two have to say than the CMA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
majob Posted February 9, 2023 Share Posted February 9, 2023 (edited) https://mobile.twitter.com/Wario64/status/1623312010493706240?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1623312010493706240|twgr^333125fe78bff756b35df5c15506884c291dc356|twcon^s1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fgamefaqs.gamespot.com%2Fboards%2F264564-xbox-series-x%2F80340176 Looks like the odds of a favorable ruling from the UK just plumetted. Microsoft might have to sell off major portions of the company in order for approval and considering they only bought them precisely for those IPs pretty much makes the deal moot Edited February 9, 2023 by majob 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zephrese Posted February 9, 2023 Share Posted February 9, 2023 The amount of moronic responses to that tweet is vomit inducing, to say the least. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rozalia1 Posted February 9, 2023 Share Posted February 9, 2023 12 hours ago, DaivRules said: Are you able to provide a clear explanation as to why specifically the CMA is singularly able to stop two US companies from merging? I'm not able to find any historical examples, if you know of any, where they have stopped or unwound two US companies from a merger? I was looking for precedent for your claims, but I have only found EU companies or UK companies and very, very few examples, some are still tied up in courts. And it looks like companies can ignore the CMA and just pay financial penalties if they choose so I'm looking for clarity on your descriptions of what they can do or have done with specific cases. The CMA can't be overturned like the FTC and many other regulators so they go against the deal then Microsoft cannot change that. There does exist a body you can appeal to (that sides with the CMA 67% of the time), but that body can only force the CMA to cross some Ts and dot some Is in essence as the CMA can (and will) just hand out the same result. Now can Microsoft choose to ignore the CMA's decision? Certainly, however being bound by the regulator is a condition of Microsoft doing business in the UK so Microsoft would have to pull out of everything in the country. This isn't simply not selling CoD or Xbox games as a whole, every other aspect of Microsoft's business would have to be pulled out also. Some Microsoft supporters think that is what Microsoft should do, play hardball and all that, but such a thing would be catastrophic for Microsoft as not only would that mean massive income losses but it would instantly get heat with all of the other regulators. It would not be crazy to say that Microsoft trying to be above the law in such a nature would cause calls for them to be broken up (which happened in the past) would spring up again. As for ignoring and penalties. That is why the CMA does not take behavioural remedies seriously if they're on their own. Companies can and will just eat chump change fines (serious fines can be handed out, such as 20% of income, but that wouldn't be for behavioural stuff). Regardless however that the CMA is known for hating behavioural remedies and them even telling Microsoft as such, Microsoft with their fancy lawyer army is still even now trying to pass the deal with only behavioural remedies. While funny to laugh and say that Microsoft has hired lawyers as competent as their Xbox managers, the reality is more likely that Microsoft simply will not accept these structural remedies and so this is all the lawyers can keep arguing. They'll argue no doubt that these structural remedies are too harsh, but once again Microsoft's own statements will catch up with them. Microsoft in revealed documents state that CoD is no big deal (imagine lying this hard) and publicly they've said numerous times that King and Candy Crush is what they really want. If they are telling the truth on that then they should have no problem acquiring only King and not getting Activision and Blizzard. If Microsoft quits the deal however then we can rule the King is the real prize thing as yet another lie from Microsoft. 9 hours ago, TJ_Solo said: I am not part of the crowd that declares this deal dead based on any of these regulators or claim this deal will pass and can't be stopped. Since I am not from the UK or in the EU, the CMA is also new to me. I've never paid any attention to that group or any of their rulings. The FTC? Sure. I've seen their rulings and decisions in the past. The EC? They've been around a lot longer than the CMA and I've seen their name in news more often. I am more interested in what those two have to say than the CMA. The FTC can be easily overcome due to their decisions being able to sent to the courts which are stacked with heavily corrupt pro business judges. The EU can also be taken to court but a bigger point would be they are much more amendable to behavioural remedies. Note how Microsoft have already received the notice from EU and it didn't cause them to start raging as they have with the CMA. The CMA is an entity that doesn't go for passing deals with only behavioural (they have only in a single special case I believe) and can't be gone above on their decisions. If they go against you then that is it. As a result of this the CMA has been the most important regulator out of all of them for the deal. The FTC by comparison only has importance in how they can give support to other regulators blocking the deal, as the FTC is completely unable to stop this deal by itself. If you haven't heard of or seen the CMA in the news as much it would be because they were formed in 2013 (they combined the duties of two now defunct bodies, the CC and OFT). 50 minutes ago, Zephrese said: The amount of moronic responses to that tweet is vomit inducing, to say the least. As I predicted Microsoft supporters are right back at calling the CMA corrupt incompetent know nothings like back when they published the Phase 1 report. The FTC going against Microsoft caused them to change their tune to "The CMA knows what they are doing, the FTC doesn't" if you missed it. Just shameless behaviour. Its not all doom however as they're reaching at any instance of hope to state that not only isn't the deal dead, but this has only increased the chances of the deal passing. For example, the CMA hasn't said no to behavioural remedies so this must mean that Microsoft can still get by on that... except that the CMA can't say "we'll never accept behavioural remedies" so they have to say that even if everyone knows they won't. There is some analysts out there also doing the same and showing how incompetent they are like the infamous Michael Pachter who thinks the CMA is doing this just to look good and that they know they'll lose in court when you can't win in court against the CMA to overturn their decision. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cryogenicide_X Posted February 9, 2023 Share Posted February 9, 2023 16 hours ago, Rozalia1 said: Gamepass is failing and if it keeps failing then there will come the point where the money men will question why so much is being poured down a money pit, hence why Microsoft are on a buying spree of which this has merely been the biggest piece. Also, you know, you need good management in place which Microsoft is apparently incapable of establishing at Xbox. How is Game Pass failing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
majob Posted February 9, 2023 Share Posted February 9, 2023 1 hour ago, Cryogenicide_X said: How is Game Pass failing? It's not exactly "failing" but it's stagnating. Microsoft exaggerated their subscription numbers and it turns out they're not drawing many new ones. Most people simply do the trial then never renew. A major reason Microsoft has gone on a buying spree is to have more IPs they can keep on Gamepass on a permanent basis to encourage subscription growth. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaivRules Posted February 9, 2023 Share Posted February 9, 2023 3 hours ago, Rozalia1 said: The CMA can't be overturned The CAT can and has overturned the CMA. 3 hours ago, Rozalia1 said: but that body can only force the CMA to cross some Ts and dot some Is in essence That spin is just as bad as Microsoft's spin. Please give cases if you want anyone to believe that claim. 3 hours ago, Rozalia1 said: Now can Microsoft choose to ignore the CMA's decision? Certainly, however being bound by the regulator is a condition of Microsoft doing business in the UK so Microsoft would have to pull out of everything in the country. Another claim I can't seem to find backed up with any evidence online. While convoluted, MS is seemingly able to stop only any of it's business involved in the CMA's case. MS could stop selling XBOX consoles and games, and restrict digital PC game sales based on geography from it's own stores if it chose. I think your claims of massive multi-channel business must completely pull out of the UK if just one of their channels is determined to be in violation of of a CMA decree, are overstated. And I can't find any cases in the just 10 years the CMA has been a thing, where that claim of yours has been demonstrated or tested. 3 hours ago, Rozalia1 said: As for ignoring and penalties. That is why the CMA does not take behavioural remedies seriously if they're on their own. Seems completely contradictory to even offer it as a possibility in their findings if your claim can be backed up. 3 hours ago, Rozalia1 said: Companies can and will just eat chump change fines (serious fines can be handed out, such as 20% of income, but that wouldn't be for behavioural stuff). Regardless however that the CMA is known for hating behavioural remedies and them even telling Microsoft as such, Microsoft with their fancy lawyer army is still even now trying to pass the deal with only behavioural remedies. They "hate" them so much they offer them? Your spin on things, again, hurts the credibility of your claims when you personify things. And of course MS is going to lean toward behavioral remedies, the CMA themselves, in their own document, listed it as an option. 3 hours ago, Rozalia1 said: The FTC can be easily overcome due to their decisions being able to sent to the courts which are stacked with heavily corrupt pro business judges. The EU can also be taken to court but a bigger point would be they are much more amendable to behavioural remedies. Note how Microsoft have already received the notice from EU and it didn't cause them to start raging as they have with the CMA. While it is possible to challenge the FTC, you dismiss it so quickly with your loaded language, but it's not a guarantee that it will happen as you describe. That's why we have the appeals court and supreme courts. If the FTC establishes a solid case, it's much more unlikely to be overturned by a singular rogue judge. It's true the US doesn't grant some of the regulators authoritarian level power and have a system of checks and balances, and since it relies on humans, there are occasionally some flaws. But things can have gone both ways over time. What happens when someone corrupts the CMA, they have no system to check them so they can run rampant unchecked as you claim? 4 hours ago, Rozalia1 said: The CMA is an entity that doesn't go for passing deals with only behavioural (they have only in a single special case I believe) and can't be gone above on their decisions. First you contradict yourself, then you make a claim that has already been debunked. 4 hours ago, Rozalia1 said: The FTC by comparison only has importance in how they can give support to other regulators blocking the deal, as the FTC is completely unable to stop this deal by itself. Neither of these two claims are backed by evidence. The FTC Act absolutely gives FTC authority to take actions themselves, not just "support other regulators", and can absolutely stop a deal by itself. Your constant unfounded dismissal of the FTC based on your willful ignorance makes your claims completely untrustworthy. And your spin is just as bad as the comments you're deriding from other people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Rozalia1 Posted February 9, 2023 Popular Post Share Posted February 9, 2023 1 hour ago, Cryogenicide_X said: How is Game Pass failing? First off know that Microsoft doesn't publish their full numbers regarding gaming. The ones that they provide such as revenue (net income is what matters) is meaningless for this and even their precious MAU (they began providing this as their hardware numbers embarrassed them) it seems they've cooked the books on. They've also up till now lied that Gamepass increased game sales and didn't lower them but thankfully with this we at least have that lie revealed for what it obviously was, but many Microsoft supporters simply would not admit. As such when I say "they're losing money" I have no figures to back it up because Microsoft hides them away to obviously hide that fact. I have reasoning instead. Microsoft is aggressively buying up content for their Gamepass, which they have to pay a higher rate for and in many Japanese game cases is in essence them paying for the port to be made, for Japanese games that then sell pitiful amounts on Xbox. Now that we have the obvious confirmed we know that Gamepass cannibalises their game sales which for their 1st person titles is likely a massive reduction in what those titles would have brought in if not on Gamepass. Speaking of their 1st party titles they have trouble putting them out which costs time and money, and they have more than Sony at this point also at that due to all the buyouts they've done. Then you have their consoles themselves which they lose up to 200 dollars on with each sale (Sony has gotten costs under control for the PS5 and Nintendo has had these costs under control for decades now). The point of the above is to make clear that Xbox's costs are higher than PlayStations. To what extent is unknown because again Microsoft hides those numbers. In a previous quarter (not the most recent) Sony announced 2-3 billion in profit (this number is low due to the PS5 launching). They also had 8 billion more revenue than Xbox. So if Xbox has higher (reasoned) costs, 8 billion less revenue, and Sony is making 2-3 billion in profit... then Xbox simply cannot be making money in that quarter. Microsoft is of course heavily rich and can absorb any and all losses at Xbox, with the idea being they'll make big money down the line by becoming the "Netflix of gaming", but if that doesn't materialise in X amount of time then they're in serious danger. Microsoft having a lot of money doesn't mean their money men are going to be willing to pointlessly throw away loads of money down the money pit when they could be putting that money in things that would actually make serious money. Anyway, as @majob says. They've stagnated already as they're struggling to get people beyond their hardcore Xbox base (which isn't big enough) to get on Gamepass. The total amount of subscribers they'd need is impossible to say as again, Microsoft hides the numbers that would allow someone to work that out but it is likely a good more than their current amount (several times more). 7 minutes ago, DaivRules said: The CAT can and has overturned the CMA. That spin is just as bad as Microsoft's spin. Please give cases if you want anyone to believe that claim. As this has happened before, could you please not be so aggressive towards me? I get the casual nature of the language I use is a peccadillo for you but slamming me as you do before I can respond isn't nice. I've always been respectful to you (and others). https://www.inhouselawyer.co.uk/legal-briefing/appealing-a-decision-by-the-cma-in-a-merger-review/ The CMA also handles other matters beyond mergers and I believe the CAT is more able to change things there, which might be what is causing your confusion. Quote Even if an applicant successfully appeals the CMA’s substantive assessment in a merger, the CAT will not make a fresh decision, but will instead remit the case back to the CMA for further review –typically by the same decision makers and case team as previously. This may not be an attractive prospect, particularly if the deal economics or environment have changed since the transaction was first signed (months or years previously). There you go. The CAT even if it goes against the CMA will not change the decision. They'll look at certain aspects, for example did the CMA take their decision too quickly? Then they need to give it more time and keep looking at it. Did the CMA miss something about the situation that is vitally important like say Covid? Then they need to go back and take that into account. Possibly if the CMA blundered hard and missed something absolutely crucial then their revised decision could change I would imagine yes, but that is certainly not the case here. Microsoft for example can't go before them and say that they unfairly dismissed Nintendo in this case when the CMA has Microsoft's own words in court that Nintendo should be discounted on the grounds of not closely competing with Sony & Microsoft. 17 minutes ago, DaivRules said: Another claim I can't seem to find backed up with any evidence online. While convoluted, MS is seemingly able to stop only any of it's business involved in the CMA's case. MS could stop selling XBOX consoles and games, and restrict digital PC game sales based on geography from it's own stores if it chose. I think your claims of massive multi-channel business must completely pull out of the UK if just one of their channels is determined to be in violation of of a CMA decree, are overstated. And I can't find any cases in the just 10 years the CMA has been a thing, where that claim of yours has been demonstrated or tested. I'm having difficulty finding the specifics on that too, though to be clear if it turns out inaccurate it is a commonly stated thing and not something I invented myself. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition_Act_1998 states they can slap a yearly 10% income fine on Microsoft, but nothing regarding the commonly stated pull out. Something that I would imagine is relevant would be that Microsoft is the involved party and their Gaming division is an operating segment of it and not a subsidiary. 36 minutes ago, DaivRules said: Seems completely contradictory to even offer it as a possibility in their findings if your claim can be backed up. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/63e376bdd3bf7f173ad1cee4/Notice_of_possible_remedies_2.0.pdf Quote As set out in published remedies guidance, in merger inquiries the CMA prefers structural remedies, such as divestiture or prohibition, over behavioural remedies, because: (a) structural remedies are more likely to deal with an SLC and its resulting adverse effects directly and comprehensively at source by restoring rivalry; (b) behavioural remedies are less likely to have an effective impact on the SLC and its resulting adverse effects, and are more likely to create significant costly distortions in market outcomes; and (c) structural remedies rarely require monitoring and enforcement once implemented. Behavioural remedies are designed to address an SLC and/or its adverse effects by regulating the ongoing conduct of parties following a merger. The Merger Remedies: CMA87 (December 2018), paragraph 3.46. CMA will generally only use behavioural remedies as the primary source of remedial action where: (a) divestiture and/or prohibition is not feasible, or the relevant costs of any feasible structural remedy far exceed the scale of the adverse effects of the SLC; (b) the SLC is expected to have a short duration; or (c) behavioural measures will preserve substantial relevant customer benefits (RCBs) that would be largely removed by structural remedies.8 16. At this stage, the CMA considers that certain divestitures and/or prohibition are, in principle, feasible remedies in this case. The provisional SLCs are not time-limited, and while RCBs have not yet been assessed in detail, evidence on efficiencies received to date does not suggest that RCBs might be substantial. As noted above, the circumstances in which the CMA might select a behavioural remedy as the primary source of remedial action are not present in this case. The two markets in which the CMA has provisionally found SLCs are multi-faceted and continue to develop. This is particularly the case in cloud gaming, where the customer offerings and business models of market participants are evolving rapidly. We are of the initial view that any behavioural remedy in this case is likely to present material effectiveness Merger Remedies: CMA87 (December 2018), paragraph 7.4. 15 Merger Remedies: CMA87 (December 2018), paragraph 7.3. risks. We invite the Parties to provide evidence on how these risks could be appropriately managed to ensure that any behavioural remedy is effective. As the above says. Behavioural remedies are simply not enough. They could in theory be added as a sweetener I suppose but Microsoft would have no reason to do this considering the heavy structural remedies the CMA requires would be enough. 46 minutes ago, DaivRules said: They "hate" them so much they offer them? Your spin on things, again, hurts the credibility of your claims when you personify things. And of course MS is going to lean toward behavioral remedies, the CMA themselves, in their own document, listed it as an option. Because they look unreasonable if they don't make the offer to Microsoft to try and change their mind on behavioural remedies. As in the quote in the above from the report, the CMA straight up says that the behavioural remedy as the primary remedy is simply not enough. Microsoft is free to convince them otherwise but it is extremely doubtful they will budge on that. As I said, they're just trying to appear reasonable. Its like how Microsoft tried to appear reasonable by offering to allow Sony & others to put CoD on their own game catalogues... as long as they pay the fee that no one will ever pay as it'd be far too large. Surely you've come across this little trick before? 57 minutes ago, DaivRules said: While it is possible to challenge the FTC, you dismiss it so quickly with your loaded language, but it's not a guarantee that it will happen as you describe. That's why we have the appeals court and supreme courts. If the FTC establishes a solid case, it's much more unlikely to be overturned by a singular rogue judge. It's true the US doesn't grant some of the regulators authoritarian level power and have a system of checks and balances, and since it relies on humans, there are occasionally some flaws. But things can have gone both ways over time. What happens when someone corrupts the CMA, they have no system to check them so they can run rampant unchecked as you claim? Have you not followed the FTC stuff at all? The FTC is you could say being very activist and acting like how they'd like the laws to be, as the law isn't on their side as America is a state that heavily favours corporations. It'd take a rogue judge to allow the FTC to win if they face Microsoft in court, not one to make the FTC lose. Okay, that last bit does seem to imply you haven't been following. If you want to see it as corruption then yes, Lina Khan who leads the FTC has corrupted it. I see it differently as I agree with Lina and see the current set up as it exists as corrupt itself. This is why I list the pro business judges as corrupt, because I think their pro business politics is in itself corrupt. I thought it obvious what I was doing by using the strikethrough but perhaps not. Sorry. 1 hour ago, DaivRules said: First you contradict yourself, then you make a claim that has already been debunked. What we're using right now is called a forum. In it users talk more casually and not like they're in court. Anyone who reads what I said understands that there is no attempt to mislead as the bit that as you put it contradicts what I said is in brackets. If I was attempting to mislead I wouldn't have written what I did in brackets. I'm casually putting forward that as the CMA only did it the once in all the cases they've had then that shows that they don't go for them. As the quote from the CMA itself in this post states however, even if I were wrong it wouldn't matter in this case anyway as the CMA has stated already that passing it with just behavioural is not good enough, though Microsoft is of course free to attempt to change their mind. Oh, also not debunked. Really shouldn't congratulate yourself like that before I've had a chance to respond to your claim about what I said, as I am in this post. I made clear previously that the CMA does have a body that can look at its decisions and force them to cross some Ts and dot some Is. If you want to maintain that is "going above the CMA" then fine, but I clearly did not mean it in that way and meant getting the decision reversed (deal accepted). 1 hour ago, DaivRules said: Neither of these two claims are backed by evidence. The FTC Act absolutely gives FTC authority to take actions themselves, not just "support other regulators", and can absolutely stop a deal by itself. Your constant unfounded dismissal of the FTC based on your willful ignorance makes your claims completely untrustworthy. And your spin is just as bad as the comments you're deriding from other people. The current conditions the FTC is in makes them toothless to stop Microsoft, who has already put out there that if the CMA & EU cleared the deal then they'd close the deal without the FTC if they had to instead of allowing the FTC to delay the deal for ages. The FTC then if it won in court would force them to divest what they hope to pick up here, but if a company is willing to risk that it is because they are assured of victory. To add on to that, Meta recently went to court with the FTC and beat them. The FTC simply cannot do the job of regulating Big Tech to a proper level with the laws as they are. As I said, as the FTC can't stop this deal on its own the best it can do is lend support to other regulators. The nature of that support is simple in nature. These are two Multinational companies, but they're seen as American ones. America is very economically powerful and tends to not look nicely at people messing with their companies. This doesn't mean that alone makes deals get passed by regulators in other countries, but not wanting to piss off America is a factor that has to be considered. In this case however the FTC wants the deal killed and the president, Biden, endorses what the FTC is doing (he put Lina Khan in place for just this sort of stuff). As such the factor of "us going against this deal might anger the Americans" isn't present. That is what I mean by support, as the FTC has endorsed the stopping of this deal. 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rozalia1 Posted February 10, 2023 Share Posted February 10, 2023 https://finance.yahoo.com/news/activision-ceo-kotick-stay-unlikely-194046927.html Quote The same sources said confidence remains high inside Activision that the U.K.’s Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) – which sources told FOX Business is "the only regulatory body that really matters" in the merger case – will look at the numbers and realize the acquisition will not hurt gamers, despite what the CMA alleged on Wednesday. Sources told FOX Business the reason the CMA is the "only real potential roadblock" among regulatory bodies is that once the U.K. regulator makes a decision, unlike the U.S. Federal Trade Commission, it offers companies no legal recourse such as a trial. "Microsoft and Activision would win any U.S. litigation merely on the facts," the sources said. If there continues to be doubts here is an article from Yahoo that states what I've been saying. Straight up saying that the CMA is the only regulator that matters because again for the reason I've outlined previously. The bit on the FTC is also what I've been saying. Microsoft certainly would win "on the facts" because America, an infamously pro-corporate state (another way to say corrupt to me), has the rules set in such a way that big companies with massive amounts of money are massively advantaged. In a non Lina Khan ran FTC, Microsoft would argue for and get a market definition counting gaming as a whole (they have for this deal unsuccessfully) which show Microsoft nowhere near the... 40% market share I believe (if not 40 then 30, but pretty sure it is 40) which is the amount where even that corrupt system says no more. Microsoft is about 7% or so which is nowhere near 40% and so in that corrupt system would be free to not just buy Activision, they'd be able to buy up EA, Take 2, Ubisoft, and more also. This sort of thing is why many have always been wary of Microsoft. Don't buy this narrative from supporters that Microsoft is only doing this now to compete and that them not doing it 20 years ago proves that it ain't just an attempt to buy success. 20 years ago Microsoft still had the fear in their hearts of being hammered and even broken up from the whole Windows/Internet Explorer issue so they could only spend so much. That fear has clearly passed and they think they can act with impunity as Microsoft even compared to other companies referred to as "Big Tech" has been spending significantly more money than everyone else in buying out companies across all manner of different tech sectors. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaivRules Posted February 10, 2023 Share Posted February 10, 2023 4 minutes ago, Rozalia1 said: If there continues to be doubts 4 minutes ago, Rozalia1 said: sources said Doubts definitely remain after anonymous "sources" gave their opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Rozalia1 Posted February 10, 2023 Popular Post Share Posted February 10, 2023 1 hour ago, DaivRules said: Doubts definitely remain after anonymous "sources" gave their opinion. I had hoped you would show better behaviour than this, especially being a moderator. You are going to ignore my addressing of your extensive comments, but will zero in on one pedantic detail in the next post, ignoring the fact that I provided a link on that matter (https://www.inhouselawyer.co.uk/legal-briefing/appealing-a-decision-by-the-cma-in-a-merger-review/), even quoting the specific part for your benefit, which makes citing that pedantry pointless. Oh well, there is little point getting distressed or angry about this and previous correspondence between ourselves. Just please don't attack my posts in the future and call me things such as wilfully ignorant (please, no pedantry. That is what you did) if you are not willing to respond to me afterwards (though if I was unable to address your post I'm sure you'd have been very happy to respond to it). I'll also endeavour to no longer query you in private about thread/moderation matters as it would be best for the both of us, me not having to receive negativity, and you not having to be bothered by someone you dislike. I'd of course prefer a positive relationship over a negative one, perhaps there is some slight I did towards you that I don't know about so if you care about getting things straight then feel free to PM me. If not, then again, no worries. --------- https://www.gamespot.com/articles/call-of-duty-2023-will-be-a-full-game-connected-to-modern-warfare-report-says/1100-6511385/ Back on track, it looks like a CoD DLC has been upgraded to a full game. This is interesting as it has the appearance of Activision trying to run through the marketing deal they have with Sony faster. This is all speculation but the deal being for X amount of games certainly makes more sense than being over a period of X years. If so then the obvious intention would be to get out of the deal with Sony as soon as possible so they can sign up with Microsoft and have some petty revenge. The only issue is Microsoft apparently mandates Gamepass for their marketing deals which... unless they're going to pay the money to get CoD on Gamepass (serious cheddar) simply is not happening as angry or not, Activision can't justify losing all that money to shareholders. Though of course Microsoft can always scrap their policy and treat CoD in a special manner. There is also a lot of revenge fantasies being crafted in the Microsoft supporter camp, one of which would actually be very interesting to me. That being Microsoft paying a huge amount, discounted or not by Activision, to make a CoD game exclusive to them and on Gamepass. It would I think be bad business for both Microsoft and Activision, but beyond that game itself what about CoD going forward beyond it? Potentially it could cause such upheaval among PlayStation gamers that CoD's dominance shatters as PlayStation gamers, the majority of CoD's playerbase vows to stop buying CoD games going forward. Habit is also a powerful thing so if many gamers go without their daily CoD and get into something else, by the time a year or two a new CoD becomes available again they'll have no interest anymore. 8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJ_-_808 Posted February 10, 2023 Share Posted February 10, 2023 About those revenge fantasies... I've started wondering if a result from this would see Microsoft cut server support for Bethesda games still running on Playstation - ESO and Fallout 76 being two of the biggest still being supported Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rozalia1 Posted February 10, 2023 Share Posted February 10, 2023 6 minutes ago, AJ_-_808 said: About those revenge fantasies... I've started wondering if a result from this would see Microsoft cut server support for Bethesda games still running on Playstation - ESO and Fallout 76 being two of the biggest still being supported Ah, I've heard that one bandied around too. That Microsoft should remove off PSN any game they own the rights to and cut their existing support and online capability. Nothing is impossible of course but I don't see it myself. Unlike spending massive amounts to get a CoD exclusive there is no gain that can be pointed to with that and Microsoft is also ultimately still ran by a PR guy (if they don't blame him for this failing and fire him). Many critics of Microsoft have called out their good guy act as fake and them acting in that manner would only prove them right, but more importantly than that it would not go down well with the CMA & EU (the situation with the FTC can't get worse) which they don't want if they wish to continue buying up companies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts