Microsoft is buying Activision Blizzard for $68.7 billion [FTC sues to stop - CMA issues updated preliminary findings]

[Lion_Squid]

No new Activision titles in addition to no Starfield, TeS 6, Fallout 5, Arkane studios games, potentially no Indiana Jones... kinda blows.

Buying a studio I can understand, but buying major publishers doesn't sit right with me.

 

I'm still salty about Zenimax.

[mrmivo]

1 hour ago, Lion_Squid said:

I'm still salty about Zenimax.

Yes, this is also affecting me more than the Activision deal would. Of the Activision franchises, it’s pretty much only future Diablo games (after D4) that I would be miffed about.

 

Since switching to PS5 for gaming a year ago seems to be working out for me, I probably won’t do much PC gaming anymore in the future, so I’ll miss out on games like Starfield and Fallout, though maybe that is the wrong way to look at it. It’s them losing out on my money, which I’ll instead spend on games from other publishers. I did the same when EA stopped offering new games on Steam and only sold them through Origin (they eventually came back). There is no game that I can’t live without and always more stuff that I want to play than I have time to play.

 

This whole thing is turning me off of Windows too, and I’m considering to switch back to Linux (I used that a long time ago for a few years) now that I don’t have to worry about gaming compatibility.

Edited March 2, 2023 by mrmivo

[majob]

If the Reuters report is true it's  down to the CMA now. The FTC case won't stop Microsoft from closing the merger 

[DaivRules]

24 minutes ago, majob said:

If the Reuters report is true it's  down to the CMA now. The FTC case won't stop Microsoft from closing the merger 

 

In the EU, but what about Khan reverting the FTC's scope back to the pre-Reagan days of anti-trust and not just the post-Reagan everything-flies era?

No faith that it can be done?
 

[Rozalia1]

57 minutes ago, DaivRules said:

In the EU, but what about Khan reverting the FTC's scope back to the pre-Reagan days of anti-trust and not just the post-Reagan everything-flies era?

No faith that it can be done?

 

Told you.

 

Lina Khan within the American system is an extremist and the bought and paid politicians opposing her have the corrupt law on their side (hence why they'll laugh to themselves as they throw the word corrupt at her). As I've said, if we go by the current laws Microsoft is free to purchase the rest of the big publishers after a success here without issue (though thankfully the CMA should give them some pause on that). The straightest path to getting change to happen is that Biden remains president (surprising that he has kept supporting Lina under all the pressure, good on him) and the Democrats in his second term make weakening big tech a major goal and have good enough numbers to achieve that. The second more nebulous path involves Trump becoming president and then unlike his first term where Trump conceded to McConnell and the like on issues he really didn't care anything about and used many of McConnell's people, he instead decides to go with whatever his most loyal fanatics put forward (Trump does seem to feel like he has been betrayed by everyone but his true believers so this is possible). His most loyal diehards tend to be very much anti-big tech, though not usually for the reasons someone like Lina Khan is (they feel these big companies have too much social power that is so often aimed at them so they need to be cut down to size), so its possible they do the right thing on this even if for the wrong reasons.

 

That is my personal view, disagree if you like. All in all, it really ain't likely to me no. Though if the CMA rejects this and then goes on to be a stalwart against big tech then that will at least limit the damage. The EU I'm sure will be fine with allowing these bullet holes to happen, as they'll get money (fines) for the band aids they dish out.

[DaivRules]

19 minutes ago, Rozalia1 said:

the CMA

All Microsoft has to do to get past the CMA, and their on-the-record standing for taking on this case, is show that they plan to have more revenue after the acquisition than would be expected without the acquisition and the CMAs “what about all our tax dollars?” claim is overcome. 
 

That’s my objective factual view based on the legal proceedings that have taken place in the courts and not the Twitter-verse of the dramatic interpretations and uninformed takes that have no bearing on the proceedings. 
 

[Rozalia1]

1 minute ago, DaivRules said:

All Microsoft has to do to get past the CMA, and their on-the-record standing for taking on this case, is show that they plan to have more revenue after the acquisition than would be expected without the acquisition and the CMAs “what about all our tax dollars?” claim is overcome. 
 

That’s my objective factual view based on the legal proceedings that have taken place in the courts and not the Twitter-verse of the dramatic interpretations and uninformed takes that have no bearing on the proceedings. 

 

How can you be so arrogant in always speaking down to me when you say stuff like that? Incredible. To get by the CMA Microsoft simply has to prove their revenue post adding the profitable Activision will be higher than without... what? Why would everyone, absolutely everyone including Microsoft itself, put forward the CMA as the most difficult opponent in this if that was all it'd take to clear the CMA? What? WHAT?

 

I've always been willing to admit to being wrong though so perhaps I (and everyone else in the world apparently) have missed this, or perhaps and I hope this is the case I am simply not understanding you correctly. Whatever the case, the CMA has provided a lot of documents and it should be very easy to back up your claim. So please, do go ahead and with your great wisdom inform all of us uninformed plebs of the truth of all this.

[MidnightDragon]

3 hours ago, majob said:

If the Reuters report is true it's  down to the CMA now. The FTC case won't stop Microsoft from closing the merger 

Still don’t think the final outcome will change, but definitely got put through the wringer.

[majob]

4 hours ago, DaivRules said:

 

In the EU, but what about Khan reverting the FTC's scope back to the pre-Reagan days of anti-trust and not just the post-Reagan everything-flies era?

No faith that it can be done?
 

Lina Khan has an abysmal track record so as much as I would like to see her FTC prevail, I don't like her odds

[MidnightDragon]

Regardless of the final outcome, sick of seeing this every week on the gaming sites I go to. Ready to see this end. I’d prefer MS lose, but know that won’t happen.

[UNLEADED_BRONZE]

Sounds like a MASSIVE/HUGE lawsuit

On our hands

 

Wanted too/2 make a handy pun 

Nvm

 

Edited March 3, 2023 by UNLEADED_BRONZE

[Rozalia1]

On 03/03/2023 at 5:57 AM, MidnightDragon said:

Regardless of the final outcome, sick of seeing this every week on the gaming sites I go to. Ready to see this end. I’d prefer MS lose, but know that won’t happen.

 

I can understand, especially when we go long periods without any developments. Still, you can always count on Microsoft supporters now that they're so nervous to be cooking up all manner of funny insanity and revenge fan fiction. Seen two notable ones pop up. Firstly as we know Sony will have to disclose some documents, far smaller than the timeframe Microsoft wanted and some things are omitted but naturally to Microsoft supporters Sony has been completely defeated and are afraid, perhaps some think to the point that Sony will be seriously considering giving in to the mythical 10 year deal. Anyway, within this information some supporters have began to convince themselves that when regulators see third party deals, that Microsoft and Nintendo both cut by the way, that the regulators will judge it all as bad and ultimately ban Sony from doing them. Some go further and only Sony will be banned as they are the market leader, Microsoft will be all good. The only positive of that information getting out there is these people might get some idea on what actually gets a deal or not. You see utterly stupid stuff said like Sony paying for Octopath 2 and other Japanese RPGs to not be on Xbox... yet those games are on Nintendo and often have marketing deals with Nintendo on top of that so how in the hell would Sony be able to control that? Why would they even need to logically anyway? Such games sell so badly outside a few mainstream cases (still not great, but something at least) that Japanese developers don't need to be paid to not put stuff on Xbox as they'll skip Xbox on their own. Xbox is in a situation where it has to straight up pay for ports for such games and Sony has nothing to do with that, all their own making.

 

The other is once again we have the rumours going round, backed up by a big time Microsoft supporter who claims to have insiders within Microsoft, that Microsoft has no respect for the CMA and they're ready to attempt to blackmail the CMA by threatening to pull Microsoft out of the UK if the CMA doesn't kneel to mighty Microsoft. Just pure insanity, insanity that makes sense on no level no matter how twisted. On one hand to these people Sony is the evil empire who is so powerful that they'll rule forever so poor Microsoft needs some help from the regulators... but on the other hand Microsoft is so mighty they can threaten 1st world countries with pain if they don't give in to their demands. The reality is Microsoft wouldn't dream of it. The UK isn't Oman or something where you can have a bust up and just pull out with no other consequences. If Microsoft tries to blackmail the CMA like that the very next day the CMA would be the least of their problems as the EU and FTC would both join with the CMA in calling for the breaking up of Microsoft. The western world for a long time has been very corrupt pro-business yes, but even in that environment there are lines that you simply do not cross or they'll be coming for you with overwhelming force no company can hope to stand against.

----

 

https://www.axios.com/2023/03/06/microsoft-key-call-of-duty-sony-uk-cma

 

So some new stuff from Microsoft. In January they did a survey and are now using the results to claim that the CMA has overestimated the power of CoD... yes, I'm sure the CMA will be swayed by Microsoft getting a result that they wanted in their own survey (it actually does use the same group as the CMA but the survey is built differently to exclude certain data that makes things look better for Microsoft). Another thing that always instils confidence is stating that you'll never take away CoD... but even if you did it wouldn't matter anyway. Admitting CoD is a big deal but that you would never take it away sounds far more honest than saying that you won't take it away but don't worry if they ever do because it won't matter anyway. Makes no sense in the overall scheme of things anyway as Microsoft's excuse for putting Bethesda titles as exclusives is that they aren't a big deal so... if CoD is not a big deal then by that token they're all good with putting it exclusive down the line.

 

Honestly... I think the chances that a CMA block will be met with Microsoft attempting to get it overruled are getting higher and higher based on how arrogant and belligerent Microsoft has been. For all of Spencer's talk that Microsoft actually doesn't care all that much if they don't get this deal anyway, they seem to care a whole lot, it being their last roll of the dice a lot. If so then they will certainly try to take it to the CAT. Microsoft supporters will I'm sure cheer and believe that Microsoft will totally crush the CMA (they wouldn't be able to), but for me I'll be extra pleased as it'd mean Microsoft burning even more time trying to overturn something they won't be able to.

 

Still, some credit to Microsoft. At least you can say that this is submitted evidence that might help however little. Certainly beats getting in front of the camera and telling everyone that Xbox sucks badly or telling regulators to not be race traitors and side with the barbarians over their own. Not as fun though. Come on Microsoft, get on TV and tell everyone that you'll kill Xbox if the regulators reject the deal.

[The Alchemist]

1 hour ago, Rozalia1 said:

 

Still, you can always count on Microsoft supporters now that they're so nervous to be cooking up all manner of funny insanity and revenge fan fiction.

 

Console warriors gonna console war... I learned a long time ago to stop caring about this kind of nonsense, because you can't even have a constructive conversation with these people. And that goes for people on all "sides" of the console war. There's literally nothing I hate more in gaming than watching grown men argue over plastic boxes. It's fine to have preferences of course, but that's where it should end. It's been so bad in recent years especially that I've had to stop following practically all forms of gaming news and media, except for news straight from developers, because unfortunately even game "journalists" indulge in console war behavior nowadays in a pathetic attempt to keep clicks coming their way. Thankfully it's easy to spot the sites and people who do this, so I simply block/ignore them and move on with my day. Touching grass is a concept long since lost on these people.

 

I guess my point is we should all care less about what random console warrior idiots on the internet have to say in relation to this case - or about anything, really - and instead focus purely on the facts surrounding the case. I mean that in the nicest way possible too. You're doing a good job on the latter, I just think it isn't worth your time or energy even listening to the aforementioned weirdos. 

[Rozalia1]

14 hours ago, The Alchemist said:

Console warriors gonna console war... I learned a long time ago to stop caring about this kind of nonsense, because you can't even have a constructive conversation with these people. And that goes for people on all "sides" of the console war. There's literally nothing I hate more in gaming than watching grown men argue over plastic boxes. It's fine to have preferences of course, but that's where it should end. It's been so bad in recent years especially that I've had to stop following practically all forms of gaming news and media, except for news straight from developers, because unfortunately even game "journalists" indulge in console war behavior nowadays in a pathetic attempt to keep clicks coming their way. Thankfully it's easy to spot the sites and people who do this, so I simply block/ignore them and move on with my day. Touching grass is a concept long since lost on these people.

 

I guess my point is we should all care less about what random console warrior idiots on the internet have to say in relation to this case - or about anything, really - and instead focus purely on the facts surrounding the case. I mean that in the nicest way possible too. You're doing a good job on the latter, I just think it isn't worth your time or energy even listening to the aforementioned weirdos. 

 

I understand and respect your view on this and I can see how it looks that way, in fact I actually put off mentioning it until there was some manner of development in the case to also talk about. By bringing up these silly Microsoft supporters and not those opposing them (who can be silly too), it looks one sided and overall pointless as what do they really matter. Microsoft supporters are also in actuality a small group even if their loudness might make people think otherwise. The thing with that however is that they do in fact have relevance I think, at least to Microsoft and their strategy. Microsoft's PR used to be like what you outlined, in fact Spencer himself straight up said your plastic box comment. Most explained that as the company themselves being beyond "console wars" but I personally never bought it, and saw it as part of Microsoft's attempt to minimise how poorly Microsoft was doing in comparison by trying to present any talk about the subject as "console wars". My reasoning being that their hiding of key figures and boasts about how actually they're ahead of Sony/Nintendo who are so irrelevant they aren't even competition anymore showed someone who simply didn't want to be perceived as being behind.

 

Now? The PR is different and Microsoft has weaponized these people which has ultimately proven me correct in thinking that they are still very much in on the console war stuff. You have attacks from Microsoft itself such as them straight up using the "arrogant Sony" meme in documents, you have them stating the ludicrous statement of Sony wanting to grow by making Microsoft smaller when they're the ones buying huge amounts of the gaming industry, you have them calling the FTC and CMA corrupt, you even have them race baiting. Then you have those "journalists" (and those lawyers on the internet too) you mentioned who are so absurdly biased that you have to hope Microsoft is at least paying them, and who are putting out these narratives for the base to shout about which considering how closely these guys have worked with Microsoft on their good boy narratives in the past, you have to wonder if they're getting their marching orders from Microsoft on this.

 

The point in the end is that Microsoft has very much reactivated the console wars and they've made their supporters part of all of this, and as such I do believe there is some worth in knowing what is going on in the supporter camp because things brewing there might either have been pushed forward by Microsoft, or might be original stuff from their supporters which Microsoft might attempt to use in the future.

[The Alchemist]

2 hours ago, Rozalia1 said:

 

Microsoft supporters are also in actuality a small group even if their loudness might make people think otherwise. The thing with that however is that they do in fact have relevance I think, at least to Microsoft and their strategy. 

 

Yeah I get that point and I do believe that Microsoft is happy to sit back and let their army of rabid fanboys do a lot of their bidding in the court of public opinion - and not for the first time either. That being said, I don't think you can really blame Microsoft for reigniting or "reactivating" the console wars. For a start, console wars have always been around, so there was nothing to reactivate. Secondly, I don't think Microsoft are actively encouraging it either. It's just something that was going to happen regardless, especially with a deal like this, so it's more a case of Microsoft not letting it go to waste and using it to their advantage whilst they can. It's just business and these companies will use anything they can to gain an edge over their rivals. 

 

I can see why you might think Microsoft are to blame for it all though, because they really don't help themselves. They have some people working for Xbox who themselves are fanboys unabashedly. Aaron Greenberg immediately comes to mind. And then you have the other things you mentioned, like the unhinged lawyer who kept making ridiculous arguments a while back. But Sony have also took jabs at Microsoft on numerous occasions in the past. Admittedly it all used to be more light-hearted, but still, neither company is completely clean and certainly not regarding this deal as both sides have made some seriously stupid claims throughout the process. 

 

I'm just ready for the whole thing to be over. I'm pretty sure it's going to pass anyway. The people who were cheerleading it all along will get what they deserve in the long-term, I couldn't really care at this point as I'm just sick and tired of hearing about it all. 

[Rozalia1]

Sony response to CMA on proposed remedies: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/64086532d3bf7f557532cefc/2023-03-07_Microsoft-Activision_-_SIE_Observations_on_Remedies_Notice__Revised_NCV__redacted.pdf

Microsoft response to CMA on proposed remedies: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/64088cf9d3bf7f25f61ff804/Microsoft.Activision_-_Response_to_Remedies_Notice_-_NCV__2_.pdf

 

Much of the above two documents are for the Sony one them agreeing with the CMA while Microsoft denies everything, but there is some stuff that can be picked out.

 

To begin with I'll address what Microsoft's... influencers? Sure, and thus their supporters are targeting which is the claim by Sony that if this deal goes through that Microsoft might sabotage later parts of the game or put through updates to break the game. You'll see the words "dishonest", "embarrassing", "desperate" and such come up a lot from the Microsoft supporters but here is where context is important to remember as they have been claiming this about Sony's responses since the very start, and yet regulators have only gone more against Microsoft so reality doesn't match up with that. To actually address the matter. Its not impossible Microsoft might do that and could be done in a way basically impossible to prove (unless someone leaks), the less dev time that very likely would be devoted to a PlayStation version (hence the PlayStation version being more likely to have bugs/bad performance) is also a fair statement and something that these people on the attack leave out for obvious reasons, but the main reason Sony is mentioning this is because the CMA itself is who put forward this point and so Sony is backing the CMA on it.

 

Sony in the rest hits many of the points that I have outlined here such as subscription parity on CoD is meaningless as nobody is going to pay the huge fee required to get CoD on such a service so it defaults to only Microsoft having the right for it. They even point out that Microsoft having just King is no problem, which as we know is apparently what Microsoft really wants so what is the problem? They also cite how Microsoft has a history of breaking their word on behavioural remedies and conveniently said broken remedies were with the EU, who Microsoft in their response basically tells the CMA to forget whatever they have in mind and just with whatever the EU agrees with. Now while the EU might be all too happy to put remedies they know Microsoft will break as that'll mean they can fine them a billion or whatever, the CMA doesn't have to go along with whatever will make the EU some money.

 

Something I also found interesting is that Sony claims that Microsoft has shown no real commitment to reaching a negotiated outcome, only talked with them when they sensed a development going against them, and have favoured doing business in public rather than privately (as I've said before, you don't do business in public). We have to remember that the idea that Sony hasn't been willing to deal with Microsoft/Activision on this comes from... Microsoft/Activision themselves saying it publicly as part of their disgusting PR campaign. What I think is going on is that Microsoft is putting forward to regulators that a negotiated outcome in this case is Microsoft putting forward their offer and Sony accepting it, Sony having no right to wanting to negotiate more as Microsoft has already done it for them.

 

Microsoft's response denies everything as I said but a few things stick out. The CMA has said that Nintendo can't run CoD (they seem to not count a cloud version as being enough to count) and Microsoft should stop trying to push that point... Microsoft's response is to only increase the size of the lie. Microsoft claims that they will not only make native versions of CoD for Nintendo but that they will be release on the same day as Xbox versions and have parity on features and content. This is simply not something I can see as possible. No Nintendo version has been developed nor would I think Activision while this has been going on has been cooking one up so they'd have to start from zero, so there simply would not be enough time to release the next game on the same day. If Nintendo is still a few years away from releasing a new console then they'd also have to build a switch version which would have to be a straight up different version of the game rather than a port, and so would very likely have to not have crossplay (Microsoft claims otherwise in this naturally) which would not be feature parity. All in all it is just silly nonsense from Microsoft. I don't think they even lose anything in admitting that they can't give parity to Nintendo for CoD as there are good reasons why that wouldn't be possible, but they simply refuse to admit the CMA is correct on any point put forward. Microsoft also put a very nice joke within their response which is that this merger would lead to "increased efficiency" for Activision which... Xbox management is a well known joke on the matter of efficiency so to claim this laughable.

 

Microsoft also claims that they need Activision (who have CoD Mobile and Diablo) to take the fight to Apple & Google (as we know, their real competition) in mobile and that apparently King, the real goal in all this lets not forget, is not enough. Honestly, all this mobile talk is something I always find so dishonest. Microsoft didn't have to kill it's mobile business when the current boss over there took over. Microsoft can also build mobile studios, they can convert studios in their failing console business to mobile which as Microsoft themselves will tell you is worth more than the console business. Microsoft has also shown willingness to, it is believed as Microsoft hides the figures, lose huge amounts of money year after year in their efforts in console gaming. Are they not willing to do the same in mobile even though they believe it is a greater jewel than consoles? The way I see it Microsoft correctly assumes that going all in on mobile would be more risky than simply continuing in consoles. They'd also have to bleed huge amounts of money for ages on it which alone is whatever, but add that on top of Xbox and you have Microsoft bleeding a lot for gains that seemingly never come.

Edited March 8, 2023 by Rozalia1

[Rozalia1]

A report came out that states that the CMA is ready to diverge from the EU's decision. I imagine the reason this has come out is because Microsoft keeps putting it out there that the CMA needs to be good boys and just go with whatever the EU decides so the CMA has had to put it out there that they make their own decisions, not have the EU make them for them. The EU is a complete ??? on how Microsoft's PR is working, perhaps they just don't care and see it all as funny stuff, but when it comes to the CMA the only thing Microsoft seems to be doing is annoying them. It appears to me that Microsoft has no respect for the CMA, like with the FTC, which is very bold of them. We'll see how it works out.

 

 

As I've been saying. Microsoft is the one desperate here and trying all manner of useless tactics. As Sony said in the recent response to the CMA, Microsoft doesn't want to honestly negotiate and instead wants to pressure favourable conditions for themselves through pathetic public PR campaigns. Campaigns that don't even matter because not only does Sony not care about their efforts, but even more importantly neither does the CMA. How is it that Microsoft continues to not figure out that public PR campaigns, alluding to the UK government, and the like simply doesn't matter as the CMA is not affected by such things due to their strong position as a regulator (the strongest of the major regulators). It's like Microsoft has used their PR machine to a good enough effect for so long that it is apparently now all they know, so they don't know what to do if it doesn't work.

 

 

And here we have further evidence of what Sony has said, again on the same day which is extra stupid. Yes, I'm sure that Dark Emperor Jim Ryan approached poor little Microsoft and Activision and declared to them that no one can stop his evil ambitions. Did he threaten to kill little Bobby too while he was it? How ironic it would be considering who Kotick is. To be clear, obviously everyone knows that Jim Ryan wants the deal dead. That isn't in doubt. The idea of him telling this directly to Microsoft & Activision seems unlikely however.

 

This is stupid on so many levels. If Bobby Kotick, who recently was race baiting on live TV, wasn't Lulu's boss she would have been fired instantly for such a stupid and unprofessional comment. If you have no evidence then you are putting forward a baseless attack, but even if this event really did go down like that then you still can't just throw it out like that because then who can trust anything they say to you in secret if you've shown that you'll publicly put it out there. 

 

Activision really does seem to be rotten to the core if you have these sorts of people running it. Microsoft supporters know this of course and have themselves said as such considering that narrative that the deal should go through so Microsoft can save Activision's workers from its evil management... yet, if said same evil management puts out this rubbish then suddenly the evil management is truthful? Simply pathetic stuff. Hopefully if this fails, and that seems likely, Sony will use their influence to help rid Activision of these scumbags they have over there in management.

[majob]

I genuinely and utterly have nothing but contempt for Microsoft after reading the CMA statement. Sony is right about Microsoft dragging their feet and trying to negotiate in the court of public opinion instead of at the actual conference table and watching them pull shit like this just shows they're not genuine about their statements in the slightest. Just a shame so many gamepass fanboys can't see it

[The_Jigsaw_Cult]

On 21/1/2022 at 7:58 AM, DEI2EK said:

But it’s true, Sony lost Japan to Nintendo and Microsoft is buying all these western developers

whats left for Sony?

Are you an xbot? 

[MidnightDragon]

I don’t blame Sony for saying that if true. They know all MS does is lie and could easily go back on their word once it’s done.

[Rozalia1]

Predictably much of the gaming media is putting out irresponsible articles that remove context from things said in the responses or frame them a certain way to show Sony negatively, and even worse reporting on the Lulu comment in at the very least an implied manner of it being true as if what this unprofessional and untrustworthy person is saying is deserving of that. As this has happened I saw a tweet from a Kotaku reporter who said something along the lines of "I wonder what Jim Ryan will say in response when he talks to Gamesindustry.biz". Its doubtful Jim Ryan will even respond as unlike Spencer he seems to see himself as above these things but beyond that I think the comment is very telling. Gamesindustry.biz for those who missed it put out a little while back an article that shockingly was critical of Microsoft and was instantly set upon by Microsoft's PR machine (Lulu who now gets to use it directed people towards them) and quickly had to redo their article to be less biting. One look at what the people moving at Microsoft's behest say and again, telling. Gamesindustry.biz they say are the corrupt ones and in the pocket of Sony, after all that must be so if they doing a (rare) attack against Microsoft in the gaming media. The Kotaku guy only helps support that perception with his comment that implies that as Gamesindustry.biz is the only (I'm sure there are a few others) outlet that Jim Ryan trusts, that it must be because they're in Sony's pocket.

 

I'm going to explain this Microsoft PR thing by pointing to another industry where this has also happened to help support my case that this is what has happened in gaming. It makes this already lengthy post even bigger so if you want, go to the conclusion at the end then it'll come after the dividers in the this post.

---

What does all this mean? Is it that Microsoft is paying all these outlets/their people to back Microsoft and muddy Sony's name? Not impossible but unsophisticated and risky. Being someone who has an interest in Professional Wrestling and little care for what that industry's media puts out, I think the more likely thing going on in gaming is what has gone on in professional wrestling. Wrestling has many smaller companies (that largely don't matter in the grand scheme of things) but the two important here are the biggest, the WWE and AEW. WWE is far larger than AEW, makes more money, has a stronger brand, its wrestlers are better trained on average and don't indulge in paralyze risking moves or blade (cut yourself to make yourself start gushing blood, which AEW does to such an absurd amount that it no longer matters), and also has a very big focus on story over the wrestling (like how Sony has a focus on third person story heavy games). AEW is smaller but owned by someone who can spend as much money as he wants and has no care for profit hence even the lowest tier wrestler on their roster being paid far more than they are worth (Microsoft not caring about losing money and signing people onto Gamepass for more money than others would pay). They focus on long matches while the story is minimised compared to the WWE. AEW is also far less restrictive of their talent which often leads to absolute messes be it in the ring or in the story of the whole thing (the Xbox mismanagement among its studios that leads to extensive delays/poor games). Parallels between the two already, but the important bit relating to this is the two company's media perception among the media of the industry they are in. The WWE is seen as the "evil empire" while AEW is the "good guy". Now granted the WWE certainly have done enough bad stuff to be seen as such and their product has in the past been absolutely wretched which the media called out (though they got new management recently which while not perfect is improved). AEW is meanwhile fawned over by the media even though many people (some are WWE fans of course, but many aren't) can very easily and clearly see how bad they are especially right now. The outlets/people that are willing to be different than the majority and put out a negative AEW story are attacked as shills in the pocket of the WWE. This mirrors the situation between Sony and Microsoft in the gaming media, though admittedly Sony has it easy in comparison to WWE as some of the wrestling media has straight up hatred for the WWE, the kind you hold all the way to your deathbed. Serious stuff.

 

With all that said, how did the situation become like that? The WWE's starting negative perception (far worse than what Sony's could be said to have been) certainly helps, but that alone can't explain it. For that I have to talk about AEW's owner, Tony Khan. Tony Khan has made it well known that he was a big consumer of the most notable wrestling media and attributes so much that he knows to them (massaging egos). He'll go on even minor media and have good times (they won't ask him anything dangerous in fear of losing future interviews with him or his wrestlers) with the people to the point they think Tony is their friend and so predictably they'll find themselves hard pressed to talk bad about their "friend". WWE's owner Vince McMahon, or even any of the new management currently in place, largely don't give even major wrestling media the time of day (like how Jim Ryan largely doesn't the gaming media). In fact, in a rare interview (with non-wrestling media) some time back Vince McMahon straight up stated that most of the wrestling media is so overly negative and unfair of WWE's product that he sees no worth in listening to them.

 

As such for this situation to develop into what it is doesn't require Tony Khan to pay the media to fawn over him and muddy the WWE's name. Him doing PR and being their "friend" while the WWE looks down on them results in the media favouring AEW. Who this sounds like in gaming is obvious. Phil Spencer. Though we can't forget that the rest of his team go around doing it too. Jim Ryan meanwhile is in the position of not caring for the industry's media.

---

In short.

 

Microsoft's PR efforts have largely been successful in the media to the point that they'll get framed far more positively than Sony will so there is little need for money to change hands. The problem Microsoft has is that like how AEW's business even with this media advantage is on the way down while WWE's is roaring upward, its not won them anything in the end. Microsoft's plan to defeat Sony is obvious enough to me.

 

- Use PR machine to manipulate the media into being on their side and more negative of Sony. This in turn should turn the majority of people against Sony... except people have little respect for gaming media (just like wrestling media) and Sony's brand is incredibly strong so this has had little actual effect.

- Put out a cheaper (and weaker) machine while promoting "free games" (yes you have to pay a subscription, but in gaming games on subscriptions are often put forward as being free) to bring in the more casual gamers... except this has failed to work as only their hardcores are interested (not enough of them) in their subscription and casuals don't seem to be. The market thus far has thankfully it seems refused to change to a subscription one and people want to own their games. The cheaper console angle has also not worked as people if interested in the Xbox would much rather have the Series X which is seen as being a true current gen console while the S isn't. 

- Put out a powerhouse console that is better than the PS5 so you can claim to have the better console... except that for all of the talk in the (friendly) media about it being significantly more powerful than the PS5 before the generation started due to the infamous terraflops, the result is very minimal at best and at times its actually worse. People simply don't care if in theory the Series X is X% better than the PS5, just how they didn't care that Microsoft had the stronger "Pro" console in the previous generation. Even worse both of their current consoles are sold at massive losses and their production of the consoles is so stupidly done that its been said that to produce large amounts of the Series X quickly which people have interest in, they have to produce large amounts of the Series S which has low interest. So while Sony has solved their production issue, Microsoft hasn't, meaning even if Microsoft's efforts were being successful in regards to the Series X they'd be handicapped by this issue.

- The starving out Sony of third party content by buying it up. Microsoft has for a number of years being buying up a lot of studios and then we got the Bethesda purchase which was a very big deal at the time. Potentially Microsoft would have been able to continue this and soon enough had a really overwhelming amount of studios, they said as such directly as their plan as they were not done buying studios... except they got greedy. Bobby Kotick had his problems and Microsoft was presented with a possibility I imagine they didn't think possible, getting their hands on Activision. Unlike other purchases this one would get a lot of heat so if more cautious Microsoft would have passed on it and continued as they were, buying up smaller companies... but the allure was too much and they jumped in. Its no problem they thought. They have their precious PR machine for dealing with gamers and as for regulators? They've paid the EU fines before on their behaviourals being broken so whatever. The FTC and CMA? Who cares, weaklings who can't stop mighty Microsoft even if they wanted to. For the FTC they'll get some corrupt pro business judge to overturn their decisions while with the CMA they'll just smear and threaten as being too small to stop such a case while it goes through all around the world.

 

The last point has yet to be concluded (though it doesn't look good for them thankfully) as we await to see if Microsoft can get their hands on Activision and CoD, but it can be easily seen why they're so desperate to get this deal through. Every other part of their plan has failed and this is all they have left. A plan which is actually very strong on paper if you think about it, though you can always put forward strong plans if you're able and willing to lose massive amounts of money to carry it out, but critical mistakes and mismanagement (as usual for Xbox) looks set to make their plan result in a failure.

Edited March 10, 2023 by Rozalia1

[Rozalia1]

 

Further in the chain of tweets is some relevant redacted stuff from the recent documents. Looking at them again considering Sony's statement of the deal being horrible and Microsoft being the one who wanted the details redacted and damn... that deal may well be one of the worst possible deals.

 

On the second page it says that Microsoft proposes a -Redacted- term for buy to play and a -Redacted- term for cloud... why separate the two things? Why redact a timeframe that Microsoft has publicly shouted out for months now? Reminds me of this from when they were buying Bethesda.

 

https://www.ign.com/articles/xbox-bethesda-first-better-best/

 

Microsoft's talked up 10 year deal might well be something like for the time Sony has marketing rights for CoD or for a short period post it (1-3 years) Microsoft will provide a native version, but once that ends they'll then only provide a cloud version for new CoD games going forward on PlayStation which is where the 10 years comes in. Microsoft having a native version while Sony only gets a cloud version after the short period ends would obviously push big time CoD players away from the PlayStation version as the Microsoft version would be noticeably superior.

 

That would be a clear reason to not want people to see the deal as even some of their fanatics would short circuit and realise that Microsoft has been playing them the whole time and lying about how good this deal supposedly was, all while trying to frame Sony as the bad guy for not accepting such a terrible deal. Considering how Microsoft has acted right from the start, to the point that Jim Ryan actually had to publicly call out Phil Spencer for lying about the initial deal they talked up as the greatest thing ever as better than what it was... I think the odds are good of Microsoft having done this.

[Rozalia1]

 

First 27.30 minutes are the relevant part. A video that lays out how dishonestly the media is framing all of this. 

 

Something he mentioned reminded me of something. He talked about journalists being within an "Xbox culture" I think was the framing and about how they benefit personally hence their stances. He didn't go into that but I assume he meant what I described above. Microsoft will give them interviews with guys like Spencer and feed them all manner of other information while Sony treats them with the distain that they quite honestly deserve if they act like this, so Microsoft winning is better for them financially. The talk of them being in a culture though made me remember another subject that has come up and was a big deal with game journalists (and reviewers) 15 years back.

 

The JRPG thing. For those unaware the producer of the next Final Fantasy basically said he hates the term because back in the day they kept seeing it used as a way to mock and attack their games. He realises it is used more positively in general these days, but for some its not a thing they like to see. For those who weren't paying attention or were too young, the rise of the 360 and usually PC only WRPGs porting their games to consoles caused a lot (I'd say majority) of western journalists and reviewers to go full in on hating Japanese games, JRPGs especially. A narrative was built where Japanese developers had no creativity (imagine saying something so stupid) and their games were inferior on every level to western games which were real games for adults, not any of this pathetic kids stuff. It even got into some game developers with Bioware from what I recall being the most arrogant of all, but you even had guys with 15 minutes of fame like that fool Phil Fish making ridiculous comments. Even something as beloved as DMC was hit with the "this is all lame Japanese stuff" from the western developer Ninja Theory infamously.

 

Why did this suddenly happen? Japanese games in that period certainly did struggle because of the move to HD, but that can't explain the massive amounts of hate being spread at the time. One explanation for it happening was that Japanese games had dominated for a long time at that point so with western games rising these people who had likely always resented having the Japanese be better than the west on this, saw their chance to start openly hating big time on Japanese games. Thankfully as we've seen Japanese have recovered while those trumpeted western games were diminished so that culture was once again forced largely underground.

 

So... does that nationalistic sort of thing play a part here among these sorts backing Microsoft to such absurd degrees? Possibly. Microsoft/Activision certainly seem to think there is worth in the angle being out there considering the race baiting they did on live TV. I can certainly believe that many of these journalists are desperate for an American company like Microsoft to dominate the industry. How bad such a result might be or how Microsoft gets there is irrelevant, at least the Japanese will finally have been defeated.

[Rozalia1]

 

I find it very strange that Microsoft clearly put out an order for Spencer (their polished PR guy) to shut his mouth for quite a while which granted is actually wise as many of Spencer's previous comments have come back to bite them, but why are they letting Brad Smith apparently say whatever he wants? Apparently there is some suspicious stuff around this company (Boosteroid which is a cloud service with 4 million customers) and its relation to Ukraine too. It operates in Ukraine but was apparently a Romanian company until now where suddenly it is now touted as if a Ukrainian company...

 

Shameless using of the Ukrainian war for PR purposes aside, Microsoft has signed yet another legendary 10 year deal and they say more are to follow.

 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/microsoft-signs-another-call-of-duty-deal-as-it-seeks-approval-to-buy-activision-blizzard-a8c5372f?st=r1twjwv61sam3uz

 

This article speaks on that deal, but there was an interesting bit from Brad Smith who often reveals Microsoft's intentions.

 

Quote

“If the only argument is that Microsoft is going to withhold ‘Call of Duty’ from other platforms, and we’ve now entered into contracts that are going to bring this to many more devices and many more platforms, that is a pretty hard case to make to a court,” Mr. Smith said. He said any decision on the deal would be subject to judicial review.

 

This is very good news if that is what Microsoft intends. It would mean that Microsoft aren't simply playing tough until the very end and then deciding to go for divestments like some Microsoft supporters believe, and instead they'll go all the way which will cause the CMA to block which then will cause Microsoft to take it to the CAT and try to get the CMA overturned. A very foolish endeavour as the CMA has played this perfectly and successfully reversing their decisions on mergers is an extremely difficult task. If so then you might ask why a company that can afford as many lawyers as Microsoft would foolishly try it. 3 possible reasons. The first is someone in management, perhaps even Brad Smith who is a former lawyer, overrules everyone and orders the fight as he thinks he knows better. The second is mismanagement where they either have gotten themselves bad lawyers or ones that don't know all the ins and outs of the CMA so their lawyer team doesn't know better and thinks they can actually win the fight as if they're in America. The final reason is Microsoft management knows that it's likely fruitless, but they see no way forward for Xbox without getting this through so they'll risk even low odds.

 

It'll annoy a lot of people I know as it'll mean this circus will keep going for a good while longer, but keeping in mind that as long as the circus is in town Microsoft can't buy anyone its only a positive in my book. Best case scenario is the situation only worsens for Microsoft during that time they can't splash their cash and when they lose the case at the CAT, management decides to give up on their effort to destroy the traditional game market. Which yes yes, I know, might well mean the end of Xbox. As much as a good thing having an extra competitor in the market is... twice now Microsoft have tried to do this take over gaming by destroying gaming as we know it business. First with the Xbox One and now Gamepass. As funny as Microsoft unleashing their grand plans and failing can be, I'd rather they not have the capacity to even try them because they only need to win once to mess everything up.

[Rozalia1]

 

And we got another one. This particular company as far as I'm aware doesn't even sell cloud services to customers, instead giving cloud capabilities to whoever wants to set up one. Does this mean any company using this service for their own cloud service gets it too? 

 

 

Lulu aiming to use that PR machine again. Its really pathetic when they have the media almost completely on their side and yet will still go after anyone the least bit critical. As for her comments... first off, "gentleman's agreement" doesn't mean that before a meeting everyone has to agree to not leak stuff. That is something that is socially understood to be the case. You're not breaking any law or whatever if you go against that but you will look bad. She knows this, but pretends to not know to attack the writer who predictably instantly gets to his knees. The second is... the guy is bad for using the term "gentleman's agreement" and "bad guy" when she is a woman? Oh dear.

 

Something tells me some writers while still very much on Microsoft's side, are at least seeing the silver lining of on failure being able to tear this fool to shreds without having to be in fear of the Microsoft PR machine.

 

https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/d09412-complaint-counsels-motion-to-compel-microsoft-corporation-and-activision-blizzard-inc-to-produce-documents.pdf

 

Remember Microsoft supporters attacking Sony for taking too long to produce the mountains of documents that they requested off Sony (which Sony got reduced)? Well Microsoft it turns out is doing the same but for much less documents. Will the media make the same deal out of this as they did that? The answer is of course no. The main issue here is even that Microsoft is refusing to show these deals they keep talking up and naturally it has to be asked why that is. If the implication from one of the documents I posted above is correct, it'd likely destroy a significant amount of public support Microsoft has gotten if the details of these deals are seen.