Banjo64
cumsessed
What a cop out
there is no need to be upset bud, scrutiny of big businesses is a good thing.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
VGC: UK competition watchdog says it could expand Xbox Activision merger inquiry over competition concerns
- Thread starter Tiago Rodrigues
- Start date
there is no need to be upset bud, scrutiny of big businesses is a good thing.
DaGwaphics
Member
The same title selling X copies every year shouldn't be an important issue. Sony and Nintendo have a stable of franchises with alternating release schedules, and many of these titles are very good sellers in the market.
@
Banjo64
your posts couldn't be any less upsetting to me. LOL
Last edited:
Somebody should tell him that he didn't read the memo from Papa Phil stating his business is not reliant on console sales numbers anymore.
Mr Moose
Member
That's a weird way of saying you can't name one.The same title selling X copies every year shouldn't be an important issue. Sony and Nintendo have a stable of franchises with alternating release schedules, and many of these titles are very good sellers in the market.
@
You shouldn’t make claims and then deflect from simple follow ups by saying the substance of your claim is not actually important. It’s discrediting my friend.The same title selling X copies every year shouldn't be an important issue. Sony and Nintendo have a stable of franchises with alternating release schedules, and many of these titles are very good sellers in the market.
@
Banjo64
cumsessed
Are you sure? You sound upset pal.The same title selling X copies every year shouldn't be an important issue. Sony and Nintendo have a stable of franchises with alternating release schedules, and many of these titles are very good sellers in the market.
@
remember_spinal
Banned
I’m starting to hope this deal doesn’t go through just for the absolute melt downs it would cause on here
Well, that and because I think $70b on Activision is an obscene waste of money.
This deal falling through would be catastrophically bad news for them
poppabk
Cheeks Spread for Digital Only Future
Which doesn't make sense when all of these services are walled gardens. MS can't compete with Sonys subscription service and Sony can't compete with MS's. A newcomer can only compete in the PC space where the incumbents already have massive advantages in popular IPs.
That’s not how reality works. MS is many multiple times richer than Valve, but you’d be hard pressed to claim MS has a very strong position in PC gaming
Might as well claim Google Stadia has a strong position in gaming.
DaGwaphics
Member
Because the premise of needing to name one is so foolish to start with. Does Nintendo release Mario, or Zelda, or Pokemon, or Splatoon, or Mario Cart yearly? No they don't. Could they easily put together a release schedule that keeps them very near the top of the yearly sales charts every year, yes.
Last edited:
The ironic part is that Sony which used to have a strong first party development presence there, now its MS.And then they wonder what has happened to industry in the UK.
Sony and Nintendo already own and control properties that sell 20 and 30m copies, and they have full control of those properties. LOL Heaven forbid there be real competition in the space, Sony probably lobbying hard here.
Punished Miku
Gold Member
I mean, that's fine and all but my honest opinion is that it's ultimately a little absurd.
The barrier to entry in this market is astronomically high already. Amazon, Google, Sega cannot make competitive services because it takes a ton of experience. That's just consoles. Making a cloud gaming service is even harder to make because it's expensive and risky to the point that Sony claimed it wasn't even possible for years until they got pushed to compete, and now suddenly it's possible.
I don't think anyone is going to compete in this space with Sony, MS or Nintendo except a giant corporation like Google, Amazon or Tencent. I don't think MS having Call of Duty prevents any of these companies from competing; especially when they're multiplatform games.
I'm seeing anti-competitive concentration in the market already in the form of Sony's market dominance. As I said earlier, MS was barely even able to hang in the console space last gen. Having them in a strong position, imho, has already demonstrated positive effects for consumers. I think the regulators are misreading the market completely.
Imagine if MS was more competitive in Europe? Probably wouldn't see the PS5 get a price increase.
Mr Moose
Member
No, what you said was foolish to start with.
DaGwaphics
Member
Only if you aren't too bright to start with. It was obvious I was talking about their libraries as a whole, not any one particular title.
Mr Moose
Member
lovetalkgames
Banned
If Microsoft were exclusivity minded we would’ve seen it by now. We have years of evidence that shows they can’t win that game even when they’re well prepared with meaningful games like Halo and Gears. Seems more likely that they just want control over the industry even if it’s through broad ownership. The games will stay on PlayStation.
Negotiator101
Member
This is nothing it will go through fine.
I am 100% in agreement about the cost of entry even today. But I still think an exclusive Duty is currently a game that could make things a lot harder for even the biggest companies to get into the game. just Look at how people responded to EGS because of loyalty to a launcher. Imagine if all the Duty players were told there’s only 1 platform they can play on?
As an aside, I 100% attribute MS sales numbers last gen to the initial decision they would try dominating the living room (tv, tv, tv) and force their camera on everyone. I’m not downplaying Sonys first party games here. Just saying that MS put itself in a hole because they wanted too much when they should still have been focused on the primary reason for getting a console at launch.
DaGwaphics
Member
I'm not sure why this is so difficult for you. I guess I could pull up the year end sales charts for the last 6 or 7 years and highlight the Nintendo and Sony titles on there for you. would that help?
Do you not think that Mario is a best seller? Or Zelda? or Pokemon? Nintendo releasing Zelda one year and Mario the next doesn't count because it isn't the same title?
Here's a list of the best selling Switch games. As you can see they do a good job of hitting with something every year:
List of best-selling Nintendo Switch video games - Wikipedia
Last edited:
SenjutsuSage
Banned
They're just making a public show of it. It will be approved.
Airbus Jr
Banned
TheThreadsThatBindUs
Member
This is what delusion looks like, folks!
Do you really think Sony and Nintendo release games able to sell 20-30m units annually?!? Stay off the crack pipe, son.
What a silly argument. It's pretty much exactly how reality and MS in particular works. It's already been posted in this thread that MS has been in a firm 3rd place in the market since they entered it, and even now they aren't generating close to the profits of their closest competitors, and yet they're able to have spent tens of billions in gaming acquisitions and still want to spend another $70b more on buying Activision Blizzard.
That scale of acquisition money isn't coming from Xbox profits. That's Windows/Office/Cloud profits being invested in the Xbox business. Neither Sony nor Nintendo nor other potential entrants to the gaming market can boast access to multi-billion generating cash cow businesses whose profits they can further leverage for acquisition growth of their gaming business.
Last edited:
DaGwaphics
Member
SLB1904
Banned
At first I didn't care, but watching the mini meltdown already happening I Hope it doesn't go through either. That will be so much funI’m starting to hope this deal doesn’t go through just for the absolute melt downs it would cause on here
Well, that and because I think $70b on Activision is an obscene waste of money.
Last edited:
DaGwaphics
Member
When they release a Zelda game, you don't think they have the potential to sell 20m? When they follow that up later with a Mario release, you don't think they have the potential to sell 20m? What about when they release Pokemon?
You do you pal.
Scale is probably the best word to explain why this should be evaluated carefully. And by people without console loyalties.
Banjo64
cumsessed
1 Zelda game has sold more than 9 millions copies.
| # | Title | Platform(s) | Release Date | Sales (in millions) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Breath of the Wild | Switch Wii U | March 3, 2017 | 25.80 |
| 2 | Twilight Princess | Wii GCN | Wii: November 19, 2006 GCN: December 2, 2006 | 8.70 |
| 3 | Ocarina of Time | N64 | November 21, 1998 | 7.60 |
| 4 | The Legend of Zelda | NES | February 21, 1986 | 6.51 |
| 5 | Ocarina of Time 3D | 3DS | June 16, 2011 | 6.02 |
| 6 | Phantom Hourglass | DS | June 23, 2007 | 4.76 |
| 7 | A Link to the Past | SNES | November 21, 1991 | 4.61 |
| 8 | The Wind Waker | GCN | December 13, 2002 | 4.43 |
| 9 | The Adventure of Link | NES | January 14, 1987 | 4.38 |
| 10 | A Link Between Worlds | 3DS | November 22, 2013 | 4.07 |
| 11 | Oracle of Seasonsand Oracle of Ages | GBC | February 27, 2001 | 3.99 |
| 12 | Link's Awakening | GB | June 6, 1993 | 3.83 |
| 13 | Skyward Sword | Wii | November 18, 2011 | 3.67 |
| 14 | Majora's Mask | N64 | April 27, 2000 | 3.40 |
| 15 | Majora's Mask 3D | 3DS | February 13, 2015 | 3.28 |
| 16 | Spirit Tracks | DS | December 7, 2009 | 2.96 |
| 17 | A Link to the Past & Four Swords | GBA | December 2, 2002 | 2.82 |
| 18 | The Wind Waker HD | Wii U | September 20, 2013 | 2.35 |
| 19 | Link's Awakening DX | GBC | December 12, 1998 | 2.22 |
| 20 | The Minish Cap | GBA | November 4, 2004 | 1.76 |
| 21 | Tri Force Heroes | 3DS | October 22, 2015 | 1.23 |
| 22 | Twilight Princess HD | Wii U | March 4, 2016 | 1.11 |
| 23 | Four Swords Adventures | GCN | March 18, 2004 | 0.94 |
I don’t think they release Mario games annually.
Yes, Pokémon is a behemoth. If Nintendo were buying Pokémon instead of having grown it themselves then that deal also would be subject to scrutiny.
DaGwaphics
Member
I never said Nintendo released Mario games yearly, it would be foolish to think they need to. What I said is they release games with a sales potential of 10, 20, 30m every year.
List of best-selling Nintendo Switch video games - Wikipedia
There's the link of best selling Switch games again. This was a basic, common sense statement that is factual. I'm quite surprised by the attacks I received for it. tbh. LOL
Must be a slow day.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Banjo64
cumsessed
You just have a bad take mate, so people are disagreeing with you.
Microsoft are trying to purchase a game franchise that sells 10m copies a year on their rivals console. Pokémon, Zelda and Mario aren’t published on rival hardware.
Nitty_Grimes
Made a crappy phPBB forum once ... once.
Now wheres those people who attacked/ mocked me and say those cod game will never comes to playstation
Airbus Jr vindicated
We want people to have more access to games, not less. - Brad Smith, Microsoft
Starfield / Elder Scrolls on PS5 confirmed
Last edited:
Mr Moose
Member
We want people to have more access to games, not less." - Brad Smith, Microsoft
Starfield / Elder Scrolls on PS5 confirmed
DaGwaphics
Member
This thread is about competition and potential competition down the road for subscription services. I just find it funny that CoD only being available on MS's subscription platform would be anti-competitive (or is at least being questioned that way here), but Nintendo could stack their service with games with similar sales pull and that's hunky dory. It just doesn't square for me personally.
Last edited:
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
We want people to have more access to games, not less. - Brad Smith, Microsoft
Starfield / Elder Scrolls on PS5 confirmed
ToTTenTranz
Banned
Hey guys, remember when Satya Nadella made some bullish claims about Microsoft not even needing to do any concessions to get regulatory approval?
Last edited:
DenchDeckard
Moderated wildly
CMA are sony fanboys? WTF those blue snakes are everywhere!!!
/Joke
/Joke
yurinka
Member
The CoD games sell now around 20M copies (PS+XB+PC) and PS has over 100MAU. If we're generous and consider that half of these 20M PS+XB+PC copies are sold on PS, then it means that 90% of the PlayStation active users don't buy the yearly CoD games.Well, I guess a lot of people were right - nobody buys Sony for exclusives but only for COD
Even if CoD games are some of the best selling games of the year on PS, most PS users don't buy CoD. MS said multiple times -and Phil said it today, maybe this time being more clear- that they will continue future CoD games day one on PS as they do with Minecraft. But even if MS would make it full console exclusive, it wouldn't affect PS because around 90% of their users don't buy CoD, PS is in a growing pattern and many PS users already have an Xbox or PC gaming, so pretty likely wouldn't leave/avoid PS because of CoD.
All the other Activision Blizzard IPs are way less important than CoD for PS, so their impact would be even smaller for Sony. But the next Overwatch or Diablo are also coming day one to PS.
There is absolutely no reason to stop this acquisition at all. Even more if we consider that Sony is in gaming and particularly consoles and game subs way ahead than MS so if something this acquisition would help to have a bit more competition, not the opposite.
Last edited:
CeeJay
Member
From a business stand point it's very clear that MS are trying to do that but from a consumer point of view is it such a bad thing if we end up with fewer games subscription services than we otherwise would? It's pretty awful in the TV streaming space where if you want to watch all the new content you have to have loads of separate subs and there are new ones popping up all the time.
Just how many competitors in a market do you need for the consumers to get the benefit of that competition? 2? 3? 6? 10? 20?
Look at the PC store situation where Steam is easily the largest and a place where you can buy most games that release. There are a few other stores such as Epic and GOG along with several stores run by publishers, each one requiring a separate loader. Even in this space where you have a single dominant player there is still plenty of bitching about having to have multiple launchers installed so that you can buy and play everything, Imagine how bad it would be if there were many multiple stores with an equal but smaller market share? It would make it easier for new competition to enter the market and fragment things further to a point where you would need dozens of launchers slowing down your boot time. I am all for fair competition but there comes a point where things would get so fragmented that the customer experience would be dismal.
None of this has anything to do with their current position in gaming. And even big purchases like this will not move them past 3rd position in the near to mid term.
It’s not like MS is the only party using acquisitions to grow their gaming business.
They certainly aren’t putting any new concessions on the table that weren’t there when the deal was announced. They’ve said from day one that COD would remain multiplatform.
SenjutsuSage
Banned
In case people aren't aware, Microsoft and Activision's deal simply met their new announced thresholds for which to trigger this process.
https://www.whitecase.com/insight-a...st-regulator-snapshot-overview-uk-governments
Details at link above.
They started the review on July 6th and allowed all parties to comment on the deal between the 6th of July and the 20th of July. Naturally what transpired between that period of time is that Sony raised holy hell and screamed that the government was taking their baby. Any such major concerns raised, legitimate or not, would cause CMA to at least parrot similar concerns before giving the parties (Microsoft & Activision) an opportunity to address those fears and concerns raised. This is the part of the process where Microsoft gets to directly challenge in a more direct fashion with CMA Sony's claims and accusations. They've been given 5 days to convince them. Should they fail to convince them in 5 days, they will grant Microsoft and Activision Blizzard even more time in a very flexible phase 2 where Microsoft and Activision can basically have multiple shots at getting to a yes.
Translation, there's no way in hell it fails because Sony will have exclusives to their consoles, as well as to their subscription services, just like Microsoft does. And Microsoft will address any concerns regarding Call of Duty and other popular Activision Blizzard titles. The fact CMA brings up Starfield and Elder Scrolls is irrelevant and easy to counter because Microsoft can then bring up the fact that major releases from Bethesda as well as other publishers were withheld from Xbox customers thanks in large part due to Sony wielding as a weapon their superior market dominance. This is where Microsoft brings up blocking rights, sony's timed deals on bethesda games, Sony's deals on Final Fantasy etc. And no, the fact that they aren't acquisitions by Sony does not materially change the risk to reduce competition when Sony is clearly a much more dominant player in the console market than Microsoft is. Their last console vastly outsold Xbox by more than 2 to 1. Microsoft will again state that Game Pass is their answer to the fact that they were unable to compete in the same league as Sony in the traditional space and so will have more of a need to improve their Game Pass offering. They also have a very persuasive argument to make about the number of devices and the price in which Call of Duty will be made available to a larger range of people.
Long story short, Microsoft has as much time as necessary to satisfy any and all concerns with a countering set of facts and by making some basic commitments. But CMA will also understand that if Sony doesn't pay the cost to be the boss of Activision Blizzard, then they obviously can't be expected to benefit in all of the same exact ways as Microsoft and Xbox can, so long as Microsoft doesn't make changes that materially impact the access of Playstation users to Call of Duty and other popular Activision Blizzard games now or in the future. It will be there on Playstation, but it will just be a whole lot more convenient a package on Xbox platforms, which is totally to be expected.
Edit: Oh, and don't think Microsoft won't be bringing up Sony's price increases in the UK or the fact that Microsoft hasn't increased their own game prices, the fact that they have a more affordable Series S option in challenging economic times. Microsoft may even go so far as to committing to dropping the price of all Activision Blizzard games back to their pre-pandemic $60. We know it wasn't done for the Pandemic, but this is a thing Microsoft can do. Whatever is best for customers in the UK will make them more comfortable with it. Microsoft can also point out that a purchase of a Microsoft game from Microsoft's storefront gets you a license to play the game across more than just xbox consoles, but PC as well. They'll mention how Sony doesn't offer the same.
If people pay very close to what Phil Spencer said today, and what was said in the response to Brazil, Microsoft are presenting this Activision deal and Game Pass as their competitive market based answer to not competing favorably up against Playstation, thus they needed to try something new. And Activision's catalog, along with games like Call of Duty, Diablo etc., will allow them to better compete while providing people all over the world, but especially in the UK, more choices on where to play. Phil Spencer's post today was intended to give the UK a much easier to consume argument to go along with what the lawyers will be telling them.
https://www.whitecase.com/insight-a...st-regulator-snapshot-overview-uk-governments
Details at link above.
They started the review on July 6th and allowed all parties to comment on the deal between the 6th of July and the 20th of July. Naturally what transpired between that period of time is that Sony raised holy hell and screamed that the government was taking their baby. Any such major concerns raised, legitimate or not, would cause CMA to at least parrot similar concerns before giving the parties (Microsoft & Activision) an opportunity to address those fears and concerns raised. This is the part of the process where Microsoft gets to directly challenge in a more direct fashion with CMA Sony's claims and accusations. They've been given 5 days to convince them. Should they fail to convince them in 5 days, they will grant Microsoft and Activision Blizzard even more time in a very flexible phase 2 where Microsoft and Activision can basically have multiple shots at getting to a yes.
- A more flexible Phase 2 commitments procedure to allow the CMA and the merging parties to resolve a merger investigation at any stage of the Phase 2 process. This will apply to mergers reviewed on competition grounds, but will exclude public interest intervention cases.
Translation, there's no way in hell it fails because Sony will have exclusives to their consoles, as well as to their subscription services, just like Microsoft does. And Microsoft will address any concerns regarding Call of Duty and other popular Activision Blizzard titles. The fact CMA brings up Starfield and Elder Scrolls is irrelevant and easy to counter because Microsoft can then bring up the fact that major releases from Bethesda as well as other publishers were withheld from Xbox customers thanks in large part due to Sony wielding as a weapon their superior market dominance. This is where Microsoft brings up blocking rights, sony's timed deals on bethesda games, Sony's deals on Final Fantasy etc. And no, the fact that they aren't acquisitions by Sony does not materially change the risk to reduce competition when Sony is clearly a much more dominant player in the console market than Microsoft is. Their last console vastly outsold Xbox by more than 2 to 1. Microsoft will again state that Game Pass is their answer to the fact that they were unable to compete in the same league as Sony in the traditional space and so will have more of a need to improve their Game Pass offering. They also have a very persuasive argument to make about the number of devices and the price in which Call of Duty will be made available to a larger range of people.
Long story short, Microsoft has as much time as necessary to satisfy any and all concerns with a countering set of facts and by making some basic commitments. But CMA will also understand that if Sony doesn't pay the cost to be the boss of Activision Blizzard, then they obviously can't be expected to benefit in all of the same exact ways as Microsoft and Xbox can, so long as Microsoft doesn't make changes that materially impact the access of Playstation users to Call of Duty and other popular Activision Blizzard games now or in the future. It will be there on Playstation, but it will just be a whole lot more convenient a package on Xbox platforms, which is totally to be expected.
Edit: Oh, and don't think Microsoft won't be bringing up Sony's price increases in the UK or the fact that Microsoft hasn't increased their own game prices, the fact that they have a more affordable Series S option in challenging economic times. Microsoft may even go so far as to committing to dropping the price of all Activision Blizzard games back to their pre-pandemic $60. We know it wasn't done for the Pandemic, but this is a thing Microsoft can do. Whatever is best for customers in the UK will make them more comfortable with it. Microsoft can also point out that a purchase of a Microsoft game from Microsoft's storefront gets you a license to play the game across more than just xbox consoles, but PC as well. They'll mention how Sony doesn't offer the same.
If people pay very close to what Phil Spencer said today, and what was said in the response to Brazil, Microsoft are presenting this Activision deal and Game Pass as their competitive market based answer to not competing favorably up against Playstation, thus they needed to try something new. And Activision's catalog, along with games like Call of Duty, Diablo etc., will allow them to better compete while providing people all over the world, but especially in the UK, more choices on where to play. Phil Spencer's post today was intended to give the UK a much easier to consume argument to go along with what the lawyers will be telling them.
Last edited:
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Tom telling it like it is.
DenchDeckard
Moderated wildly
I laugh emoji but inside I cry.....
..my electricity and gas used to be 140 a month.....this morning I had to put it up to 252 a month and I'm still tracking a negative....
Insanity
Cant imagine what its going to be like with my 13900k and a 4090....lmao
Last edited:
Tiago Rodrigues
Member
Came here to post this.
This a grown ass mad in his 40's (50's?). Don't be like Tom Warren. Never be like this...
Banjo64
cumsessed
Only us Nintendo Switch big-brains will be able to afford food AND energy this winter
Menzies
Banned
With respect to my Tasman neighbours, New Zealand’s economy and population of 6 million is enough to cancel the deal the world over? I just assumed you have to bow out of selling/competing in that specific territory.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked