Support NeoGAF

[The_Mike]

Sony has more sway than people give them credit for.

If you don't listen to the fanboys, then people give them plenty of credits.

Every person that's not a fanboy can clearly see Sony is dominant and has every power someone can believe.

Getting away with deleted bad reviews, blocking a big deal for the competitor, while securing timed exclusives, exclusive content and buying other developers while actively blocking it for the competitor.

But we have people in here defending this because their plastic box is favored, just like they defended the price hike on the games and the console all that shit.

 

[TheGodfather07]

Imagine if it doesn't go through! Half the members on gaf would get banned from the ensuing chaos!

 

[GHG]

If you don't listen to the fanboys, then people give them plenty of credits.

Every person that's not a fanboy can clearly see Sony is dominant and has every power someone can believe.

Getting away with deleted bad reviews, blocking a big deal for the competitor, while securing timed exclusives, exclusive content and buying other developers while actively blocking it for the competitor.

But we have people in here defending this because their plastic box is favored, just like they defended the price hike on the games and the console all that shit.

Just so that I'm understanding correctly, are you saying if this deal doesn't go through its Sony's fault?

 

[The_Mike]

Just so that I'm understanding correctly, are you saying if this deal doesn't go through its Sony's fault?

I ain't saying it's sonys fault alone, but they are really pushing against it, so I'd say they are a big cause.

 

[TheGodfather07]

I ain't saying it's sonys fault alone, but they are really pushing against it, so I'd say they are a big cause.

theres no way sony have that much power. if its blocked, it'll be because its not in consumers best interests. also why do you expect that sony would do nothing? call of duty is the top selling game on PS every year! you think they just gonna sit there and be like, yeah let microsoft own and have control of the ip. microsoft would do the same if it was the other way round. theres nothing wrong with it.

 

[Banjo64]

Imagine if it doesn't go through! Half the members on gaf would get banned from the ensuing chaos!

I’m going to start trawling threads and compiling the most outrageous posts.

If you don't listen to the fanboys, then people give them plenty of credits.

Every person that's not a fanboy can clearly see Sony is dominant and has every power someone can believe.

Getting away with deleted bad reviews, blocking a big deal for the competitor, while securing timed exclusives, exclusive content and buying other developers while actively blocking it for the competitor.

But we have people in here defending this because their plastic box is favored, just like they defended the price hike on the games and the console all that shit.

This post is loaded with fanboyism.

 

[DenchDeckard]

If you genuinely believe Sony has so much power in tge games industry that they can block the deal and sway bodies like the CMA then that is the exact reason we need more competition. The CMA should be looking out for us, not Sony.

If that's what they are legit doing then it's fine but if they are doing it to stop damage to sony then it's all kinds of wrong.

 

[GHG]

I ain't saying it's sonys fault alone, but they are really pushing against it, so I'd say they are a big cause.

What makes you think they have that much leverage with regulators?

The CMA have a 76 page document on their website outlining the reasons why it requires further investigation, any other regulators around the world who arrive at similar conclusions will do similar.

You're deciding to ignore all of their points of contention (most of which don't even involve Sony) and then saying it's Sony's fault if the deal gets blocked rather than the premise of the deal itself (which is all that regulators look at)? Why?

If you genuinely believe Sony has so much power in tge games industry that they can block the deal and sway bodies like the CMA then that is the exact reason we need more competition.

And what do you believe?

 

[Banjo64]

What makes you think they have that much leverage with regulators?

The CMA have a 76 page document on their website outlining the reasons why it requires further investigation, any other regulators around the world who arrive at similar conclusions will do similar.

You're deciding to ignore all of their points of contention (most of which don't even involve Sony) and then say it's Sony's fault if the deal gets blocked rather than the premise of the deal itself (which is all that regulators look at)? Why?

I can’t wait to read the EU’s findings, and how it will impact people’s opinions. I suspect they’ll be aligned with the UK, but you never know.

 

[GHG]

I can’t wait to read the EU’s findings, and how it will impact people’s opinions. I suspect they’ll be aligned with the UK, but you never know.

I think it's impossible to say until the findings are published. At the end of the day it's still based on people's decisions and different people may have different interpretations of the situation. A prime example of this is the fact that CADE didn't even consider or investigate a number of points that were brought up by the CMA, most likely because they didn't see them as relevant to their domestic market.

So overall its likely to be all over the place once all is said and done but the ones that matter most will determine the outcome.

 

[Pelta88]

If you don't listen to the fanboys, then people give them plenty of credits.

Every person that's not a fanboy can clearly see Sony is dominant and has every power someone can believe.

Getting away with deleted bad reviews, blocking a big deal for the competitor, while securing timed exclusives, exclusive content and buying other developers while actively blocking it for the competitor.

But we have people in here defending this because their plastic box is favored, just like they defended the price hike on the games and the console all that shit.

 

[reksveks]

I can’t wait to read the EU’s findings, and how it will impact people’s opinions. I suspect they’ll be aligned with the UK, but you never know.

Don't think the EU will focus as much on the console market, but probably cloud and subscription services. Generally they will align.

The real unknowns here for this whole thing are what concessions Microsoft willing to offer and whether regulators will accept them.

 

[Pelta88]

Microsoft's goal here is leverage. There is simply no way they make concessions to Sony. Making COD a GP exclusive is the strategy. If the regulator forces them into a written agreement pre-purchase, for COD on PS in perpetuity, they will abandon the deal and pay the obligated fees that come with the acquisition's failure.

The real gold in this thread is finally being able to sidestep the PR both these companies engage in. Microsoft especially, have released a ton of info that'll reverberate for years, possibly decades.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

If you don't listen to the fanboys, then people give them plenty of credits.

Every person that's not a fanboy can clearly see Sony is dominant and has every power someone can believe.

Getting away with deleted bad reviews, blocking a big deal for the competitor, while securing timed exclusives, exclusive content and buying other developers while actively blocking it for the competitor.

But we have people in here defending this because their plastic box is favored, just like they defended the price hike on the games and the console all that shit.

All this just because you don't want to pay for COD

 

[DenchDeckard]

What makes you think they have that much leverage with regulators?

The CMA have a 76 page document on their website outlining the reasons why it requires further investigation, any other regulators around the world who arrive at similar conclusions will do similar.

You're deciding to ignore all of their points of contention (most of which don't even involve Sony) and then saying it's Sony's fault if the deal gets blocked rather than the premise of the deal itself (which is all that regulators look at)? Why?



And what do you believe?

I feel evidence points to them being able to demand and add clauses to various marketing contracts to almost make them untouchable with some publishers. Let me also say, I don't blame them one bit. As a business they will do whatever they can to stay on top. My issue is that ultimately doesnt help us as customers and competition.

If sony can literally sit there and act like everyone needs them, because in many respects they do, to the detriment of us as consumers then it is something that I hope can change and we can get to a more level playing field. In my dream world they would all be at an almost perfect split of percentage share in the industry and be overall GROWING gaming as a whole to more customers, while creating great content to attract our hard earned money and get the best deal but that is maybe a dream world haha.

 

[The_Mike]

All this just because you don't want to pay for COD

No game is worth 70 usd

 

[GHG]

I feel evidence points to them being able to demand and add clauses to various marketing contracts to almost make them untouchable with some publishers. Let me also say, I don't blame them one bit. As a business they will do whatever they can to stay on top. My issue is that ultimately doesnt help us as customers and competition.

If sony can literally sit there and act like everyone needs them, because in many respects they do, to the detriment of us as consumers then it is something that I hope can change and we can get to a more level playing field. In my dream world they would all be at an almost perfect split of percentage share in the industry and be overall GROWING gaming as a whole to more customers, while creating great content to attract our hard earned money and get the best deal but that is maybe a dream world haha.

Outside of scenarios where there is collusion its very rare that competitors have perfectly equal market share in an industry. The populous will always have a preference, it's like this in every area of life.

The industry is also mature, the idea that there's this whole untapped market of gamers out there waiting for these companies is quite simply delusional. Pretty much every person on earth now has access to a device that is capable of playing videogames. It then just comes down to whether or not said person actually wants to play video games and if yes what types of experiences do they want.

Your point on marketing contracts - every company in the industry does this and has these clauses in place. Money is changing hands, what do you expect?

When a company has been in the industry longer than their competitor but yet point the finger and blame the competition for their own lack of market share then something is amiss. At some point you need to take accountability for your own business decisions.

At the end of the day customers make decisions based on perceived value, not price alone. If people didn't think something was of value to them they would soon stop buying it.

If you want more competition but you're also supportive of this flurry of industry consolidation that we are currently witnessing then you are at odds with your own beliefs.

 

[Kiraly]

The evidence presented in the Referral Decision does not come close to meeting this standard. The CMA did not even try to quantify the impact on Sony in Phase 1. The Referral Decision goes no further than to assert that a foreclosure strategy could have some unspecified impact on "Sony's revenues and user base".28 There is no assessment of the impact on competition or consumers. Indeed, while Sony is mentioned 57 times in the Referral Decision, consumers are only referred to 10 times. In considering this theory at Phase 1 the Referral Decision fails to "consider the effect of a merger on competition in the market rather than on individual competitors" (emphasis added).29

Microsoft tearing the CMA a new one

The Referral Decision states the CMA "has received evidence that CoD has higher levels of user engagement and revenue spend on PlayStation than the Parties estimated" 45, without providing further details. Sony's obvious self-interest in this case means that its submissions must be carefully scrutinised. But even if the revenues and levels of user engagement are somewhat higher than Microsoft's estimates, they could not be so high that Sony's viability could depend upon retaining them.

Looks like the CMA didn't learn anything from the Meta case and the CAT smackdown

 

[ReBurn]

Goldman Sachs selling this much is as clear a sign as any that the market does not expect this deal to go through.

Goldman Sachs announced yesterday that the are going through a major reorganization to better focus on their core businesses.

Goldman Sachs unveils revamp as profit shrinks

NEW YORK (Reuters) -Goldman Sachs Group Inc will reorganize its business into three units and scale back ambitions for its consumer bank, it said on Tuesday, as the Wall Street giant reported a smaller-than-expected 44% slump in third-quarter profit. The bank, which unveiled its biggest...

finance.yahoo.com

I would be surprised if they sold this stock due to some chest thumping by a UK regulator. It's more likely they sold it to increase liquidity to fund investment in other areas.

 

[Iced Arcade]

Goldman Sachs announced yesterday that the are going through a major reorganization to better focus on their core businesses.

Goldman Sachs unveils revamp as profit shrinks

NEW YORK (Reuters) -Goldman Sachs Group Inc will reorganize its business into three units and scale back ambitions for its consumer bank, it said on Tuesday, as the Wall Street giant reported a smaller-than-expected 44% slump in third-quarter profit. The bank, which unveiled its biggest...

finance.yahoo.com

I would be surprised if they sold this stock due to some chest thumping by a UK regulator. It's more likely they sold it to increase liquidity to fund investment in other areas.

Shhh that hurts 3 pages of expert opinions

 

[GHG]

Goldman Sachs announced yesterday that the are going through a major reorganization to better focus on their core businesses.

Goldman Sachs unveils revamp as profit shrinks

NEW YORK (Reuters) -Goldman Sachs Group Inc will reorganize its business into three units and scale back ambitions for its consumer bank, it said on Tuesday, as the Wall Street giant reported a smaller-than-expected 44% slump in third-quarter profit. The bank, which unveiled its biggest...

finance.yahoo.com

I would be surprised if they sold this stock due to some chest thumping by a UK regulator. It's more likely they sold it to increase liquidity to fund investment in other areas.

If it's nothing to do with something they've heard then it's most likely due to the fact that any money invested in ATVI will be dead money until the deal closes, which now wont be likely for another 6 months at least.

A post of mine from back in April in another thread on this subject:

It wasn't dude. I'll explain anyway since I annotated the chart:

The pink ellipse is where the stock was trading after the news about their negative culture came to a head. The purple rectangle is where it's traded since the news of the acquisition. People will have sold since it's been in the purple square for the following reasons:

• You bought in the pink ellipse (this is the obvious one).
• You bought prior to the pink ellipse and the drop spooked you - you're happy to get out at break-even or at a smaller loss than it would have been if not for the news of the acquisition.
• And/or you think there's a risk the deal wont go through so now is a good time to get out.
• You're a market maker who sells options on ATVI - you need to buy and sell shares of the stock to hedge accordingly.
• You're a hedge fund with a target rate of return for your clients. As you can see, since the news broke the stock has predominantly traded sideways (and will continue to do so for a few more months) - they will have identified places where that money could be better deployed elsewhere in the meantime so will sell a portion (if not all) of their holdings in the stock

Those are the main reasons. The volume indicates that most of the people who intended to get out did so on the day the acquisition was announced (between the prices of 86.90 and 81.5). Nothing will really happen with this stock until the deal is announced on way or another. Any trading that's happening now is people positioning themselves for the next major move, or options market makers hedging.

It's also worth noting that the reason the Bloomberg article came out today is because yesterday the stock fell below the channel it's been trading in since news of the acquisition. That usually (but not always) indicates a move to the downside is coming. 77.70 was the line in the sand, now people are asking why that's happening.

The biggest issue is the fact that the stock is now trading outside of the channel defined by the purple area in my post above. That points towards there now being a degree of uncertainty in the market that didn't exist prior - the stock is now coming back down to retest the levels it was trading at prior to the acquisition being announced.

A big indication will be when we get the next 13F from Berkshire Hathaway.

 

[DeepEnigma]

If you don't listen to the fanboys, then people give them plenty of credits.

Every person that's not a fanboy can clearly see Sony is dominant and has every power someone can believe.

Getting away with deleted bad reviews, blocking a big deal for the competitor, while securing timed exclusives, exclusive content and buying other developers while actively blocking it for the competitor.

But we have people in here defending this because their plastic box is favored, just like they defended the price hike on the games and the console all that shit.

 

[reksveks]

https://assets.publishing.service.g...bf7f618d8f88d1/Initial_Phase_2_submission.pdf

MS response, some interesting stuff in there.

 

[Banjo64]

https://assets.publishing.service.g...bf7f618d8f88d1/Initial_Phase_2_submission.pdf

MS response, some interesting stuff in there.

So is Steam a long term strategy for MS? It seems they’re determined to have every one of their games in their walled garden.

 

[reksveks]

So is Steam a long term strategy for MS? It seems they’re determined to have every one of their games in their walled garden.

More so the app store imo. The main/only thing that will be exclusive is the GP subscription

 

[Topher]

So is Steam a long term strategy for MS? It seems they’re determined to have every one of their games in their walled garden.

“If we are shipping a first-party game on PC it’s coming to Steam and our own store.”
Phil Spencer

Phil Spencer Reaffirms Microsoft’s First Party Commitment To PC And Steam

The head of Xbox promises continued support for the PC platform.

gamingbolt.com

 

[adamsapple]

https://assets.publishing.service.g...bf7f618d8f88d1/Initial_Phase_2_submission.pdf

MS response, some interesting stuff in there.

mentioning Sony 57 times and Consumers only 10 times.

It's almost like CMA are only concerned about Sony and not the consumers

 

[reksveks]

It's almost like CMA are only concerned about Sony and not the consumers

That was a spicy take. I have already commented on the OTT usage of Sony's position in the market wasn't the best. I and the CMA should care about the other players in cloud streaming.

I also do find the interesting pushback that cloud streaming and multi gaming subscription service isn't a separate market.

 

[ReBurn]

If it's nothing to do with something they've heard then it's most likely due to the fact that any money invested in ATVI will be dead money until the deal closes, which now wont be likely for another 6 months at least.

A post of mine from back in April in another thread on this subject:



The biggest issue is the fact that the stock is now trading outside of the channel defined by the purple area in my post above. That points towards there now being a degree of uncertainty in the market that didn't exist prior - the stock is now coming back down to retest the levels it was trading at prior to the acquisition being announced.

A big indication will be when we get the next 13F from Berkshire Hathaway.

I'm not saying you're wrong. I believe that if this acquisition fails then ATVI fails and a lot of people are going to lose money. The biggest problem is not necessarily that stock is trading outside of your range, though. It's why it's trading there that's the issue.

With high inflation and high energy prices the threat of global recession is going to affect the prices of common stock. Companies like ATVI that sell non-essential goods and services are going to be in a position where many consumers are going to have to choose between electricity and entertainment. Goldman Sachs is already missing their income projections so holding positions in companies that are likely to be adversely affected by the economy is probably more risk than they want to carry right now.

It's possible that Goldman Sachs is afraid of CAT. But they have known all along that there's a chance the acquisition fails. It would be weird that they would be spooked at this point. It makes more sense to me that they are divesting as part of their restructuring. But I could be wrong. I'm no financial analyst.

 

[adamsapple]

That was a spicy take. I have already commented on the OTT usage of Sony's position in the market wasn't the best. I and the CMA should care about the other players in cloud streaming.

I also do find the interesting pushback that cloud streaming and multi gaming subscription service isn't a separate market.

I think with comments like this, MS are setting up the groundwork to take this to the Tribunal in case CMA denies the merger.

 

[Pelta88]

Microsoft is now doing list wars?

XBOX be like "Well Sony's got..."

The Last Of US
Ghost Of Tsushima
God OF War
Spider-Man
Demon's Souls
Uncharted 1,2,3,4 and Lost legacy

286 other exclusive titles which generate more moeny than we can...

And next year they got

Wolverine
Spider-Man 2
Horizon
Forspoken
Final fantasy

 

[Topher]

mentioning Sony 57 times and Consumers only 10 times.

It's almost like CMA are only concerned about Sony and not the consumers

Microsoft is attacking the CMA more than they are Sony at this point.

 

[GHG]

mentioning Sony 57 times and Consumers only 10 times.

It's almost like CMA are only concerned about Sony and not the consumers

I'm actually a bit shocked they went down this route, it's pretty infantile.

PC is mentioned 100 times.
Sony is mentioned 57 times.
Nintendo is mentioned 42 times.
Amazon is mentioned 26 times.
Google is mentioned 23 times.

It's almost as if the whole document is dedicated to outlining a high level assessment of the impact the acquisition will have on consumers, but let's just ctrl-f in order to make a point.

Every single one of those companies/platforms mentioned (and more) have industry market share which enables consumers to make a choice. Remove any of those companies and/or make it more difficult for them to actually conduct business in ways that are seen as legal by trade laws and then it results in less choice for consumers.

If these are they types of arguments they want to lean on then they are in for a rough ride.

 

[DeepEnigma]

https://assets.publishing.service.g...bf7f618d8f88d1/Initial_Phase_2_submission.pdf

MS response, some interesting stuff in there.

What if I told you, you can fix your shitty store in house without buying publishers?

 

[reksveks]

What if I told you, you can fix your shitty store in house without buying publishers?

Think good stores ultimately don't make a huge difference to adoption like exclusive content/services, GOG has never taken off but that's another topic.

 

[Darsxx82]

mentioning Sony 57 times and Consumers only 10 times.

It's almost like CMA are only concerned about Sony and not the consumers

It makes sense when MS recriminates the CMA that its writing comes to be a dictation of Sony's concerns and little or nothing a writing attending to the interest of consumers and competition.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Think good stores ultimately don't make a huge difference to adoption like exclusive content/services, GOG has never taken off but that's another topic.

It's a flimsy excuse, and nobody should feel sorry for them when it comes to their app store.

 

[GHG]

I'm not saying you're wrong. I believe that if this acquisition fails then ATVI fails and a lot of people are going to lose money. The biggest problem is not necessarily that stock is trading outside of your range, though. It's why it's trading there that's the issue.

With high inflation and high energy prices the threat of global recession is going to affect the prices of common stock. Companies like ATVI that sell non-essential goods and services are going to be in a position where many consumers are going to have to choose between electricity and entertainment. Goldman Sachs is already missing their income projections so holding positions in companies that are likely to be adversely affected by the economy is probably more risk than they want to carry right now.

It's possible that Goldman Sachs is afraid of CAT. But they have known all along that there's a chance the acquisition fails. It would be weird that they would be spooked at this point. It makes more sense to me that they are divesting as part of their restructuring. But I could be wrong. I'm no financial analyst.

Well in the case of GS, it's pretty clear based on the statements in the article you linked:

"It's time to be cautious," Chief Executive David Solomon said in an interview on CNBC, referring to the state of the economy.

"Against the backdrop of uncertainty and volatility in the markets, we continue to prudently manage our resources and remain focused on risk management," Chief Executive David Solomon said in a statement.

The upside for this deal is defined whereas the downside risk could ultimately end up being a lot more should the deal fall through, especially when the stock has been somewhat shielded from the wider market's volatility this year.

 

[adamsapple]

It makes sense when MS recriminates the CMA that its writing comes to be a dictation of Sony's concerns and little or nothing a writing attending to the interest of consumers and competition.

They're bringing up the highlighted as well. Up to 20% increase in HW price is also not very consumer friendly, something an org like CMA should look into maybe.

 

[Darsxx82]

I'm actually a bit shocked they went down this route, it's pretty infantile.

PC is mentioned 100 times.
Sony is mentioned 57 times.
Nintendo is mentioned 42 times.
Amazon is mentioned 26 times.
Google is mentioned 23 times.

The difference is that when it mentions Sony, the CMA is associating it with concerns about the effects on its revenues, profits and loss of users. When he mentions PC it is in a negative tone for the interests of MS.

When it mentions Nintendo, it is to deny its status as a market agent and differentiate it from Sony...

When they mention Apple and Google... well, is there anyone here who believes that the acquisition of ActV is going to make MS become their competition???

The context is what is important and in the context it turns out that the CMA reduces a majority of its "concerns" to the effects on a third party (Sony) and very little or residually on consumers.

 

[reksveks]

It's a flimsy excuse, and nobody should feel sorry for them when it comes to their app store.

Not sure who is feeling sorry for their app store.

Just stating that feature parity isn't enough nowadays.

 

[Pelta88]

I'm actually a bit shocked they went down this route, it's pretty infantile.

PC is mentioned 100 times.
Sony is mentioned 57 times.
Nintendo is mentioned 42 times.
Amazon is mentioned 26 times.
Google is mentioned 23 times.

It's almost as if the whole document is dedicated to outlining a high level assessment of the impact the acquisition will have on consumers, but let's just ctrl-f in order to make a point.

It's well known that Microsoft has a legion of lawyers spread across every country they operate. I'm shocked they too the CTRL-F route to make a straw argument. Most of us in this thread could have made a more valid point on their behalf...

 

[DeepEnigma]

Not sure who is feeling sorry for their app store.

Just stating that feature parity isn't enough nowadays.

I am being facetious about the same people who wanted everyone to believe Sony was bullying an almost 2 trillion dollar company out of marketing deals and timed exclusives... hint: they weren't.

 

[Darsxx82]

They're bringing up the highlighted as well. Up to 20% increase in HW price is also not very consumer friendly, something an org like CMA should look into maybe.

It could be said that the CMA thinks that it is better for the competition that Sony maintain its status Quo and the market does not innovate or change so that the consumer can benefit from better prices, cheaper ways to access content, etc... only because it is Ms who offers it

 

[GHG]

The difference is that when it mentions Sony, the CMA is associating it with concerns about the effects on its revenues, profits and loss of users. When he mentions PC it is in a negative tone for the interests of MS.

When it mentions Nintendo, it is to deny its status as a market agent and differentiate it from Sony...

When they mention Apple and Google... well, is there anyone here who believes that the acquisition of ActV is going to make MS become their competition???

The context is what is important and in the context it turns out that the CMA reduces a majority of its "concerns" to the effects on a third party (Sony) and very little or residually on consumers.

If you had read the document you would know why the likes of Google and Amazon (I assume that's who you mean) are mentioned. They make it pretty clear why.

All of those companies/platforms mentioned offer choice to consumers and in most cases competition to Microsoft in the gaming space. This deal would have an impact on all of those platforms, in addition to mobile and cloud. If they continue like this their obsession with Sony (along with their confrontational tone) is what will ultimately be their undoing here.

 

[DaGwaphics]

I think with comments like this, MS are setting up the groundwork to take this to the Tribunal in case CMA denies the merger.

No question, it was a very smart but equally coy response. While these regulators have to try and judge long-term effects, they must do so within the confines of probable reality. Never-never land scenarios will never hold up under scrutiny.

Thus, them pointing out that there is only one industry player that's screaming from the rooftops (and these are the people that know the market better than these regulators) and that said player also just happens to have a stranglehold on the current market is something that was always going to be noted.

 

[DarkMage619]

What's worse though? Not getting it on gamepass or pulling it off an entire platform? What's better as a whole? Even you have to admit its better overall if 3rd party publishers remain 3rd party. That's the same whether its Microsoft or Sony. Think about it. Cod may go exclusive but at what cost? Future square enix or capcom games? Nothing is off the table after a deal like this. Is it worth it just for you to have cod on gamepass? You will actually end up losing out more than you gain.

Pulling what off a platform? I thought MS said contracts would be honored and CoD would remain on the PlayStation for what appears to be this entire generation. Parity was also assured which currently isn't
true for Xbox customers now. A perpetuity promise isn't really reasonable.

Capcom or Square games ALREADY aren't promised to Xbox customers either. Street Fighter and Final Fantasy AREN'T exactly small IP. Octopath Traveler 2 not coming despite one being on Xbox. It was always silly to compare those titles to Xbox timed games like Death's Door and Tunic.

I didn't see you mention the Activision employees who last I checked there was yet another harassment lawsuit. Multiple studios are all working on the same titles year after year. It's clear that the culture of the company needs to change and the status quo isn't really working. MS will bring that change and get Kotick out.

This is a lot bigger than a hypothetical loss for PlayStation when of course those games would still be available. PC gets tossed around quite a bit and I'm certain those game will always be on PC. Probably even on Steam as well. This isn't the end of the world for PlayStation. The major first party games are the biggest benefit to the platform anyway.

 

[GHG]

I didn't see you mention the Activision employees who last I checked there was yet another harassment lawsuit. Multiple studios are all working on the same titles year after year. It's clear that the culture of the company needs to change and the status quo isn't really working. MS will bring that change and get Kotick out.

Since when was a $70 billion dollar acquisition required in order for a cultural change to happen at a company and in order to remove a toxic CEO from office? Who needed to purchase Microsoft in order to get rid of Ballmer?

Please spare me the nonsense.

 

[Pelta88]

I think with comments like this, MS are setting up the groundwork to take this to the Tribunal in case CMA denies the merger.

No question, it was a very smart but equally coy response. While these regulators have to try and judge long-term effects, they must do so within the confines of probable reality.

As a UK resident...

Suing the CMA isn't the wisest decision. Not just because of optics but because XBOX isn't the whole sum of Microsoft. Far from it. CMA has reach and works/shares info with other regulators across Europe. If the deal isn't approved and Microsoft takes an aggressive stance, that could be damaging to Microsoft's bottom line in a myriad of different ways.

ATVI is not the only deal or business entanglement Microsoft has going on here.

 

[Darsxx82]

If you had read the document you would know why the likes of Google and Amazon (I assume that's who you mean) are mentioned. They make it pretty clear why.

All of those companies/platforms mentioned offer choice to consumers and in most cases competition to Microsoft in the gaming space. This deal would have an impact on all of those platforms, in addition to mobile and cloud. If they continue like this their obsession with Sony (along with their confrontational tone) is what will ultimately be their undoing here.

I don't know where the mention of Google and Apple can be linked to "defense of consumer interest" which was what you wanted to conclude.....

The reality is that when the CMA mentions them, it enters the realm of the absurd since MS enters the fight is anything but anti-consumer, since its current presence in the mobile market and subscriptions is non-existent in comparison and would only mean "one more option for consumer" .

Then, as I said, the context is what matters and the issue of balance of mentions is clear....... The CMA's main concern is the effects on Sony and in the second place the rest, including consumers, workers , competition, nintendo, and the other agents.

In short, it is fair and understandable that MS reproaches the CMA for this attitude. And I have no doubt that if you were an MS attorney, that aspect would also be where you would discuss the CMA's brief because it is very obvious.