Astray
Member
Was posted as part of an Idas post iirc.
Offer is now for all ABK products as opposed to "just" COD. So Overwatch Diablo etc.
-
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.
Microsoft / Activision Deal Approval Watch |OT| (MS/ABK close)
- Status
Helghan
Member
Are you implying that most people that are Xbox fans care more about the games being exclusive and taken away from PlayStation than the availability on Game Pass?
Because most people just don’t care about a system they don’t own. Only the weirdo’s want the other system to lose stuff.
feynoob
Member
Before it was just COD. Don't know what they changed after I stopped paying attention to this thread.
Astray
Member
You would be very surprised how many weirdos are out there.
DenchDeckard
Moderated wildly
MasterCornholio
Member
Still 10 years?
Daneel Elijah
Gold Member
Some others thread adjacents to this one have been deleted and the comments put back here. Like the one about Phil talking about the deal on the Xbox On youtube channel interwiew. It makes reading it a little hard sometimes.
Last edited:
BrutalTruth_
Banned
Please read the entire post you quoted. He literally said he expects someone would replace them in the post you quoted. That entity would be the competition.
Not saying I agree a new entity would or could be up and running quickly if at all. Just saying there's no point asking a question already answered by the post you quoted.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Ya'll being bad?
It really does suck when posts stop becoming about the acquisition and veering towards targeted attacks/insults at other users.
It's a discussion forum people, relax.
BrutalTruth_
Banned
So it's expected a brand new console or whatever with no recognition and potentially no exclusive games also would compete with PlayStation when Xbox couldn't?
Xbox is a big brand name, regardless of what plastic box you fanboy.
Demon2blades
Member
Imo They've had almost zero competition for ages mate and still frequently release bangers still get 3rd party deals and prices aren't to high but could that change? It probably could but I think it wouldn't be as bad as people are making it out to be , ms are so far behind now it's a joke they've consistently lost mindshare .... Are you saying if ms was to get out of the industry nobody else would step in ?.
BrutalTruth_
Banned
And you think a brand new console would come in and do better than Xbox with virtually no prior history or recognition?
C'mon lads... Be realistic.
- my post literally says "Not saying I agree a new entity would or could be up and running quickly if at all."Again, please read the posts you respond to before responding. That 1 extra second could avoid so many circular arguments.
Demon2blades
Member
Why couldn't it ? Someone else entering the field with fresh ideas and whatnot and a decent price point... Ms are in 3rd place for a reason they couldn't kill off ps even when they were at there best all those years ago .
Lol I get it we don’t have the most love for Xbox here but come on bro, really? If that was the case the steam machines would’ve beaten out MS, an I’m aware of why it failed confusing the customers with the ol WII U situation an all that but if they couldn’t, if google couldn’t, who the hell can? Would genuinely love to know who you think could replace Xbox in the console space.
I’m sure apple would have a good chance if they tried but even then it’d probably be a $1,000 console that doesn’t play other console games or some other weird apple shit. Amazon maybe, I they at least know how to make games.
Demon2blades
Member
I don't know what form a new competitor would take it would obviously have to equal sonys console offering , games and all ... Google failed imo because game streaming is so far off mainstream the tech isn't ready yet.
Varteras
Gold Member
I don't know that the change will be enough to sway the CMA. Regulators are heavily focused on Call of Duty, and for good reason. No other single franchise under ABK comes close to CoD's impact. Offering a bunch of other far less impactful franchises for 10 years doesn't really address the main concern. That CoD will be under the ownership of a first-party platform holder. It doesn't guarantee that Microsoft won't try to find a way around the deal in the future or just break it entirely if it feels the consequences are outweighed by the benefits. Consequences which probably wouldn't even be immediate, assuming the regulatory bodies even bother with it years down the road, and would still impact competitors well before regulators resolve the issue.
If the deal doesn't address Gamepass, that will be another point of contention. Because even if Microsoft agrees to put it everywhere Day 1, which will clearly devour actual sales, then that's not just Microsoft losing money. They're also causing any other company, like Sony and PS+, to lose sales as well. And Microsoft has already shown a willingness to lose money in this industry just to change it to their benefit eventually. They're one of the few companies able to do that for decades.
Of course, it could and should be argued that Call of Duty on PS+ Day 1 might actually become a blessing in disguise for Sony. For starters, that could also cause a great uptick in PS+ subs. In tandem with that, if Sony creates a very successful shooter franchise, the removal of the need to make full-priced purchases of CoD may free many up to throw cash at this new Sony franchise, or multiple franchises even. As Sony will certainly not have marketing rights for CoD, it would be in their interest to heavily market their game in its place.
Also, unlike CoD, in which Sony already takes a reduced cut as it is, their own franchise would see them reaping all the revenue. Sony would have 10 years to come up with an even remotely comparable franchise, which they have apparently been moving towards even before the Activision deal started. This even assumes Microsoft sees a benefit in dropping CoD from PlayStation 10 years from now. Because honestly, there is every bit the possibility that PlayStation's market share grows even more and Xbox's shrinks further.
As a regulator, I would be looking at this for what it is. An attempt to take the attention off the main point of concern by doing something drastic that doesn't address it. I would note Microsoft's apparent unwillingness to make any deal for CoD over 10 years. To the point where they are now offering literally all ABK franchises for 10 years. Instead of just CoD for, say, 20 years. At that point, and noting Microsoft's shifting rhetoric over what about this deal is important to them, I would be wary of anything Microsoft does that continues to fail to address CoD any further.
Physiognomonics
Member
They didn't lie. "Exclusive" means there is a period of exclusivity, like one year.
X-Wing
Member
+ PlayStation's deal eventually ends and can be renegotiated.
An acquisition is permanent.
Thirty7ven
Banned
One thing I don’t understand, why is the prevalent notion that MS will have access to those docs 2019 to present, and not specifically the FTC?
ToadMan
Member
From what Shane Kim said, with the success of the 360, MS thought they’d done enough. That their ecosystem was “sticky” enough that those 360 users would just migrate to xbone and they didn’t have to do anything.
Xbone is what MS thought they could get away with when they were dominant - zero innovations, high price and lacklustre first party output.
Yeah I don’t know why MS are hung up on 10 years. The CMA documents want divestment, or remedies that have no expiration at all.
Daneel Elijah
Gold Member
I suppose that it is like what happened in the Airbus Quatar Airways case. The Quatari airline said that they were harmed by the Airbus A350 defects, and stopped accepting them( and paying). Airbus stopped the livraison of A321 too. The sais that they were harmed by that too. Airbus asked them to prove it by releasing documents relative to that, like what price they would have from the Boeing equivalent. Soon after both compagnies made a deal together and ended the dispute.
Here Sony made some claims to the FTC and Microsoft asked for those docs to make them prove those claims I suppose ? Not well versed in US laws practice.
HerpDerpstreit
Member
The TLDR for this, there were 6 total motions Sony was trying to have quashed or dismissed, they were only granted 2 of those. the remaining 4 motions were rejected, one of which was discovery of their contracts with 3rd parties or "a[n] executed copy of EVERY content licensing agreement you have entered into with any third-party publisher between Jan 1 2012 and present."
Last edited:
Topher
Gold Member
Xbox isn't going anywhere. Need to understand that first. Only way a company is going to enter the market as a platform at this stage is going to be through streaming.
The TLDR for this, there were 6 total motions Sony was trying to have quashed or dismissed, they were only granted 2 of those. the remaining 4 motions were rejected, one of which was discovery of their contracts with 3rd parties or "a[n] executed copy of EVERY content licensing agreement you have entered into with any third-party publisher between Jan 1 2012 and present."
Summary from the other site says otherwise....
- Sony needs to provide documents for Tao and Nishino as custodians.
- Sony has to include predecessor custodians to current custodians. (I.e. a custodian that was in place Jan 1 2019 - Jan 1 2020 would need their files pulled, rather than just the current custodian that took place Jan 2 2020, if I'm understanding correctly).
- Sony has to include their in-house antitrust laywer, Greg McCurdy's relevant files (external communications for this time period where McCurdy has been in his role).
- Sony's request that things be limited to 2019 and sooner is granted, rather than Microsoft's request dating back to 2012.
- Sony has to produce "All drafts of and Communications regarding SIE's President and CEO Jim Ryan's declaration titled 'SIE Declaration to FTC on MS-ABK Transaction"
- Sony's request to quash the performance reviews is granted, as the judge does not see this as an employment case and employees have a privacy interest.
- Sony has to produce "an executed copy of every Content licensing agreement You have entered into with any third-party publisher between Jan 1, [2019] and present."
- This is interesting, though the original request was 2012, the date has been granted only to 2019 per above. Could have some juicy details here.
- Idk what Exhibit H means but Sony's request with it is rejected.
Thirty7ven
Banned
Why? Why does Sony care if the FTC has access to exclusive deals signed post 2019?
Topher
Gold Member
Sony has to provide these documents to Microsoft
Thirty7ven
Banned
Are you sure? That doesn’t make much sense. It’s for the FTC. Whether MS has access to redacted info is another matter.
IFireflyl
Gold Member
This is true.
This is incorrect. The EU stated that their approval of the acquisition didn't consider Microsoft's promises as the acquisition was going to be approved regardless. That is not the same thing as the EU claiming that Microsoft never made promises for non-exclusivity of Bethesda titles.
HerpDerpstreit
Member
Can't find anything on whether it can be. As a rule, denied motions to quash are not appealable if filed by an accused. But again I can't confirm if it's appealable otherwise.
Topher
Gold Member
It is for Microsoft's defense before the AL judge.
"On February 3, 2023, non-party Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC (“SIE”) filed a motion to quash or to limit a subpoena duces tecum served on SIE by Respondent Microsoft Corp. (“Microsoft”) (“Motion”). On February 13, 2023, Microsoft filed an opposition to the Motion (“Opposition”).1F 2 For the reasons set forth below, SIE’s Motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART."
Now we wait for the accidental leaks.
Last edited:
The_Mike
I cry about SonyGaf from my chair in Redmond, WA
Bro try search for Google stadia then you have your answer
GHG
Member
Now we wait for the accidental leaks.
That's all they want them for in all honesty, there's nothing there that they won't already be aware of or already do themselves.
Let me put it this way, they will have already seen all of the Bethesda contracts for the exclusive agreements that took place prior to their acquisition. The same goes for Ninja Theory.
Last edited:
ToadMan
Member
The TLDR for this, there were 6 total motions Sony was trying to have quashed or dismissed, they were only granted 2 of those. the remaining 4 motions were rejected, one of which was discovery of their contracts with 3rd parties or "a[n] executed copy of EVERY content licensing agreement you have entered into with any third-party publisher between Jan 1 2012 and present."
The data limit is 2019, not 2012.
Why in the world would Microsoft make any promises to the EU, unprompted?
From MLex
There were no commitments made to the EU regarding distribution of future Bethesda games.
anthony2690
Gold Member
I hope information about whether deals are timed or permanent come out.It is for Microsoft's defense before the AL judge.
"On February 3, 2023, non-party Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC (“SIE”) filed a motion to quash or to limit a subpoena duces tecum served on SIE by Respondent Microsoft Corp. (“Microsoft”) (“Motion”). On February 13, 2023, Microsoft filed an opposition to the Motion (“Opposition”).1F 2 For the reasons set forth below, SIE’s Motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART."
Now we wait for the accidental leaks.
Will most the info be redacted for public though?
Last edited:
Good luck with that.
Valve’s probably the only party that can join the race with their Steam machines, now SteamOS is quite robust and now Proton compatibility is top drawer.
feynoob
Member
This is the type of shit that I want from this deal.It is for Microsoft's defense before the AL judge.
"On February 3, 2023, non-party Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC (“SIE”) filed a motion to quash or to limit a subpoena duces tecum served on SIE by Respondent Microsoft Corp. (“Microsoft”) (“Motion”). On February 13, 2023, Microsoft filed an opposition to the Motion (“Opposition”).1F 2 For the reasons set forth below, SIE’s Motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART."
Now we wait for the accidental leaks.
Dark secret of both MS and Sony.
splattered
Member
Wait a second... I kept saying I couldn't wait for the internal documents from Sony and Microsoft to be revealed from all this crap yet I've been told on this form specifically that it would never happen because Sony has absolutely nothing to do with this case just the regulators Microsoft okay
Topher
Gold Member
It shouldn't be seen by anyone but Microsoft and the court. This isn't for public consumption and shouldn't be.
Huh? We've been discussing this back and forth between Sony and Microsoft for a while now as far as what Microsoft will be allowed to obtain. But that doesn't mean any of it will be "revealed" to us unless it is somehow leaked like in the Epic-Apple lawsuit.
Who told you Sony had nothing to do with this?
Bernardougf
Gold Member
If their new move is to brute force buy out the industry and kill the competition to transform everything in streaming machines they can fuck off and die ....
GHG
Member
It seems like you're misunderstanding the reason why those documents are being requested from Sony and by whom.
Topher
Gold Member
Hmmm,
anthony2690
I may wrong in what I said about being publicly available. I was assuming this was like the Epic-Apple lawsuit. Shows what I know
Edit: Someone else is saying there is already a protective order in place to keep this from the public's eyes. I don't think anyone knows what they are talking about. lol
anthony2690
I may wrong in what I said about being publicly available. I was assuming this was like the Epic-Apple lawsuit. Shows what I knowEdit: Someone else is saying there is already a protective order in place to keep this from the public's eyes. I don't think anyone knows what they are talking about. lol
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked