-
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
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
There's a lot more different than just the scale, for starters with Zenimax no public commitments were made to other platform holders or regulatory authorities for the continued guarantee of games being multi-platform for 10 years or any tenure for that matter.
I wish people would stop conflating these two. They're as far apart as any two studio acquisitions could be.
Topher
Gold Member
mansoor1980
Gold Member
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Why does she openly lie?
Your tweets aren't even that old. Man, this is literally like watching modern day politics with these lying twats.
Last edited:
Topher
Gold Member
Article in question.
www.polygon.com
Notice the characterization in the article that she apparently has no problem with:
"Meservey is hardly a reliable witness. As a senior Activision executive, she presumably has a large, personal financial interest in the deal going through. She is also very much a post-Trump communicator, unafraid to look like a bad guy and wield tweets like deadly weapons in the name of “honesty.” As such, she is a useful attack dog for Microsoft, which can maintain the air of gentlemanly largesse it has attempted to project throughout its wrangles with Sony and regulators, and leave it to her to go places it would never dare itself."
The Microsoft Activision circus needs to be over and done with
Microsoft and Sony’s squabbling over Call of Duty is an embarrassment
www.polygon.com
Notice the characterization in the article that she apparently has no problem with:
"Meservey is hardly a reliable witness. As a senior Activision executive, she presumably has a large, personal financial interest in the deal going through. She is also very much a post-Trump communicator, unafraid to look like a bad guy and wield tweets like deadly weapons in the name of “honesty.” As such, she is a useful attack dog for Microsoft, which can maintain the air of gentlemanly largesse it has attempted to project throughout its wrangles with Sony and regulators, and leave it to her to go places it would never dare itself."
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
So cringe.Article in question.
The Microsoft Activision circus needs to be over and done with
Microsoft and Sony’s squabbling over Call of Duty is an embarrassment
Notice the characterization in the article that she apparently has no problem with:
"Meservey is hardly a reliable witness. As a senior Activision executive, she presumably has a large, personal financial interest in the deal going through. She is also very much a post-Trump communicator, unafraid to look like a bad guy and wield tweets like deadly weapons in the name of “honesty.” As such, she is a useful attack dog for Microsoft, which can maintain the air of gentlemanly largesse it has attempted to project throughout its wrangles with Sony and regulators, and leave it to her to go places it would never dare itself."
IFireflyl
Gold Member
She is a woman. She has no idea what a gentleman's agreement is.
Tis a joke, not casual misogyny!
Last edited:
Topher
Gold Member
Like this article actually. Says it like it is.
"But — and here is the not-shocking part — the words Meservey put in Ryan’s mouth are nothing if not an accurate description of Sony’s stance. A deal to protect Call of Duty’s place on PlayStation is on the table from Microsoft, and it’s apparently good enough for Nintendo and Nvidia. At no point has Sony shown any interest in negotiating to extract further concessions; it just wants to use its leverage with regulators to stop a deal that will greatly strengthen its competitor, exclusives or no exclusives. It will fight tooth and nail to take its rival’s legs out and cost them money, as any business in its position might. It would be naive to think that Microsoft wouldn’t do the same."
Bernoulli
M2 slut
FTC: "MS has recently sought to enter into agreements regarding making Act content available on certain third parties services. Despite clearly intending to use these agreements in its defense, MS has refused to produce underlying internal documents related to these agreements or communications with third parties other than Nvidia, Nintendo, and Sony. Microsoft should be not permitted to introduce or rely on these agreements without producing the requested underlying discovery.""
why would they not provide the documents?
why would they not provide the documents?
Last edited:
Dick Jones
Gold Member
MS and Sony had an all out talk under a gentleman's agreement and they are still discussing it at a separate meeting at the same day and place where there is no gentleman's agreement.
That's a fucking lie. There is no reason for two corporations to have the chat outside a closed doors meeting the same day.
mansoor1980
Gold Member
brad smith is also lying
Dick Jones
Gold Member
dude submitted to her pressure , she is def a DOMINATRIX
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
The lie is her saying she would never reveal anything from a closed door meeting. She literally did the other day. This is a page out of current American politics.
Dick Jones
Gold Member
Brad Smith is a fucking out of his depth. He is everything Xbox fans believe Jim Ryan is.
Topher
Gold Member
"“simply not enough time” for them to produce the requested documents"
Meanwhile, at Microsoft....
Dick Jones
Gold Member
She is claiming they are two separate meetings.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Oh, so "we won't reveal anything about us from this closed door meeting, I would never, but when we want to pour fuel on a console war fire from that other closed door meeting..."
Last edited:
gothmog
Gold Member
Didn't Sony have a similar complaint? It was framed as some kind of big threat to Sony. Wonder if we'll see equal treatment of this now that Microsoft is being compelled to comply?"“simply not enough time” for them to produce the requested documents"
Meanwhile, at Microsoft....
Dick Jones
Gold Member
The fact two corporations would have 2 separate meetings and only one under a gentleman's agreement sounds fictional. She fucked up and rather than continue to shut the fuck up she is reopening her fuck up.
Mr.Phoenix
Member
Couldn't have said it better myself. Sony, wants to stop this idea for the same reason MS wants to even make the deal happen.Like this article actually. Says it like it is.
"But — and here is the not-shocking part — the words Meservey put in Ryan’s mouth are nothing if not an accurate description of Sony’s stance. A deal to protect Call of Duty’s place on PlayStation is on the table from Microsoft, and it’s apparently good enough for Nintendo and Nvidia. At no point has Sony shown any interest in negotiating to extract further concessions; it just wants to use its leverage with regulators to stop a deal that will greatly strengthen its competitor, exclusives or no exclusives. It will fight tooth and nail to take its rival’s legs out and cost them money, as any business in its position might. It would be naive to think that Microsoft wouldn’t do the same."
Stuff like this is why there is such a thing as financial fair play in sports. There are things put in place to stop a company, that has near-limitless funds, from just buying out content or talent.
Sw0pDiller
Member
Thirty7ven
Banned
Incredible, just incredible. Pretty sure she’s lying about the whole thing. I expect her story to evolve into “I was paraphrasing”
Topher
Gold Member
Yeah, but this is even more absurd than Sony's excuses. These are deals they have made and continue to make and yet they are claiming there isn't enough time to produce copies? And why does Microsoft not want regulators to know what is in these deals?
No no no I'm sorry....we can't scrutinize anything regarding this or it is considered the equivalent of "cancel culture".....amirite
geary
? We just have to believe.
Last edited:
Dick Jones
Gold Member
People who behave that way will just ignore it when everything comes out in the wash. Either deny or say it (her own tweet) was taken out of context and add another lie. She is an attack dog for Bobby Kotick and she is happy to make a show of herself.
abacab driver
Banned
I'm pretty sure they're going to throw a celebration party.
geary
Member
Same shit in essence....you go through one's garbage to make a point (good or bad), but keep telling yourself that twitter wont try to point fingers and harm the cloud company...You forget the part where no one is getting cancelled here.
You do God's work here...
This is the same argument that some people use when saying identifying as different genre or as a animal is different....same delusion
Last edited:
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Literally gaming's AOC. To the damned T. They are using that playbook and even writing power girl fluff pieces with charged language and select thesaurus words of grandeur to boot (like that cringe PR book written about her). No matter how much they will lie to your faces, openly, gaslight, etc., "go girl girl, slay queen."
Last edited:
Bumblebeetuna
Gold Member
omg MS is so desperate!
I don’t see how anyone can look at what MS has done with Minecraft or ESO and think they are going to remove CoD from PlayStation. It is going to generate so much money for them.
And someone said it in that other cloud thread that was just locked, this deal is so good for GamePass members, and also opens up so many IPs that ABK is ignoring just so they can churn out a CoD every year.
It’s not a bad deal for the industry.
Thirty7ven
Banned
Opens up IP lol some of you gotta be pouring down the piss all day.
gothmog
Gold Member
Wishful thinking. If they were not going to remove it then why not just sign no contracts? Why offer 3 and then eventually 10 years of they have no incentive to remove it ever?
The reality is Microsoft will remove COD as soon as they can.
Topher
Gold Member
You are actually more in line with cancel culture than I am. I'm not going through anyone's "garbage". That's the same kind of bullshit hyperbolic statement made by those who want to discredit someone for stating facts they do not like. And to you, holding multi-million/billion/trillion dollar corporations up to scrutiny is equivalent to ruining a single individual's life? Serious question: how full of shit are you really?
lol.....you seem to be identifying as fiction in this thread.
Last edited:
Kind of splitting hairs in my opinion. In both cases they will honor contracts. They're just willing to honor a longer one, if they can write it, in the second case. How is that meaningfully different?
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
In that case, these deals would be futile -- except for garnering some public sympathy among ignored social media users.Yeah, but this is even more absurd than Sony's excuses. These are deals they have made and continue to make and yet they are claiming there isn't enough time to produce copies? And why does Microsoft not want regulators to know what is in these deals?
No no no I'm sorry....we can't scrutinize anything regarding this or it is considered the equivalent of "cancel culture".....amirite
If they don't submit the required details of these deals to regulators, the regulators will not assess these deals as part of the behavioral remedies. In other words, they won't count these deals.
FalsettoVibe
Member
microsoft refused to give documents about Zenimax and Activision exclusivity deals
Oh Microsoft.....
Bumblebeetuna
Gold Member
I’m sure if it were up to MS, they wouldn’t have to sign these deals, they’d just put the games on the platforms. Doesn’t refute anything.
Bernoulli
M2 slut
if i'm not wrong shouldn't the deals be made with regulators and not with the others directly?
and why is everything limited to 10 years why not give 15 or 20
It's hard to know what was produced and what was refused from just that. But if MS is refusing to produce docs related to planned exclusivity (or lack thereof) of Activision games, that probably means exactly what everyone against this deal expects their position to be.microsoft refused to give documents about Zenimax and Activision exclusivity deals
FalsettoVibe
Member
To think, had they not pulled all that goofy crap with their Zenimax acquisition (word games about exclusivity), they may not be going through all this.
Last edited:
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Not talking about existing contracts like the case with Deathloop/Ghostwire or the 3 year on-going CoD marketing agreement.
People keep bringing up that MS made future Bethesda games post-acquisition exclusive to Xbox/PC and trying to relate it to what they'll do with CoD when they have explicitly said they will *not* do that with deals and assurances offered to multiple console and service vendors.
There's no such thing as a lifetime contract, without giving a 10 year assurance people would be complaining that they can take CoD off of PS the year after their existing agreement ends. They're offering an arbitrary long length of 10 years to avoid that.
You're saying "why not just sign no contract", you fully realize how a lot of users here would react if the deal goes through and there is no assurance of any term beyond the current marketing agreement, yes ?
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
You're right. They need to convince the CMA to approve the deal with just behavioral remedies, which the CMA is not convinced about. So they are hoping to make these deals privately with businesses to (1) gain public favor and (2) convince the CMA that MS is doing well with behavioral remedies on their own.
Having said that, none of these deals (except for the Nvidia one to a very small extent) addresses CMA's actual concerns. The CMA didn't even mention Ubitus as a cloud gaming competitor.
As for 10 years. It is safe to assume that MS wants to make COD exclusive to Xbox, and they don't want it to remain multiplatform beyond 10 years. That's the best they can do.
Thirty7ven
Banned
They would not. First they would use COD as a negotiating hammer to get what they want how they want. There would be no talk about COD on GeForce Now. As soon as possible there would be no single player COD on PlayStation.
Only reason any of this is happening is because regulators are opposing the deal in one way or another. People trying to convince otherwise might as well call the rest of us retards.
X-Wing
Member
Embrace, Expand, Extinguish
Last edited:
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
I don't think that's the right context to use that, based on the tweet you're quoting.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Yep. In a year or two, MS will absorb all these embraced little guys. Extinguished.
Topher
Gold Member
This is the "embrace" phase.
X-Wing
Member
Oh but it is. Putting these games on other cloud services will help expand and push the cloud gaming business forward. When it has matured and grown in 10 years they pull the games from all concurrent platforms, forcing people to move to theirs.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Nah, they'll just buy these little guys out. Same same in the end.
Bumblebeetuna
Gold Member
Who cares if they “use CoD to get what they want”, as long as the games are coming to other platforms? You think Sony or Nintendo don’t use their chess pieces to their advantage? Doesn’t Sony charge publishers to use crossplay in their own games? No offense but what a nonsense point to try and make.
Yeah I can see them removing SP CoD, just like they removed Minecraft. We also didn’t get any single player options in Dungeons, and other platform versions of Minecraft Legends are online only MP titles.
Oh wait none of that happened
And I’m glad regulators are looking at the deal. They should, and they should get guarantees from MS.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked