DeepEnigma
Gold Member
It's pure lunacy, but fitting for this clown world timeline we are in.
Last edited:
-
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
Bojanglez
The Amiga Brotherhood
Also the actual cost and the opportunity cost of having to create a new CoD in a 10 year timeframe and have it established to a point where it is competitive at the end of that 10 year deadline is hard to calculate and impossible to guarantee. If it is so easy, why has nobody else ever done it?
Kenshin775
Member
Yeah it makes sense. MS has no intention of removing CoD. However they don't want to make a forever deal, lengthwise they are going by precedent set forth by the CMA. Also this shows they are open to negotiation on the length.
Let's be real if 80 to 90 percent of the CoD gamers play the franchise via Game Pass in 11 or 12 yrs then MS wouldn't give a flying fuck about the game also coming to PS6 or PS7. At that point it doesn't hurt MS marketshare. They are all in on sub services
fred420170
Member
It's not. The company I work for had to hire a 3rd party ambassador to ensure they are following anti-competitive law. They've had them for about 5 years & no issues. They are pretty much like teacher(s) that grades papers and a bunch of lawyers that make sure everything is being followed.
jm89
Member
This is why I believe if CMA doesn't delay their decision date, there is a high chance this is getting blocked.
Everything is indicating the behavioural remedies being tricky and more strict for the CMA to accept, so surely they would need more time to negotiate? Especially with a less strict EU needing 2 extensions to their decision date.
James Sawyer Ford
Gold Member
Apparently divesting CoD and associated studios is too complex
But auditing parity through a third party company isn’t
But auditing parity through a third party company isn’t
gothmog
Gold Member
They're probably hoping they'll try.
It really doesn't get any more obvious than this.
GAAS are designed to achieve volume. Lots of development to create constant content. It requires mass market saturation to work.
Making COD, at least Warzone, exclusive just ruins the entire concept.
Last edited:
It is not a new solution. The creation of a third regulator has already been accepted by EU regulator previously ( Windows browser conflict?) to convince the EU (pre Brexit) and that is why MS goes to it again.
the CMA is not very convinced in beavoral solutions that require continuous control and cost on their own part. With this solution, the CMA would not have to do anything and would only be informed in case of non-compliance with the terms of the contract. It is an attempt to convince the CMA that 10 year remedy are sufficient for the case.
Last edited:
The only thing that is abundantly clear is Microsoft’s unwilling to extend the deal past 10 years, and that’s perfectly understandable. Nobody wants perpetual binding contracts over their heads.
Yes, digital foundry comparing versions of games on multiple platforms is orders of magnitude more difficult than divesting multiple studios with multiple inter-dependencies
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
I do know the MLB licensing was 8-10 years for The Show.
Where’s the complexity?
Digital Foundry - for example - already has a pipeline for comparing versions of games. All you have to do is hand out demos and release candidates for them to review.
The third party company will be paid by Microsoft. It’s also strange to paint a conspiracy theory of them conspiring with MS, when Sony also has a pathway to take complaints directly to the EU/CMA
DarkMage619
$MSFT
No title is guaranteed to any platform. No one thought Street Fighter 5 would not come to Xbox when 4 did. Same for the Final Fantasy games. It would be illogical to think that right? Well looks like times change. No one thought Minecraft would be expanded not made exclusive when MS bought Mojang. Point is no one know what would happen with any game especially when a company pays for its development just like when Sony did for Street Fighter right? Being entitled in this space will lead to disappointment. Business is business.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
FlyyGOD
Member
Starfield was never on playstation therefore it couldn't have been removed.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Bumblebeetuna
Gold Member
Shouldn’t we all be fine with MS telling the CMA that Sony has a decade to make a CoD for themselves? Isn’t “adapt and compete” the BS we were all hearing about why MS shouldn’t be able to buy ABK? I think Sony having ten years to take the developer they just paid billions for that excels at shooters and make a CoD competitor is a prime example of “adapt and compete” but shockingly it seems some in the thread still don’t think that’s fair 
Topher
Gold Member
You people are seriously entertaining this.
I can see Microsoft viewing the enlistment of DF as a smart PR move. That in itself makes me think it is a possibility.
DryvBy
Member
"No one knows" also indicates you don't know if it was coming to PlayStation. So don't discredit the thought that it was taking away when you don't know either.
People come to their conclusion it was because, as Microsoft admits, the Xbox is the losing platform and, as others have pointed out to defend Microsoft in regards to them removing COD from PS, why would company X leave money on the table to support a lesser popular device? It's illogical to take multiple titles off the platform. If it was just one, maybe you'd have an argument. But multiple? I don't buy your snake oil.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
There were never any conflicts of interest, no, no. no. Early access to their hardware, first party dev scripts passed off as analysis, etc..
FlyyGOD
Member
These are the same guys who justified Street Fighter 5 being exclusive because Sony funded it. Now that MS is funding Starfield they see a problem with exclusivity.
Mr Reasonable
Completely Unreasonable
Was just a joke about Sony wanting to hike the price of games.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Nobody sees a problem with exclusivity, they see a problem with speaking out of both sides of his mouth (Spencer).
You people are seriously entertaining this.
‘Seriously entertaining’ a formal proposal made by Microsoft to the CMA?
Wut?
PS: Digital Foundry was used as an example…definitely not proposing MS uses them. Key point being made is that it really only takes days to do a parity comparison, especially if the third party is involved somewhat in the development process.
Topher
Gold Member
We know for a fact that Bethesda wasn't considering Starfield to be an Xbox exclusive until Bethesda was acquired by MS. Peter Hines confirmed it in an interview.
lol.....i get what you are saying, but I would say that the CMA would probably view DF as an unbiased member of the UK media.
That's not the point being made here. Starfield can be used as an example of a game that wasn't slated for exclusivity pre-acquisition. Similarly Minecraft is an example of a game that remained multiplatform. So there is precedence either way.
Last edited:
I think the point is it is hardly an issue to measure if there is parity between versions. We have countless people who already do game performance analysis.
Sony just doesn't want this on gamepass. Also lose those perks of the marketing deal no longer having the better version.
That’s not a move I’d like. Best they keep their independence…
DrFigs
Member
they would have to be objective and neutral in their analysis. otherwise Sony would complain about it to the regulators.
Topher
Gold Member
Yeah, good point. They just immediately came to mind due to being based out of UK.
DrFigs
Member
It does seem that the 10 year deal and MS paying a third party to ensure parity address some major concerns. The only things left to be addressed, imo, are the cloud issues and parity on subscription services. but I think MS is showing that the deal could easily go through with some more behavioral remedies.Shouldn’t we all be fine with MS telling the CMA that Sony has a decade to make a CoD for themselves? Isn’t “adapt and compete” the BS we were all hearing about why MS shouldn’t be able to buy ABK? I think Sony having ten years to take the developer they just paid billions for that excels at shooters and make a CoD competitor is a prime example of “adapt and compete” but shockingly it seems some in the thread still don’t think that’s fair
KingT731
Member
We've already had this discussion 100x over...Did Sony buy Capcom? No.
Bumblebeetuna
Gold Member
They’ll even claim SFV, a sequel to one of Capcoms most profitable games, would never have even happened without Sony money. Imagine if someone said the next Elder Scrolls needed MS money or Bethesda wouldn’t have risked it
They’ll also claim Spencer is being hypocritical about exclusives when the reality is, per usual, they selectively quote or take comments out of context. He has said plenty of times that he doesn’t like timed exclusive deals but that he has to do them because that’s where the industry is. He also said he doesn’t like timed exclusive deals for pieces of content and AFAIK MS hasn’t done those in years. Meanwhile Sony does it with practically every third party game it seems.
DrFigs
Member
I think you're misremembering what capcom was like at that time, and how poorly Street Fighter x Tekken did. Recall for example, Capcom made Dead Rising 3 exclusive to xbox one.They’ll even claim SFV, a sequel to one of Capcoms most profitable games, would never have even happened without Sony money. Imagine if someone said the next Elder Scrolls needed MS money or Bethesda wouldn’t have risked it
They’ll also claim Spencer is being hypocritical about exclusives when the reality is, per usual, they selectively quote or take comments out of context. He has said plenty of times that he doesn’t like timed exclusive deals but that he has to do them because that’s where the industry is. He also said he doesn’t like timed exclusive deals for pieces of content and AFAIK MS hasn’t done those in years. Meanwhile Sony does it with practically every third party game it seems.
Last edited:
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Revisionist history and obtuse arguments.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Disagree, as most recent Zenimax arguments have been about how Starfield, Redfall, HiFi would 100% have been on PS5. Many here have a problem with the exclusivity.
Last edited:
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
And they would have, unless you're suggesting MS would have paid for exclusivity? What's the issue?
Bumblebeetuna
Gold Member
Revisionist history and obtuse arguments.
bitbydeath
Gold Member
Luckily this acquisition is all about King.I do find it hilarious that COD is comparable to mobile networks, medical equipment and nonrenewable resource access at this point with the amount of importance put on it
DrFigs
Member
The reason this is brought up is usually because of Microsoft's statements about what their incentives are. They clearly have an incentive to make future COD games exclusive despite what they're telling regulators, just like they had incentives to make Bethesda games exclusive despite what they told to regulators back then.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
The FTC, one of the regulators brought them up themselves, as well as the CMA.
Reading comprehension and the lack thereof.
Last edited:
Topher
Gold Member
As examples of past behavior in the context of what Microsoft would do with Call of Duty and other Activision games as well as the debate over whether MS was misleading in its arguments to regulators in the Bethesda acquisition. Not a "problem with the exclusivity" itself.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
The issue is saying nobody sees a problem with the exclusivity, a bunch of people clearly do.
Last edited:
Other Activision games aren’t up for discussion, though. Just Call of Duty.
To address the concerns they would need to commit to a significant amount of strict behavioural remedies they're clearly not committing to at this stage.
It's clear that CMA is concerned about what happens after 10 years and Microsoft's answer has been really poor because they don't want to commit about a possible extension, they think it's uneeded and they're even suggesting that 10 years is enough for competitors to find alternatives so it's not exactly what the CMA had in mind.
To satisfy CMA they would need to offer access to COD at enforceable parity, on competitors subscription services at viable prices, with a third party independent entity monitoring the business, with the option of the 10 years license to get extended if the anticompetitive concerns still stay after a market revaluation.
If Microsoft can accept all this stuff they could sway CMA otherwise chances are poor.
Last edited:
You’d have to qualify that to “future Call of Duty games after the 10 year deal”
Zero incentive to make COD exclusive before 2033 in breach of agreement with the EU/CMA.
Topher
Gold Member
You are equating using Starfield's exclusivity as an example with having a problem with its exclusivity. That's just not accurate.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
No, I'm not equating any single example, just pointing out that Deep said "Nobody sees a problem with exclusivity, they see a problem with speaking out of both sides of his mouth (Spencer)"
When it is pretty obvious with the last round of the Zenimax acquisition revival that the crux of the argument was that of course all those Zenimax games would be on PS5. That shows that there is a problem with exclusivity.
You can probably say it's a very minor semantics based argument on my part, but just pointing it out.
ChuckeRearmed
Member
Whatever is it, it is funny that for Sony and regulators, COD is akin access to water supply. If only regulators fought as hard during mobile network merging but oh well.Luckily this acquisition is all about King.
Last edited:
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked