Support NeoGAF

[Heisenberg007]

Most people who said the former are still saying the same. Besides, those two statements are not mutually exclusive. CoD can stay multi-platform after 10 years, and 10 years is a long time.



Comments like this, however, are using baseless speculation about things like breaching contracts before 10 years. What would even lead you to believe that other than the need to create inflammatory discussion ?

Inflammatory discussions? Listing the possibilities are "baseless speculations" now? lol.

You know we talked on this very topic yesterday, and I showed you the CMA's words that talked about the possibility of Microsoft breaching behavioral remedy contracts? And how these contracts do not affect Microsoft's ability to foreclose COD?

Their behavioral remedies were supposed to be similar to divestment in effect. That's what the CMA would have considered an acceptable behavioral remedy.

Now that we know of Microsoft's suggested behavioral remedies, the discussion is whether these time-limited 10-year contracts are similar to what the CMA requested and whether or not these would be sufficient for the CMA.

 

[Heisenberg007]

Microsoft seems to expect the CMA to change their minds. I'm not sure why though since these remedies don't line up with what the CMA asked for in the past.

As for being equal to a divestment it doesn't seem like it's anything close to that. Maybe the CMA dropped their requirements for a divestment which is why they are doing this.

Yeah, that's where I am at.

Divestment would have ensured perpetual compliance. This behavioral remedy is limited to 10 years, with an implication that COD may go exclusive after that 10-year period.

Let's see what happens. But it'd be miraculous if the CMA accepts these behavioral access remedies.

 

[Lex Tenebris]

Ibm OS/2 would like a word with you.

This happened in another era, or should we judge Sony for intentionally install rootkit in every personal computer that played its audio CDs? Or to let personal and payment informations out in the wild for its low standards of security? So or both are equally evil or just judge them as they are now

 

[Jim Ryan other Clone]

Amazed at how many people, who were just convincing everyone that COD would always be multiplatform under Microsoft, are now trying to convince that 10 years are enough lol.

They got an email with the new guidelines. I wonder sometimes if they have WhatsApp group and every week they get their new talking points.

 

[Ozriel]

Even then I'd say Phil didn't really turn first party around. He had the luxury of just being able to buy Zenimax which might save first party come March 2024.

Acquisitions are a perfectly valid strategy to improve first party output.

Unless you mean Sony can buy a publisher like EA to get a possible CoD competitor it isn't realistic

You realize they bought Bungie, Haven and signed exclusivity deal with Deviation games specifically to make multiplayer shooters? Each one a competitor for time and players with the likes of COD, Fortnite, Apex Legends etc?

 

[Godot25]

Yeah, that's where I am at.

Divestment would have ensured perpetual compliance. This behavioral remedy is limited to 10 years, with an implication that COD may go exclusive after that 10-year period.

Let's see what happens. But it'd be miraculous if the CMA accepts these behavioral access remedies.

So, let's say Microsoft would divest Activision as a LLC with "friendly" people in charge and then got exclusive rights to include Call of Duty and other Acti Blizz games in Game Pass day one and that new LLC would not be beholden to any contract with Sony around releasing Call of Duty games on PlayStation.

How exactly would it resolve situation? And more importantly, how would CMA manage to secure that thing like that does not happen?

Fact is that no matter how this acquisition will end up, Sony kinda screwed their relationship with Activision Blizzard moving forward. I can't imagine shareholders being happy with Sony when CMA will block this deal and they will loose potential 95$ per share and shares of company will take a nosedive as a result.

 

[Elios83]

Anyway, now that Microsoft's behavioral remedies and the real substance of those remedies are out in the open, what do y'all think?

Are these behavioral access remedies (10 years max with an implication of COD going exclusive after 10 years, and a possibility to breach contracts before 10 years) enough for the CMA?

I don't think they are anywhere in line with divestment in effect.

They're obviously not in line with what CMA wants and has asked.
The fact CMA asked them specifically what happens after the 10 years is a sign they're not satisfied just with that.

Does that mean they're gonna block or ask for a divestement in their final ruling?
That's the big question and no one has the answer at this stage but what it's clear is that if an other solution will be found it will be based on a set of super restrictive behavioural remedies that go well beyond what MS wants to offer, the business will be put under observation, the licensing deals will get the option to be extended if deemed necessary and so on.

A solution like this might take a lot of time to be elaborated hence why I believe that if CMA doesn't delay their verdict it's unlikely they'll go for something like that.
In this sense what is happening with EU could be telling that for them is not as easy as blocking the deal but also not as easy as just accepting whatever Microsoft is offering, hence why they have delayed their verdict already twice.

 

[jm89]

So, let's say Microsoft would divest Activision as a LLC with "friendly" people in charge and then got exclusive rights to include Call of Duty and other Acti Blizz games in Game Pass day one and that new LLC would not be beholden to any contract with Sony around releasing Call of Duty games on PlayStation.

How exactly would it resolve situation?

Fact is that no matter how this acquisition will end up, Sony kinda screwed their relationship with Activision Blizzard moving forward. I can't imagine shareholders being happy when CMA will block this deal and they will loose potential 95$ per share and shares of company will take a nosedive as a result.

Oh I'm sure the relationship with Sony isn't going to be the same, and maybe short term whatever deals if any they make isn't gonna be as favourable, but long term can't see that lasting.

If whatever offer you get from Sony is far more beneficial then Microsoft years down the line, shareholders aren't gonna be like fanboys(some of them probably are) and hold onto revenge fantasies. They will want what is best for the business.

 

[Ozriel]

They're obviously not in line with what CMA wants and has asked.
The fact CMA asked them specifically what happens after the 10 years is a sign they're not satisfied just with that.

Does that mean they're gonna block or ask for a divestement in their final ruling?
That's the big question and no one has the answer at this stage but what it's clear is that if an other solution will be found it will be based on a set of super restrictive behavioural remedies that go well beyond what MS wants to offer, the business will be put under observation, the licensing deals will get the option to be extended if deemed necessary and so on.

A solution like this might take a lot of time to be elaborated hence why I believe that if CMA doesn't delay their verdict it's unlikely they'll go for something like that.
In this sense what is happening with EU could be telling that for them is not as easy as blocking the deal but also not as easy as just accepting whatever Microsoft is offering, hence why they have delayed their verdict already twice.

To be honest, a lot of this just seems like confirmation bias.

CMA asking what happens after 10 years is an obvious question, and I don’t think it’s an indicator on how palatable a 10 year deal would be to the regulator.

but what it's clear is that if an other solution will be found it will be based on a set of super restrictive behavioural remedies that go well beyond what MS wants to offer, the business will be put under observation, the licensing deals will get the option to be extended if deemed necessary and so on.

None of this is ‘clear’ at this point. We can really only speculate.

 

[Godot25]

CMA asking what happens after 10 years is an obvious question, and I don’t think it’s an indicator on how palatable a 10 year deal would be to the regulator.

Microsoft quoted similar deals from pharma and other vital industries. They are trying to close deal in entertainment industry. If CMA thinks that 10 years is not enough they can ask for longer period. But on the other hand I think that binding yourself for more than 10 years in gaming is ridiculous.

Gaming industry can shift fast and hard. 10 years ago The Last of Us was nothing. Not it is juggernaut with TV series and sequel. 10 years ago Gears of War was on top of the world. Now it is almost a niche IP. 10 years ago nobody heard about Fortnite. Now it is bigger game than Call of Duty.

 

[Elios83]

To be honest, a lot of this just seems like confirmation bias.

CMA asking what happens after 10 years is an obvious question, and I don’t think it’s an indicator on how palatable a 10 year deal would be to the regulator.



None of this is ‘clear’ at this point. We can really only speculate.

Nope, CMA asking what happens after 10 years is not an obvious question in the context of what they asked and determined in their preliminary ruling aka a divestement or a block is needed.

The fact they won't be satisfied just with what Microsoft is offering is also clear because it would go completely against their preliminary findings and the work they did in all the previous months.

It's my impression that some people are trying to forget the CMA's official position on this and are trying to treat it like a bad dream that can be discarded easily. It's not like that.

 

[Three]

You realize they bought Bungie, Haven and signed exclusivity deal with Deviation games specifically to make multiplayer shooters? Each one a competitor for time and players with the likes of COD, Fortnite, Apex Legends etc?

You don't even know what Haven or Deviation are working on let alone if it will be a viable COD competitor. Phil had 9yrs, in those 9 he also bought Ninja Theory, Obsidian, and set up The Initiative. how well have those gone over 5yrs in competing on single player blockbusters for example? There is no way what you've mentioned are going to be COD competitors even in 10yrs.

Acquisitions are a perfectly valid strategy to improve first party output.

Sure, why not. Now what acquisition do you think Sony can make to compete with the 20yr old annual best selling game known as COD? Not even a huge publisher like EA or Take 2 does that well.

 

[The Pleasure]

This happened in another era, or should we judge Sony for intentionally install rootkit in every personal computer that played its audio CDs? Or to let personal and payment informations out in the wild for its low standards of security? So or both are equally evil or just judge them as they are now

Are you an alt, astroturf or a voost? I can't tell with your post history.

 

[Elios83]

Are you an alt, astroturf or a voost? I can't tell with your post history.

Lol at all these "neo" members or dormant accounts that suddenly become super active in specific threads defending MS.

 

[Heisenberg007]

So, let's say Microsoft would divest Activision as a LLC with "friendly" people in charge and then got exclusive rights to include Call of Duty and other Acti Blizz games in Game Pass day one and that new LLC would not be beholden to any contract with Sony around releasing Call of Duty games on PlayStation.

How exactly would it resolve situation? And more importantly, how would CMA manage to secure that thing like that does not happen?

Fact is that no matter how this acquisition will end up, Sony kinda screwed their relationship with Activision Blizzard moving forward. I can't imagine shareholders being happy with Sony when CMA will block this deal and they will loose potential 95$ per share and shares of company will take a nosedive as a result.

1) I think the new company needs to be completely independent and unbiased.
2) Microsoft can make a Game Pass deal with that company if both parties want to.

I don't think that's a problem. The problem that the CMA has is Microsoft's ownership of Activision.

I don't agree with the relationship part. Partnering with Sony allows ABK to make more money. Shareholders won't reduce their profitability further because Sony complained about an acquisition that would have hurt their business.

 

[The Pleasure]

Lol at all these "neo" members or dormant accounts that suddenly become super active in specific threads defending MS.

Microsoft is in danger! We need form posters to defend papa Microsoft!

 

[ToadMan]

What forced MS to keep Minecraft on PlayStation plus all of the spin-offs? The only thing that matters is that MS honors it's commitments and that CoD remains available to the same platforms it is available today. No one can point out a gaming contract MS reneged on nor point out any titles MS intentionally put bugs in to make other platforms versions worse. The ten year contract is very fair it's just that Sony is not interested in the parity MS is offering, they want a superior version and that is obviously off the table.

“‘Minecraft’ is one of the most popular franchises of all time,” said Phil Spencer, head of Xbox. “We are going to maintain ‘Minecraft’ and its community in all the ways people love today, with a commitment to nurture and grow it long into the future.”


No arbitrary 10 year cliff edge there. Do it for ABK Phil, and that deal may get approved like Mojang did.

 

[Godot25]

1) I think the new company needs to be completely independent and unbiased.
2) Microsoft can make a Game Pass deal with that company if both parties want to.

I don't think that's a problem. The problem that the CMA has is Microsoft's ownership of Activision.

If you have Activision as an LLC, that company is technically independent. But if owners are people closely aligned to you, you can form a "close partnership." So, how would CMA prevent such a scenario from occurrence? Because on the paper everything is perfectly legal and according to their wish of "Microsoft not owning Call of Duty."

But boy do I love Sony, clear market leader with industry leading first-party studios crying about fact that Microsoft would own Call of Duty while they will have it for at least 10 years.

Tbh, I admire Microsoft for their effort to close this deal and I get why they want ABK in first place. Since I don't care about Call of Duty and Blizzard, this deal does nothing for me, but from business point of view it does make a sense. But I would laugh out loud if this deal would be blocked by CMA, Microsoft would abandoned this deal and then used fraction of 68,7 billions to buy publishers like Capcom/Ubisoft and then they make all their games exclusive.

 

[Heisenberg007]

Microsoft quoted similar deals from pharma and other vital industries. They are trying to close deal in entertainment industry. If CMA thinks that 10 years is not enough they can ask for longer period. But on the other hand I think that binding yourself for more than 10 years in gaming is ridiculous.

The CMA won't ask for it.

That's because they have already said that behavioral remedies don't work in this case. And there are only two options: (1) divestment or (2) prohibition.

It was up to Microsoft to convince the CMA that behavioral remedies could indeed work. The CMA won't make a counter-offer and ask for better behavioral remedies because, again, according to them behavioral remedies wouldn't work in this case.

 

[Heisenberg007]

If you have Activision as an LLC, that company is technically independent. But if owners are people closely aligned to you, you can form a "close partnership." So, how would CMA prevent such a scenario from occurrence? Because on the paper everything is perfectly legal and according to their wish of "Microsoft not owning Call of Duty."

That is fair game, as per my understanding.

Companies that have executives with similar mindsets, visions, beliefs, and objectives do partner with each other. Unless Sony is able to prove anything nefarious with those deals, I don't think the CMA will intervene.

MS can strike a Game Pass deal today if they truly want to, to be fair. Nobody is stopping them striking a deal with the current ABK. Exclusivity could be tricky because (1) Sony is the market leader and (2) MS has publicly stated that they aren't interested in COD exclusivity if they own it. To strike an exclusivity deal when the acquisition falls through would be extremely damaging to their reputation.

 

[Godot25]

The CMA won't ask for it.

That's because they have already said that behavioral remedies don't work in this case. And there are only two options: (1) divestment or (2) prohibition.

It was up to Microsoft to convince the CMA that behavioral remedies could indeed work. The CMA won't make a counter-offer and ask for better behavioral remedies because, again, according to them behavioral remedies wouldn't work in this case.

That's not true. If CMA wanted to prohibit behavioural remedies, they would said it out loud it their provisional findings in Phase 2. They did not said that and they left doors open. They just said that they don't like them because they are hard to police. Which is fine, but it's also clear that Microsoft provided solution for that.

They said: We don't like behavioural remedies, but you can convince us that they could work in this case. We would prefer structural remedies or block of this deal. If they said "behavioral remedies don't work in this case" as you implied, Microsoft would not have a chance to even think about them.

 

[Godot25]

That is fair game, as per my understanding.

Companies that have executives with similar mindsets, visions, beliefs, and objectives do partner with each other. Unless Sony is able to prove anything nefarious with those deals, I don't think the CMA will intervene.

MS can strike a Game Pass deal today if they truly want to, to be fair. Nobody is stopping them striking a deal with the current ABK. Exclusivity could be tricky because (1) Sony is the market leader and (2) MS has publicly stated that they aren't interested in COD exclusivity if they own it. To strike an exclusivity deal when the acquisition falls through would be extremely damaging to their reputation.

So, you have exactly same outcome, but without Microsoft explicitly owning Call of Duty. And Sony without 10 year deal.

Good job CMA. You protected gamers in the UK well

 

[Heisenberg007]

That's not true. If CMA wanted to prohibit behavioural remedies, they would said it out loud it their provisional findings in Phase 2. They did not said that and they left doors open. They just said that they don't like them because they are hard to police. Which is fine, but it's also clear that Microsoft provided solution for that.

They said: We don't like behavioural remedies, but you can convince us that they could work in this case. We would prefer structural remedies or block of this deal. If they said "behavioral remedies don't work in this case" as you implied, Microsoft would not have a chance to even think about them.

They did.

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

Amazed at how many people, who were just convincing everyone that COD would always be multiplatform under Microsoft, are now trying to convince that 10 years are enough lol.

It’s almost as if the two aren’t mutually exclusive or something.

 

[Godot25]

They did.

Ehh?

Also, MLex reported that "A significant part of Microsoft's hearing with the CMA last week was dedicated to discussing a possible behavioural solution." Don't you think that if they were so opposed to behavioural remedies, they would shut Microsoft down and not engage in discussion with them?

 

[Three]

If you have Activision as an LLC, that company is technically independent. But if owners are people closely aligned to you, you can form a "close partnership." So, how would CMA prevent such a scenario from occurrence? Because on the paper everything is perfectly legal and according to their wish of "Microsoft not owning Call of Duty."

As far as I understand it, Activison isn't an LLC. It has shareholders, so it's a public company. If it was privately owned then they can enter into any "close partnership" they like. Even as a public one the directors can do what they please in terms of deals but being public if this isn't in the best interest of the independent company shareholders will not be happy and the board would be in trouble. So sure enter into a partnership, as long as it's best for the independent company, the CMA wouldn't care.

 

[Godot25]

As far as I understand it, Activison isn't an LLC. It has shareholders, so it's a public company. If it was privately owned then they can enter into any "close partnership" they like. Even as a public one the directors can do what they please in terms of deals but being public if this isn't in the best interest of the independent company shareholders will not be happy and the board would be in trouble. So sure enter into a partnership, as long as it's best for the independent company, the CMA wouldn't care.

I really doubt that you can spin off Activision as a joint-stock company. Although I'm not an expert in this field.
So, if there was a need for structural remedies, I can only see two options
1. find a buyer for Activision (good luck with that considering the price) in the game industry (Take 2/EA/Tencent?)
2. find an investment company that will pay out shareholders and then pull out Activision from stock market essentially making it a private company (like ZeniMax was in past).

And if second option was on the table, I really doubt Microsoft would not work with ActiBlizz board so they can influence who would be a new buyer for Activision.

 

[Ozriel]

Nope, CMA asking what happens after 10 years is not an obvious question in the context of what they asked and determined in their preliminary ruling aka a divestement or a block is needed.

MS: “We’re offering Sony a legally binding deal to have COD come to PlayStation with 100% content, feature and launch date parity”

The obvious question for any one on the other side would be to ask what happens after 10 years.

The fact they won't be satisfied just with what Microsoft is offering is also clear because it would go completely against their preliminary findings and the work they did in all the previous months.

It's my impression that some people are trying to forget the CMA's official position on this and are trying to treat it like a bad dream that can be discarded easily. It's not like that.

A provisional position is just that. Microsoft, Activision et al are given opportunities to respond, dispute and propose remedies. I don’t see the logic in insisting that preliminary findings must be the same as final findings.

The CMA has never claimed their position is immutable.

 

[PaintTinJr]

Ehh?

Also, MLex reported that "A significant part of Microsoft's hearing with the CMA last week was dedicated to discussing a possible behavioural solution." Don't you think that if they were so opposed to behavioural remedies, they would shut Microsoft down and not engage in discussion with them?

No, quite the opposite. They would show patience and let Microsoft have their full say, so that when they'd attempt to backdoor the acquisition via lawyering through the C.A.T the C.M.A could demonstrate that it was Microsoft's failure to take onboard the regulatory advice in the Findings to properly engage in the process that led to the end result, and not the C.M.A being unwilling to consider and listen to Microsoft's timewaste-ly suggestions .

 

[ironmang]

It’s almost as if the two aren’t mutually exclusive or something.

He does that a lot.

 

[PaintTinJr]

MS: “We’re offering Sony a legally binding deal to have COD come to PlayStation with 100% content, feature and launch date parity”

The obvious question for any one on the other side would be to ask what happens after 10 years.




A provisional position is just that. Microsoft, Activision et al are given opportunities to respond, dispute and propose remedies. I don’t see the logic in insisting that preliminary findings must be the same as final findings.

The CMA has never claimed their position is immutable.

They haven't, but in reality - with this amount of background research - it is immutable. In fact, I suspect parity is already deemed inferior to the competition that is offered already from ATVI being independent, because PlayStation is the market leader for good reasons, and parity with Xbox given the huge difference in controller offering, 3D audio processing(rather than rendering ) offering and the sub-market offering improvements of VR2 would devalue ATVI potential offerings to the wider market (via PlayStation) by reducing all future CoD's to parity with Xbox, or even worse, streamed xCloud.

 

[bitbydeath]

I really doubt that you can spin off Activision as a joint-stock company. Although I'm not an expert in this field.
So, if there was a need for structural remedies, I can only see two options
1. find a buyer for Activision (good luck with that considering the price) in the game industry (Take 2/EA/Tencent?)
2. find an investment company that will pay out shareholders and then pull out Activision from stock market essentially making it a private company (like ZeniMax was in past).

And if second option was on the table, I really doubt Microsoft would not work with ActiBlizz board so they can influence who would be a new buyer for Activision.

MS wouldn’t want those options either, that just leaves prohibition.

 

[Godot25]

No, quite the opposite. They would show patience and let Microsoft have their full say, so that when they'd attempt to backdoor the acquisition via lawyering through the C.A.T the C.M.A could demonstrate that it was Microsoft's failure to take onboard the regulatory advice in the Findings to properly engage in the process that led to the end result, and not the C.M.A being unwilling to consider and listen to Microsoft's timewaste-ly suggestions .

What? That makes no sense at all. Merger cant be send to C.A.T. with reasoning that "CMA did not listened to us." It can be challenged due wrong calculations (like Microsoft brought up recently) and procedural mistakes on CMA's part. Again. if CMA did not wanted behavioural remedies because they think that they are not suitable for this case, they would wrote it in provisional findings in Phase 2. Instead they said "we don't like them very much, but you can convince us they would work just fine."

 

[PaintTinJr]

What? That makes no sense at all. Merger cant be send to C.A.T. with reasoning that "CMA did not listened to us." It can be challenged due wrong calculations (like Microsoft brought up recently) and procedural mistakes on CMA's part. Again. if CMA did not wanted behavioural remedies because they think that they are not suitable for this case, they would wrote it in provisional findings in Phase 2. Instead they said "we don't like them very much, but you can convince us they would work just fine."

No, that's not how it works. The CMA will block this deal in all likelihood - if MSFT don't provide a solution to their satisfaction - but to remove such options without letting MSFT arrive at the same conclusion, through failure to make the argument for behavioural remedies removes any chance of them arguing in bad faith that they had "many ideas that would have worked" but just weren't given the option.

I suspect the CMA have seen the mega corporation CAT playbook in full via other companies and are now pre-emptively fighting potential CAT arguments in regulation by not just blocking things at the earliest point.

 

[jm89]

Ehh?

Also, MLex reported that "A significant part of Microsoft's hearing with the CMA last week was dedicated to discussing a possible behavioural solution." Don't you think that if they were so opposed to behavioural remedies, they would shut Microsoft down and not engage in discussion with them?

Well microsoft have rejected structural remedies, so CMA spending most of the hearing trying to push for talks about structural remedies is a waste of both parties time. That isn't really saying anything about CMA being positive about behavorual remedies at all, rather they are being fair to the other party and let them propose an option.

 

[Godot25]

Well yeah microsfot have rejected structural remedies, so CMA spending most of the hearing trying to push for talks about structural remedies is a waste of both parties time. That isn't really saying anything about CMA being positive about behavorual remedies at all, rather they are being fair to the other party and let them propose an option.

This document was published before Microsoft publicly said that they would not accept structural remedies. So that argument does not apply there. (also, I think Microsoft saying they won't accept them is just publicity stunt).

Heisenberg007 said that CMA won't accept structural remedies. I corrected him through official CMA document. They did not said "we won't allow them" but "we don't like them, but convince us." So options are:
1. divestment of Activision
2. blocking the deal
3. behavioural remedies

It's now on Microsoft to prove they are willing to allow huge range of behavioural commitments (contracts for Sony, Nintendo, Boosteroid, GeForce Now etc.) and also they can provide a way CMA can police those remedies. Which is also the case, since Microsoft said that they would even pay third-party overseer.

 

[jm89]

This document was published before Microsoft publicly said that they would not accept structural remedies. So that argument does not apply there. (also, I think Microsoft saying they won't accept them is just publicity stunt).

You didn't say document you said mlex report, which was after the hearing and those statements of not wanting to divest cod.

Here is the idas post on era.

 

[Elios83]

MS: “We’re offering Sony a legally binding deal to have COD come to PlayStation with 100% content, feature and launch date parity”

The obvious question for any one on the other side would be to ask what happens after 10 years.




A provisional position is just that. Microsoft, Activision et al are given opportunities to respond, dispute and propose remedies. I don’t see the logic in insisting that preliminary findings must be the same as final findings.

The CMA has never claimed their position is immutable.

I've never stated that CMA claimed their position is immutable.
Just that their preliminary findings are the fruit of long months of deep investigations that are the bulk of this case and led them to those conclusions.

In this phase the CMA is just doing their job of listening to what Microsoft can and is willing to offer before the final ruling.
Some people are treating this phase like some kind of appeal with an other judge, an other court, the previous work scrapped and everything started from zero.
It's NOT like that.
Microsoft has to offer something that is compatible with the requests the CMA already made.
CMA isn't going to scrap their findings at this stage.
This is what some people are just refusing to accept.

Right now the only realistic outcomes are that either CMA confirms their preliminary findings or (low chance) they come up with a set of super rigid behavioral remedies that for them are equivalent to a divestement of COD.
The idea they'll go from asking for a block or divestement to simply accept a 10 years deal is illogical.

 

[gothmog]

Ehh?

Also, MLex reported that "A significant part of Microsoft's hearing with the CMA last week was dedicated to discussing a possible behavioural solution." Don't you think that if they were so opposed to behavioural remedies, they would shut Microsoft down and not engage in discussion with them?

If the CMA didn't have this discussion MS would be crying even louder. To me, the behavioral door not being slammed shut was a) to stop MS from being able to say they didn't get a fair process and b) to leave open the possibility that MS got agreement from everyone including Sony that the behavioral deal was acceptable.

I'd love to see what Sony was asking for that has Microsoft unwilling to make a deal. Damn redactions.

 

[Heisenberg007]

This document was published before Microsoft publicly said that they would not accept structural remedies. So that argument does not apply there. (also, I think Microsoft saying they won't accept them is just publicity stunt).

Heisenberg007 said that CMA won't accept structural remedies. I corrected him through official CMA document. They did not said "we won't allow them" but "we don't like them, but convince us." So options are:
1. divestment of Activision
2. blocking the deal
3. behavioural remedies

It's now on Microsoft to prove they are willing to allow huge range of behavioural commitments (contracts for Sony, Nintendo, Boosteroid, GeForce Now etc.) and also they can provide a way CMA can police those remedies. Which is also the case, since Microsoft said that they would even pay third-party overseer.

Correction: I never said that the CMA won't accept structural behavioral remedies. I told you that the CMA said behavioral remedies wouldn't work in this case, but Microsoft is free to convince the CMA.

As of now, at least until MS successfully convinces the CMA, the CMA has only laid out 2 options: divestment or prohibition.

 

[PaintTinJr]

What forced MS to keep Minecraft on PlayStation plus all of the spin-offs? The only thing that matters is that MS honors it's commitments and that CoD remains available to the same platforms it is available today. No one can point out a gaming contract MS reneged on nor point out any titles MS intentionally put bugs in to make other platforms versions worse. The ten year contract is very fair it's just that Sony is not interested in the parity MS is offering, they want a superior version and that is obviously off the table.

That's a really great question and I'd love for the FTC to subpoena Markus Persson (Notch) to put on record what was agreed for Minecraft at the point of sale, what he hoped for the games multiplatform future and what Microsoft's thoughts on the future exclusivity of Minecraft were back then.

It is very possible Minecraft is being used to give Microsoft credit for a strategy that isn't theirs and isn't what they'll do long term if not required to - say with PS6. As of yet is there a native PS5 of Minecraft? And if Mojang was still independent, don't you think the PlayStation version would have the RT feature and PS5 QoL improvements? I do.

 

[KungFucius]

We all know ABK is milking COD for all its worth. It brings in the most money, sells the most and as ABK needs to provide the most profit to its shareholders they have put all their eggs in the COD basket.

Will be interesting to see if MS continues to milk COD if it becomes their IP.

Why would ABK do something for their shareholders and MS not do the same thing? They are both publicly traded companies and thus have an obligation to their shareholders. How could MS convince shareholders that making COD exclusive is good for the bottom line?

They did.

Can you not read the rest of these statements and process the context and full meaning? In item 44 It says "initial view" and "provisional" as in it could fucking change, and "primary" as in there needs to be something more if the initial view doesn't change. In item 16 it has the term "feasible remedies" not "only possible remedies" and "at this stage" and "not yet been assessed in detail" and "received to date" again indicating that their views on benefits to customers could change as new information is received and reviewed in detail.

Nothing is final and MS has made a lot of changes and deals in the last few months. It is really crazy that people are getting so personally invested in this that they are taking statements that are clearly a first cut as a final ruling. It is insane that they think MS would waste its time and money trying to win this if this Initial View was the final word.

 

[Heisenberg007]

Can you not read the rest of these statements and process the context and full meaning? In item 44 It says "initial view" and "provisional" as in it could fucking change, and "primary" as in there needs to be something more if the initial view doesn't change. In item 16 it has the term "feasible remedies" not "only possible remedies" and "at this stage" and "not yet been assessed in detail" and "received to date" again indicating that their views on benefits to customers could change as new information is received and reviewed in detail.

Nothing is final and MS has made a lot of changes and deals in the last few months. It is really crazy that people are getting so personally invested in this that they are taking statements that are clearly a first cut as a final ruling. It is insane that they think MS would waste its time and money trying to win this if this Initial View was the final word.

Can you not just quote one post, which was in reply to a specific thing, and also read other comments that add more context?

Correction: I never said that the CMA won't accept structural behavioral remedies. I told you that the CMA said behavioral remedies wouldn't work in this case, but Microsoft is free to convince the CMA.

As of now, at least until MS successfully convinces the CMA, the CMA has only laid out 2 options: divestment or prohibition.

 

[Ozriel]

They haven't, but in reality - with this amount of background research - it is immutable. In fact, I suspect parity is already deemed inferior to the competition that is offered already from ATVI being independent, because PlayStation is the market leader for good reasons, and parity with Xbox given the huge difference in controller offering, 3D audio processing(rather than rendering ) offering and the sub-market offering improvements of VR2 would devalue ATVI potential offerings to the wider market (via PlayStation) by reducing all future CoD's to parity with Xbox, or even worse, streamed xCloud.

Microsoft already mentions that unique features like controller haptics will continue to be supported in an acquisition scenario, nobody’s going to mandate PSVR2 support and I’m not sure why you’re claiming content and feature parity with Xbox would be a devaluation of the current COD experience on PlayStation.

 

[PaintTinJr]

Microsoft already mentions that unique features like controller haptics will continue to be supported in an acquisition scenario, nobody’s going to mandate PSVR2 support and I’m not sure why you’re claiming content and feature parity with Xbox would be a devaluation of the current COD experience on PlayStation.

PlayStation is the market leader, no one has argued against that point, as "leader" their choices result in more than parity, so a different arrangement of just parity is inferior to what consumers have now, and that is even true of Nintendo that operate in their own blue ocean strategy, each time they successfully innovate parity is a lessening of the natural product offering consumers would get of an independent ATVI - as they are now.

ps, if you haven't experienced the truly next-gen visual makeup of Call of the Mountain in PSVR2 (significantly different to PSVR1 VR experience) with the finger tracking too and had that Jurassic park moment when they first see the dinosaur behind the trees - depicted in Spielberg's take on the book - and considered how Metal Gear or CoD would playout like that, then I'd recommend for you to try it to understand why CoD with PSVR2 would be a natural progression.

 

[sainraja]

exactly. and you can see it like this as well:
10 years is enough time for MS to destroy the CoD IP.

Nah, I don't think Microsoft will destroy the IP. They didn't destroy Minecraft. It's just not clear what their intent is, given that they don't seem interested in doing anything outside of 10 year deals. I am not confident but hoping that MS takes the position that Sony has when it comes to Bungie and their games (which was unexpected, since it is Sony). We just have to wait and see.

 

[ToadMan]

A Microsoft offer to Sony can have wriggle room.

Yep. That’s why this acquisition is still blocked.

Microsoft entering into a binding agreement with the EU & CMA

That isn’t the way it works. MS doesn’t make any binding agreements with the regulators.

 

[ToadMan]

@Topher is right here.
That gamepass is just xcloud which is gamepass but through cloud.

For actual gamepass, you need MS to port their games to PS. We know that won't happen at all.

And thats why the acquisition remains blocked.

That’s the only way MS get this though without divestment. Make their content library multiplat - it’s easy and cheap these days according to the CMA docs and MS themselves.

Then we all indeed win just like Phil claimed - and then backslid on.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Even then I'd say Phil didn't really turn first party around. He had the luxury of just being able to buy Zenimax which might save first party come March 2024. Unless you mean Sony can buy a publisher like EA to get a possible CoD competitor it isn't realistic, people seem to constantly say Phil hasn't had enough time 9yrs later.

Imagine their output all the way into 2023 if they didn't buy Bethesda for games they would have had already, just to play takeaway and call them "first party."

 

[graywolf323]

the past week and a half has been really busy at work so I’ve finally given up on catching up on the thread, did something happen? I’m surprised that behavior remedies is by far & away the leading vote getter in the poll